False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Raven Crowking]

Has anyone mentioned yet what could be called the "Better Way" fallacy? That is, there are better and poorer ways of pretending to be an elf, on anything approaching an objective basis?

That's not a fallacy; there is nothing inherently irrational in the belief that valuation is completely subjective. In fact, upthread you chided me for your (mistaken) belief that I believed valuation to be completely subjective.

Ironic, really.


RC

 

[Dire Bare]

How about this fallacy:

Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.

 

[ggroy]

need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.

The only places I've seen where this is done in practice, is academic seminars in some university departments such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc ...

 

[ggroy]

Yes about the bankers. Mafia wiseguys typically have average or lower intelligence, and have a shockingly high rate of personality disorders and depression. Most criminals have already failed at trying to be something else.

No idea what wiseguys are like. (Don't know anyone personally who is in organized crime).

With that being said, which particular wiseguys or generic criminal types actually have high intelligence? (ie. Excluding guys like convicted Enron executives).

 

[blargney the second]

How about this fallacy:

Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.

I agree, that would certainly be an extreme idea.

However, you can still call people on crappy arguments even in casual conversations.

 

[ggroy]

However, you can still call people on crappy arguments even in casual conversations.

In casual conversations face-to-face in person, people can hang themselves more easily with their own rope, for everybody to see.

 

[ggroy]

there is basically no way I can agree with the idea that people who read are not more intelligent.

(This is strictly personal anecdotal experience).

The "smartest" persons I've known over the years, don't watch any television at all and don't even own a TV. Whether this is a significant variable which correlates in general to intelligence, I don't know.

A few oddball exceptions I knew of, were persons who didn't watch tv, didn't listen to the radio, didn't read the newspaper, didn't use any computers, didn't read any books, etc ... One person I knew who was like this, spent most of his free off-work waking hours playing jazz guitar at home or at a nightclub.

 

[ggroy]

Appeal to Google as an authority?

In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support. "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.

In the academic ivory tower, it is common to ask somebody for particular references such as a particular author and/or journal citation. Most of the time, such inquiries are answered readily.

Outside of the ivory tower, this is not necessarily the case.

Usually one can tell if somebody is an academic professor type or not, judging by how they deal with inquiries and questions, and how patient they are in explaining things. It takes a lot for such professor types to lose their cool, even under intense questioning. Non-professor types tend to lose their cool a lot sooner. (This may vary significantly between different faculties, and even campuses).

(This was my experiences over the years, in and out of the ivory tower in the hard sciences).

 

[Cadfan]

Confusing your house rules with the actual rules and then getting belligerent, particularly when discussing problems with a game.

Joe "Game X has Rule Y, which isn't very good."
Bob "No it doesn't. It has Rule Z."
Joe "I'm looking at the rules right now, and you totally made that up."
Bob "Well, technically, yes, I did. But I think its a good rule, and I'm going to abuse you for not knowing about it."

Sheer bloody minded provincialism.

Joe "Game X has (or lacks) Y. Any game that has (or lacks) Y will have Flaw Z, or will appeal only to players with horribly negative traits."
Bob "Dozens of games have (or lack) Y, and don't have those problems. Here is a list."
Joe "Given the choice between believing you, looking up those games, or blindly slandering tens or even hundreds of thousands of people I don't know, I choose slander."

When editions change, or when people consider new games, they pay a lot of attention. This means that things that often happen behind the scenes become more pronounced. Sometimes people react to this by becoming very, very upset about something that already existed in their original game, but which they previously overlooked.

Joe "It is hideously unrealistic that you can heal a broken pelvis overnight in Game X. That's why I prefer Game Y."
Bob "In Game Y you can heal a broken pelvis in three nights."
Joe "So? You never think about it in game Y."

There are also some really strange, fundamentally weird issues people have with concepts like verisimilitude, the relationship between DMs and their own game, etc. But those take longer to discuss.

 

[Umbran]

Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.

Board threads that are actually casual conversation don't need to follow such rules. But many of the threads here aren't just casual conversation.