False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Jack7]

The plausible is fine by me as long as it is well
To separate the possible from what the truth will tell,
But when the Truth is measured hard against the plausible
Then plausits are to definite as maybe is to full,

So when we reason by the marks of our experience
There is no sin in stating what we find as commonsense,
Yet Truth may hold another line, and one we cannot read
If all our tales are sole construed by what we will accede,

Today our best apparencies are bred with some pretense
But Truth is valid everywhere, no matter what or whence,
So if the plausible become whatever must be True
It's best to know what likely is and bid the rest adieu.

 

[Umbran]

There are some problems with this thinking.

I wasn't attempting to be anywhere near exhaustive, RC. Merely trying to be descriptive.

Which brings us to another discussion issue - taking a particular example, and treating it as if all details of it should extend to all examples one can dream up.

 

[Hussar]

I believe the idea of Beating the Example into the Ground has actually already been mentioned.

That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test. After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true. A reasonable observer isn't limited to what is possible, but must judge what is plausible. While it is perfectly possible that bigfoot exists, it's isn't very plausible that no one has managed to actually verifiably see it.

Just like the "cats like to swim" example. While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water. This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).

So, a reasonable observer would actually strongly doubt that cats like to swim, not because it's not possible, but because it contradicts what is easily observable.

------------

How about another one: I'll call it This is MY Game:

All supplements for Game X must cater to my tastes. Any supplements/products that do not cater to my taste can be used as proof that Company Y has jumped the shark and is, among other things, dumbing down the game, aiming the game at children, ejecting its existing fanbase.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wasn't attempting to be anywhere near exhaustive, RC. Merely trying to be descriptive.

Carry on, then.

However, the limitations of the reasonable observer test are, IMHO, reasonable to note.

That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test. After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true. A reasonable observer isn't limited to what is possible, but must judge what is plausible.

Actually, the reasonable observer test is an attempt to determine what seems plausible by what is believed to be possible, combined with some guesswork as to what the odds of a particular thing being true might be. And, as I am sure you are aware, there are a great many people willing to deem it "plausible that no one has managed to actually verifiably see it". If someone should bag a sasquatch tomorrow, it would not be the first large animal to be discovered near a populated area in the last 50 years.

Just like the "cats like to swim" example. While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water. This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).

So, if I were to tell you that in my experience, cats love to swim, you would find that less plausible than your experience?

EDIT: I am not actually advocating Bigfoot or cats liking to swim; I am discussing the limits of the "reasonable person" approach. What is "reasonable" or "plausible" is always subjective, and is always based on one's own experience. Even where we include the statements of our friends and/or authorities as evidenciary, doing so is based upon our experience of their reliability, or lack thereof.



RC

 

[Jhaelen]

That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test. After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true.

Indeed. To my knowledge, there's not yet been a single sighting of a 'Bigfoot' from a reliable source. What is a 'Bigfoot' supposed to be, anyway? There may be plausible explanations for 'Bigfoot' sightings, but none of them actually require the existance of a 'Bigfoot'.

Just like the "cats like to swim" example. While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water. This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).

The important thing here is that there are exceptions. While it may be true that some or even most cats don't like to swim, there is a sufficiently large number of well-documented counter-examples to convince me it's not a general rule (or rather it's a rule with exceptions ).

So, what did RC try to illustrate with these examples again?!

I agree with RC about this, though:

No observer can actually be objective enough to state what a reasonable observer should objectively find plausible.

This is basically true and the reason for the scientific approach to get objective results:
A scientific thesis is demonstrable using repeatable experimental or mathematical procedures. You don't have to trust anyone's objectivity if everyone can (theoretically) prove something for themselves. If you repeat the experiment/calculation and you get the same results the thesis is plausible.

The objectivity isn't a property of the observers, it's a result of the description of the method to prove it. (Or something like that...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed. To my knowledge, there's not yet been a single sighting of a 'Bigfoot' from a reliable source.

Exactly my point. Rather than agreeing that something is plausable because someone claims to have experienced it, we agree that the statement of experience is likely to be true because we find it plausible.

IOW, some form of valuation takes place prior to determining what testimony should be granted credibility. Things which conform to our experience (and/or belief system) we tend to find credible; things that do not, less so. The less a thing conforms to our experience (and/or belief system), the greater the burden of evidence required for us to accept that it is credible.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan so eloquently put it.

(Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. )

A scientific thesis is demonstrable using repeatable experimental or mathematical procedures. You don't have to trust anyone's objectivity if everyone can (theoretically) prove something for themselves. If you repeat the experiment/calculation and you get the same results the thesis is plausible.

The objectivity isn't a property of the observers, it's a result of the description of the method to prove it. (Or something like that...)

Exactly this.

The scientific method, among other things, grants me the ability to make your experience into my strongly repeated experience prior to granting it credibility.


RC

 

[Hussar]

/snip



So, if I were to tell you that in my experience, cats love to swim, you would find that less plausible than your experience?

EDIT: I am not actually advocating Bigfoot or cats liking to swim; I am discussing the limits of the "reasonable person" approach. What is "reasonable" or "plausible" is always subjective, and is always based on one's own experience. Even where we include the statements of our friends and/or authorities as evidenciary, doing so is based upon our experience of their reliability, or lack thereof.



RC

Ahh, but you've changed the example. It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim". That's a whole 'nother bag of fish. The reasonable observer doesn't really apply here because you're only making claims about your experience.

I suppose I might apply a reasonable observer standard to judge whether or not to believe your experience, but, in this particular case, I would say it's entirely plausible that you have experienced many swimming cats, simply because there are many cats that do like to swim.

However, if you try to move beyond your experience to a general "cats love swimming" then a reasonable observer would probably have a great deal of problem with that because there are many, many cats that certainly don't love swimming.

Going back to the Gygax is my DM thing. A reasonable observer would reject this out of hand since the idea that Gygax is reaching beyond the grave to run your game is pretty implausible.

I'm certainly not saying this is the ONLY standard. But, as a general rule, it's probably one of the first ones that should be applied. Is the statement plausible is a pretty basic criteria for deciding whether or not to agree with it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Ahh, but you've changed the example. It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim". That's a whole 'nother bag of fish.

In most cases, when someone says, "In my experience, foo," isn't the person trying to convince someone else of foo? And if he's trying to convince someone else of foo, then in what practical sense is it a whole 'nother bag of fish, just because he says, "in my experience"?

(I'll also point out that if, in your experience, foo, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe foo, and often completely reasonable for you to try to convince others of foo. In fact, it would be a little odd if you made a habit of not accepting your experience as evidence.)

 

[Diamond Cross]

The plausible is fine by me as long as it is well
To separate the possible from what the truth will tell,
But when the Truth is measured hard against the plausible
Then plausits are to definite as maybe is to full,

So when we reason by the marks of our experience
There is no sin in stating what we find as commonsense,
Yet Truth may hold another line, and one we cannot read
If all our tales are sole construed by what we will accede,

Today our best apparencies are bred with some pretense
But Truth is valid everywhere, no matter what or whence,
So if the plausible become whatever must be True
It's best to know what likely is and bid the rest adieu.

You need to give proper credit to the person who originally wrote it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ahh, but you've changed the example. It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim". That's a whole 'nother bag of fish. The reasonable observer doesn't really apply here because you're only making claims about your experience.

Claims about my experience have no more validity than any other claims, simply on the basis that I am claiming it to be my experience.

"In my experience, the ghost of Gary Gygax DMs regularly at my house."

"In my experience, the Bigfoot is one of the players, and he argues with the DM."

"In my experience, the Loch Ness Monster usually brings chips."

I suppose I might apply a reasonable observer standard to judge whether or not to believe your experience

I should hope so.

in this particular case, I would say it's entirely plausible that you have experienced many swimming cats, simply because there are many cats that do like to swim.

Are there? Is it really plausible? Or is it more plausible that I just made that up as a wacky-but-within-the-realm-of-possibility example?

Going back to the Gygax is my DM thing. A reasonable observer would reject this out of hand since the idea that Gygax is reaching beyond the grave to run your game is pretty implausible.

Sure, but if you examine why it is implausible, it is only because the terms of the statement are contrary to experience.


RC