False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Raven Crowking]

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.)

Indeed.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

In fact, it would be a little odd if you made a habit of not accepting your experience as evidence.

On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.

That is absolutely true.

However, it is the relationship between one's own experience, and what one is being told is anothers' experience, that determines the amount of credence one gives that testimony.

Thus, if you tell me "I like Doritos", I am likely to accept that as true.

If you tell me "I have seen bigfoot", I may believe that you believe this, but I am unlikely to believe that you are correct.

If you tell me "The ghost of Gary Gygax DMs games at my house", I am unlikely even to believe that you believe that.

In none of those case, though, do I know that my conclusions are correct. What I am estimating is how likely I believe my conclusion to be correct when I decide that I believe you, I believe you believe something you are mistaken about, or I believe that you are just making up some wackly BS.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

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"?

There can be a difference, depending on exactly what about foo you're trying to prove.

If you say "Based on my experience, foo", a reasonable observer should conclude that foo happening is plausible. He should not, however, conclude that foo is the only thing that happens.

Let's say you say "In my games, no one ever plays an elf." A reasonable observer should conclude that some people don't like to play elves. He should not conclude that no one in any game like to play an elf. The second conclusion moves beyond what can be determined from personal observation.

This relates to the idea that anecdotes aren't useful to prove things, but they can be useful to disprove things. If you say "No one likes to play an elf", all it takes is one example of a person who like to play an elf to disprove your claim.

On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.

Indeed, well said.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.

More than a "bit limiting." Probably indicative of mental disorder. (E.g., I've never been to France, yet I believe to a very high standard of proof that France exists.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you say "Based on my experience, foo", a reasonable observer should conclude that foo happening is plausible.

Based on my experience, the ghost of Gary Gygax runs games at my house for myself, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

A reasonable observer should conclude that the ghost of Gary Gygax running games at my house for myself, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster is plausible?


RC

 

[ggroy]

This relates to the idea that anecdotes aren't useful to prove things, but they can be useful to disprove things. If you say "No one likes to play an elf", all it takes is one example of a person who like to play an elf to disprove your claim.

This is the gist of philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on falsification.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you say "Based on my experience, foo", a reasonable observer should conclude that foo happening is plausible.

This depends on what foo is. This depends upon who the speaker is, from the perspective of the reasonable observer. This depends on the quantity and quality of the reasonable observer's own experience. This depends on the context of both the speaker's claimed experience and the reasonable observer's experience. And so on and so on.

Richard Dawkins has postulated that the ability to believe someone else without question was once important to individual survival. If that's true, I, like Mr. Dawkins, believe that that particular behavior is now counter-productive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is the gist of philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on falsification.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is absolutely true, but Karl Popper doesn't suggest that the statement "All swans are white" is disproven simply because I say I saw a black swan.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

This depends on what foo is. This depends upon who the speaker is, from the perspective of the reasonable observer. This depends on the quantity and quality of the reasonable observer's own experience. This depends on the context of both the speaker's claimed experience and the reasonable observer's experience. And so on and so on.

...so generalities are bad....

Richard Dawkins has postulated that the ability to believe someone else without question was once important to individual survival. If that's true, I, like Mr. Dawkins, believe that that particular behavior is now counter-productive.

...and good?

Obviously there are all kinds of details being glossed over when speaking in generalities. But as the one who introduced foo into the conversation, I would think you wouldn't ming speaking in generalities. If you start arguing in terms of vague generalities, you can't turn around and refute someone else's argument by saying it's a generality. That's surely a fallacy by itself.

To go along with Dawkins, arguably you should question anything that someone tells you. But, since generalities don't always apply, you need to apply different standards of evidence to different claims. If someone says "Gygax's ghost visits me in my living room", that requires a great deal of evidence before it should be accepted. If someone says "I like to play this game a bit differently than you do", an entirely different standard should be applied.