False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[ggroy]

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.

The veracity of a particular speaker, I suspect may be niche dependent.

For example, if one my mathematician friends mentioned a particular theorem has been proven, I would probably take them at their word even without checking the proof in full detail myself.

On the other hand, I would be somewhat more skeptical of my economist friends when they attempt to explain why the great depression went on for so long.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

I introduced foo into the conversation because whatever foo is standing in for isn't important. But that doesn't mean I was speaking in generalities. In point of fact, I was being fairly specific about methods of evaluating evidence. You seem confused.

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.

Now I'm confused. I have no idea what you're talking about.

To go along with Dawkins, arguably you should question anything that someone tells you.

That's a misstatement of Dawkins, and it's a misstatement of my paraphrase of Dawkins.

But, since generalities don't always apply, you need to apply different standards of evidence to different claims.

Your tone suggests that you're arguing, but this is basically a restatement of what I said upthread.

In case this is what you mean:

"If someone says, 'In my experience, foo,' you should accept foo as plausible" seems pretty much exactly what you claimed upthread.

So let me address this with complete specificity: That statement isn't one of helpful generality. That statement is simply wrong.

Foo isn't necessarily wrong.

"In my experience, foo" isn't necessarily wrong.

"If someone says, 'In my experience, foo,' you should accept foo as plausible" is wrong. And worse.

 

[Fifth Element]

"If someone says, 'In my experience, foo,' you should accept foo as plausible" is wrong. And worse.

Yes, I left off all kinds of provisos because we're speaking in generalities. That's what happens when you speak in generalities. And yes, you are speaking in generalities. Your post that started this exchange included phrases such as "In most cases" and "often completely reasonable." Those are generalities.

But it's this generality I'm trying to zero in on:

"I'll also point out that if, in your experience, foo, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe foo"

This reasonableness of this depends on how you are extrapolating foo. If, at your table, no one likes to play elves, it's obviously reasonable to believe that some people do not like to play elves. You've seen people who don't like to play elves, so you're quite sure such people exist. It is not reasonable to believe that no one likes to play elves, based solely on your experience. That goes well beyond what you can reasonably infer based on personal experience alone.

That's the difference between "In my experience, no one plays elves" and "No one plays elves". The truth of the first does nothing to prove the second, nor does it do anything to disprove "Some people play elves."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"I'll also point out that if, in your experience, foo, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe foo"

This reasonableness of this depends on how you are extrapolating foo. If, at your table, no one likes to play elves, it's obviously reasonable to believe that some people do not like to play elves. You've seen people who don't like to play elves, so you're quite sure such people exist. It is not reasonable to believe that no one likes to play elves, based solely on your experience.

Of course it is. (Are you "kidding me?" <I haven't had to make a grandma-friendly edit in a long time.> ~ PCat)

If all you have as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.

Now it's true that it's very rare that one would be basing a belief "solely on [one's] experience," but in those instances where it's the only evidence available, or you judge other evidence to be very weak, it's completely reasonable to base your belief -- any belief -- "solely on your experience."

That goes well beyond what you can reasonably infer based on personal experience alone.

No, it doesn't. It may go beyond what you can reasonably infer "based on personal experience" and in light of other contrasting evidence, but if that's what you mean, that's what you should say.

 

[Jack7]

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

I wrote it DC. If you ever see me throw up a poem or lyric and I don't attribute it, or say it was written by Yeats, or something like that, chances are I wrote it.

As my wife and friends say, "You have a bad habit of saying things in verse."

The truth of that just might be so,
But for it I'm the worse...


Is verse then dichotomy
If meanings so are split?
I really cannot answer that -
But friends I must admit;

A falseness can from twisted verse
Arise beneath the truth,
And so the right becomes the wrong
A guile from fresh forsooth;

So fallacy, or as it be,
You'll find them both a'line (or, aligned)
Where meter masters o'er speech
And secrets hide in rhymes;

That may be why I write in verse
If fancy takes me there,
For am I speaking fair or curse?
Like you I'm unaware?

But one thing is for sure in this
I probably mean 'em both,
And if you get my purport then
You'll understand my quoth...

 

[Fifth Element]

If all you have as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.

Since that would be flabbergasting, then perhaps there's another explanation? One that involves the limitations of communicating in short written paragraphs, for instance.

Yes, I am discussing situations where someone is presented with evidence that conflicts with their personal experiences. In such a case it is not reasonable to reject said evidence solely because it conflicts with your personal experience.

Is it reasonable for someone to accept the evidence is plausible? That's the point under discussion.

A: "No one plays elves. I believe this because no one in my experience has ever played an elf."

B: "People in my games play elves all the time."

A: "But I've never seen anyone play an elf, so what you're saying can't be true."

 

[Umbran]

"If someone says, 'In my experience, foo,' you should accept foo as plausible" is wrong. And worse.

Of course it is. (Are you yanking my dick?)

If all you have as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.

Wait a minute...

It looks like you are arguing that:

1) If someone says "in my experience, foo" you should not necessarily take foo as plausible.

2) However, if it is in your experience, it is reasonable to believe that foo is the case, and is thus plausible.

Correct me if I am incorrect in the above, as to me, they don't seem to mesh very well.

If you are correct in (1), then who says it is not relevant. If *I* say "in my experience, foo", then *I* should not necessarily take foo as plausible, either.

I see this as a good thing, actually. An admission that my experience of foo may be faulty in some way - maybe it is a local aberration, or an error of perception on my part, or one of many other issues. It is the admission that "my experience" has limitations.

I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that their experience is foo. Taking foo in general as plausible is another issue.

 

[ggroy]

Yes, I am discussing situations where someone is presented with evidence that conflicts with their personal experiences. In such a case it is not reasonable to reject said evidence solely because it conflicts with your personal experience.

Is it reasonable for someone to accept the evidence is plausible? That's the point under discussion.

The mental reflex of discounting (or outright rejecting) evidence which conflicts with one's own personal experiences/biases/perception/etc ..., is a cognitive bias which has been extensively researched. In practice, it is not that easy to overcome.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raven Crowking]

The mental reflex of discounting (or outright rejecting) evidence which conflicts with one's own personal experiences/biases/perception/etc ..., is a cognitive bias which has been extensively researched. In practice, it is not that easy to overcome.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but that still doesn't turn anecdote into evidence.

Is it reasonable for someone to accept the anecdote is plausible? That's the point under discussion.

A: "No one is an elf. I believe this because no one in my experience has ever been an elf."

B: "I see elves all the time."

A: "But I've never seen an elf, so what you're saying is probably not true."

 

[Raven Crowking]

If *I* say "in my experience, foo", then *I* should not necessarily take foo as plausible, either.

This is true, but it ignores that you can be a better judge of your experience than you can be of anyone else's. Your experience of foo may be faulty in some way -- "my experience" has limitations -- but it is a foolish man indeed who assumes that his experience is invalid simply because it might be invalid.

To take an obvious example, it is probably your experience that the world around you exists. Indeed, it is probably your overwhelming experience that the world around you exists. However, you have no way of knowing this to be the case (your experience could be illusory).

Now, were I to tell you that my experience is that the world is illusory....that I can do "Neo in the Matrix" things.....is it still probably plausible that my experience is foo? I would suggest that it is not. Moreover, I would suggest that it is not plausible for the simple reason that my statement doesn't have sufficient evidenciary value to overweigh your experience in the matter.

If everyone you knew made the same claim, even if they couldn't demonstrate it to you (perhaps you have to believe to see?), it still might not be enough evidence to convince you. Or it might; it depends upon the barrier of your skepticism. You would have to make some best guess at the odds that you are wrong in your experience/your interpretation of your experience.

The point is, though, that your skepticism per se isn't irrational.

I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that their experience is foo.

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. (I.e., it is plausible that your experience is foo, and foo is plausible as well.)

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. (I.e., it may be plausible that your experience is foo. Taking foo in general as plausible is another issue.)

If you tell me "The ghost of Gary Gygax DMs games at my house", I am unlikely even to believe that you believe that. (I.e., not only is it not plausible that foo in general is plausible, it is not plausible that your experience is foo.)

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