False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Raven Crowking]

You cannot learn from the experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened.

One more thing here.

It may be true that you cannot learn from the experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened, but you can learn from the statements of experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened -- what you learn just might not be what those others intend.


RC

 

[Scribble]

Umm... so if some people don't accept the plausibility that what others say just might be plausible, and that they might be wrong about the plausibility of their own experiences always trumping the plausibility of other experiences, then it might be plausible that they will never accept the plausibility of what they think is not plausible being actually entirely plausible, which makes it also completely plausible that this threadjack about plausibility will never in fact end. Unless of course your experiences indicate otherwise- but THAT'S obviously not plausible.

Leeeeeet's doooooo the time waaaaaarp nooooooow.

 

[Hussar]

(1) What is reasonable and plausible is not objective, but is based on the experience (and hence barrier to skepticism) of the person being asked to believe something. I know people who would take "I experienced an alien abduction" as being reasonable and plausible. Does this make it so?

Thus the idea of the "reasonable observer". You are not the reasonable observer because you're involved in the conversation. Whether or not I doubt the veracity of the claim of alien abduction has nothing to do with whether or not a reasonable observer would.

My own biased gut reaction should not be my basis for believing you. I should possess the wherewithall to step back and look at the claim with at least an eye for objectivity. Maybe I REALLY want to believe in alien abduction. However, again, a reasonable observer wouldn't. Sure, I can jump right in and say, "Wow, gosh tell me more" but, I should also be having some pretty strong reservations about accepting your claims simply because they are so far out there.

I don't think it's all that unreasonable to expect people to retain a certain objectivity when discussing an issue. That when their pet projects and pet peeves might interfere with that objectivity, and the other person calls attention to the fact that those beliefs are based solely on personal bias, the person should be able to step back and recognize that fact.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

However, if we pull back from the extraordinary claims, and look at ones that are probably more in line with every day conversation, then disbelieving perfectly plausible claims based solely on my own experience is a bad thing to do.

 

[Fifth Element]

However, if we pull back from the extraordinary claims, and look at ones that are probably more in line with every day conversation, then disbelieving perfectly plausible claims based solely on my own experience is a bad thing to do.

This is especially true when discussing personal preferences, which is often the case when talking about RPGs. There is a world of difference between claiming that you were abducted by aliens (a physical event, that would be verifiable if it had witnesses), and claiming that you enjoy playing an elf in a particular way. One has to do with something that actually happens, while the other describes a personal feeling.

So arguing that any "claim" one is presented with should be treated in the same manner is not valid, IMO. Standards of evidence are very different, depending on the claim. "I like to imagine that I'm an elf this way" is not something that you can say "Prove it!" to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thus the idea of the "reasonable observer".

But, again, the "reasonable observer" is one who correlates what he is being asked to believe based upon his experience. An unreasonable observer would be one who dismissed his experience prior to determining plausibility.

(For further reading see David Hume's On Miracles, David Hume: On Miracles )

A WISE man proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event.

In other cases he proceeds with more caution. He weighs the opposite experiments. He considers which side is supported by the greatest number of experiments; to that side he inclines with doubt and hesitation, and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to over-balance the other and to produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority.

When the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, there is a contest of two possible experiences, of which the one destroys the other as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force which remains. The very same principle of experience which gives us a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against the fact which they endeavour to establish, from which consideration there necessarily arises a counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.

You are not the reasonable observer because you're involved in the conversation.

<snip>

I don't think it's all that unreasonable to expect people to retain a certain objectivity when discussing an issue.

Please make up your mind.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

Yes, but what defines an extraordinary claim? What defines a perfectly plausible claim?

Solely one's own experience. If you have some other way to determine what is an extraordinary claim, and what is a plausible claim, please share. You will have done something that the greatest minds in the entire history of philosophy has failed to do!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umm... so if some people don't accept the plausibility that what others say just might be plausible, and that they might be wrong about the plausibility of their own experiences always trumping the plausibility of other experiences, then it might be plausible that they will never accept the plausibility of what they think is not plausible being actually entirely plausible, which makes it also completely plausible that this threadjack about plausibility will never in fact end. Unless of course your experiences indicate otherwise- but THAT'S obviously not plausible.

I seriously wish I could XP you for this. Must spread some around, etc. etc.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion re: plausibility, may I suggest that we fork the thread?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is a world of difference between claiming that you were abducted by aliens (a physical event, that would be verifiable if it had witnesses), and claiming that you enjoy playing an elf in a particular way. One has to do with something that actually happens, while the other describes a personal feeling.

I used a strawberry example earlier, and it was a clear example where I might say "I like strawberries" for motives other than actually liking strawberries. Critical thinking still applies.

Interestingly enough, though, one can enjoy something that is bad. There are many bad movies that I enjoy because they are so bad, and there are movies with bad elements that I enjoy because they have good elements as well. And, of course, I might well enjoy a bad movie because I fail to recognize the bad elements in it.

(If you are a post-modernist the foregoing may seem meaningless to you; I am not a post-modernist.)

So, while I might accept the claim "I like X", I would not therefore conclude that "I like X" = "X is good". Moreover, I would be more suspicious of the claim "Y likes X", especially if my experience was that X is something universally detrimental, such as being lit on fire.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Umbran]

I think that you are ignoring the format of the InterWeb here.

Not in the slightest. The contrary, in fact. A great many arguments around here start because someone fails to accept that another's person's stated experience is plausible. As a social convention (as opposed to a matter of sheer logic) I think it is more important to cut folks some slack in such a forum, rather than less.

And if, no matter what you say to Piratecat, I keep jumping in with A, you might find yourself addressing my claims even though you wouldn't actually choose to have that discussion with me in a pub over a pint.

This, has been covered a bit by prior points in the thread (like the "Never Give Up, Never Surrender". But I will grant you that sometimes you do find yourself defending against A when A was never one of your points - largely because that is happening right now.

Aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot make great reductio ad absurdumtype arguments, showing flaws in the logic at extremes, and thus calling it into question for many cases.

The problem is that twice before (third time's a charm?) I have limited the context to talking about RPGs. Whether or not the logic applies to Bigfoot sightings really isn't an issue, because these aren't Bigfoot forums. We aren't talking about the plausibility of someone being probed by an alien, but of then having not seen (or not seen) a particular pathology with a given rule set, or playing elves, or somesuch.

Also, last time I checked, "accept as plausible" is not equivalent to 'take as gospel". Choosing to grant that something might have happened is not taking as Word of God that it did happen. The hyperbole really isn't constructive. I'll guess somewhere upthread this was talked about as well - arguing against an artificially inflated version of my point isn't arguing against my point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A great many arguments around here start because someone fails to accept that another's person's stated experience is plausible. As a social convention (as opposed to a matter of sheer logic) I think it is more important to cut folks some slack in such a forum, rather than less.

Out of curiosity, IYHO, does that cut both ways? Should you also be willing to cut an equal amount of slack for someone's skepticism? Would you claim that your own posting habits bear out the assertions you just made?

This, has been covered a bit by prior points in the thread (like the "Never Give Up, Never Surrender". But I will grant you that sometimes you do find yourself defending against A when A was never one of your points - largely because that is happening right now.

If you want to make that claim, you may feel free to do so. I, however, do not feel an obligation to therefore agree that it applies.

Aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot make great reductio ad absurdumtype arguments, showing flaws in the logic at extremes, and thus calling it into question for many cases.

OK, imagine that you are on the Monty Haul TV show. You know that there is a small amount of money behind one door, a car behind another, and behind the third a goat. You've selected one of three doors, and do not know what's behind it. Monty knows what's behind all of the doors. Monty then opens another door, revealing the small amount of money. The question is, to have the best odds of winning the car, do you switch doors, or keep the door you originally had?

The answer is, you switch doors. The odds of you having picked the right door are 1 in 3, and the odds of the switched door being right are 2 in 3.

Now, the fact is that quite a few people -- even well educated people -- fail to grasp this. It seems as though the odds should be 50/50.

If you use a more extreme example, however, the logical problems become clear.

For example, if there are 1 million doors, and you select one, and Monty opens all but the one you selected and the one other, revealing no car, the odds are only 1 in a million that you selected the right door. Because Monty knows what is behind every door, he can open doors without changing the odds at all, so long as he doesn't open the door with the car behind it. Chance is not involved with the doors Monty is opening.

Given that extreme example, most people can see the flaw in the initial logic that led them to believe that the odds were 50/50 in the first example.

The problem is that twice before (third time's a charm?) I have limited the context to talking about RPGs. Whether or not the logic applies to Bigfoot sightings really isn't an issue, because these aren't Bigfoot forums.

The logic you are attempting to use to determine the plausibility of foo is not dependent upon what foo is. If you use an example that people will potentially find plausible, it may mask the error in reasoning (in the same way a faulty syllogism might seem like good logic because it results in a conclusion you like). Again, if you use a more extreme example, however, the logical problems become (hopefully) clear.

Rational thinking, and logic, are rational (and logical) regardless of what the objects discussed are. If changing the objects discussed makes it obvious that the thinking isn't rational (or logical), it wasn't rational (or logical) before the objects were changed.

As you should well know, if you are employed in the sciences.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Another point, considering whether or not statements made about gaming can be more or less plausible.

Imagine that I make all of the following statements. Which of them do you find plausible? Which do you find provisionally plausible? Which do you not find plausible at all?

Please keep in mind that I am referring to these statements, if made as part of a post about gaming, and if made by myself, Raven Crowking. (The same statement made by another poster may be more, or less, plausible, IMHO, depending upon the poster in question.)

1. In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not.

2. I have never seen a player play a human character.

3. IME, good prepwork leads to good GMing, although I have known GMs who do run amazing games without doing any prep.

4. I run amazing games without doing any prep.

5. In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game.​

If you are capable of differentiating levels of plausibility between these statements, how did you do so?

I would submit that you did so on the basis of what you know about me, personally, through my posts, combined with what your experience of gaming is. If you have some other method, I would love to hear about it. After all, if it is a workable method, you will have attained something no one else has throughout all of history, and we would probably all like to share!

Or must you throw up your hands in despair, because you are unable to tell which statements you find the most and least plausible?


RC