False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Scribble]

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?

All of them- what reason do I have to suspect you are lying to me?

Does my accepting your experiences might differ from my own force me to invalidate all my own experiences?

If not, then why should I feel your experiences are entirely unfounded, and you are for some reason lying to me, if for no other reason then wanting to "win" on the internet?

(And no, I'm not perfect, I sometimes fall into the trap of wanting to prove someone wrong based on my own experiences differing from theirs... but I still think it's not a good thing, and that accepting what someone tells me is their experience at face value is much better for good conversation about a hobby I enjoy then telling them they're wrong for no other reason then what is essentially "I don't care.")

 

[Umbran]

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?

For the first two - maybe and maybe.

For the last, by and large, yes. I'm sure that if you're looking for them, you'll find cases where you'll think that I fail. I don't find that distressing, though - I admit my humanity, and hold no pretensions that ether of us is, or has ever been, perfect.

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.

S'okay. I am not trying to gain your personal agreement.

The logic you are attempting to use to determine the plausibility of foo is not dependent upon what foo is.

I am not trying to determine the plausibility of foo, by logic or otherwise. I'm talking about when you may be better off accepting the plausibility without proof, for the sake of discussion.

Rational thinking, and logic, are rational (and logical) regardless of what the objects discussed are.

Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic. Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be reasonable, which is similar but not exactly the same.

You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs aren't a science.

 

[Scribble]

You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs aren't a science.

Batman??? (Batmans a scientist.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic. Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be reasonable, which is similar but not exactly the same.

You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs aren't a science.

Well said, and this is the point I try to emphasize when I point out that we're discussing games of make believe. They're not serious business, they're fun things we like to do with our spare time, and talking about them isn't an exercise in formal logic.

Formal logic and reasoning is great for certain things, but it is not appropriate for all things; discussing how you prefer to pretend to be an elf being one of those many exclusions.

 

[Fifth Element]

Batman??? (Batmans a scientist.)

It's not Batman!

 

[Raven Crowking]

All of them- what reason do I have to suspect you are lying to me?

At least you are asking a fundamental question.

In addition to the question you are asking, though, you should ask "What reason do I have to suspect you are wrong?" and "What reason do I have to suspect you are exagerating?"

Does my accepting your experiences might differ from my own force me to invalidate all my own experiences?

OK, let me jump into more obvious examples, getting closer to a less obvious example:

1. I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make. However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it. It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.

2. You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area. In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo. Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return. Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo. Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences? If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience? If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo? What about the next? The next? At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?

3. A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World, claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case. Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not." Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity? Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?


RC

 

[Umbran]

Imagine that I make all of the following statements. Which of them do you find plausible?

I find them all plausible statements for someone on these boards to make. Could it be so? If yes, then it is plausible.

That some of them may seem to contradict things you've said in the past does not render them implausible - I may be mistaken or have misunderstood, you may have misspoken earlier, you may have changed your mind, and so on. I am more likely to ask about that seeming contradiction than cast a personal judgment about the plausibility.

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

Why should I despair? Why do I care about ranking the plausibility of various statements of personal experience against each other?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am not trying to determine the plausibility of foo, by logic or otherwise.

I am very glad to hear that.

If this is the case, "I don't accept the plausibility of foo" should be as fair and acceptable as "I accept the plausibility of foo", as far as you are concerned.

If one should sometimes say "okay" to "my experience is foo" for the sake of conversation, one should equally say "okay" to "my experience is that what you just said is implausible".

If there is a difference, please enlighten us.

Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic.

That is a good example of a Strawman, which is appropriate for this thread. No one is claiming that we are on the planet Vulcan, or that all things are governed by pure logic. Much like your comment about rpgs not being a science -- granted; no one has claimed that they are.

Your objections fail to answer the question.

Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be reasonable, which is similar but not exactly the same.

Yes, but, again, what defines a reasonable claim?

Solely one's own experience, and the application of rational thinking thereunto.

If you have some other way to determine what is a reasonable claim, please share, because so far there has been not a peep of an answer to this from anyone.

You will have done something that the greatest minds in the entire history of philosophy has failed to do!

 

[Raven Crowking]

deleted (see, I sometimes make my Wisdom check)

 

[Scribble]

1. I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make. However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it. It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.

I never said anything about accepting plausibility means you automatically agree with their statement. I said accepting their statement as plausible.

2. You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area. In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo. Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return. Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo. Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences? If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience? If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo? What about the next? The next? At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?

So... my choice is either accept they feel they like JOOKIE (it's plausible I'm sick of people saying foo in this thread) and do JOOKIE, or simply say they don't know what they're talking about and not do JOOKIE?

What good does that serve?

If I accept the plausibility of their statement, I can still counter with: In my own experience JOOKIE always leads to disaster...

If they accept the plausibility of my statement, we can continue having an adult like conversation about the relative merits of adding JOOKIE to the game...

As opposed to simply getting one or more parties angry about either adding or not adding JOOKIE to the game.

3. A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World,

This is not plausible.

claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case. Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not." Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity? Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?

What am I learning? People aren't robots. Sometimes their feelings about stuff change, sometimes people believe somewhat contradictory things at the same time. Sometimes their experiences are vastly different from my own.

If I accept that what they are saying to me is plausible, and I have no reason to believe they are intentionally lying to me, then I can have rational conversations with them about those experiences instead of arguing about who'e "right."

But, hey... it's plausible it's a waste of time?

And now I think I'm going to strike "plausible" from my list of words to use within the next 2 years.