False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Jeff Wilder]

No, but it is saying something mean in place of presenting an actual argument. Attacking the speaker rather than the argument.

No. (Well, sort of. You don't state it well, but I think you get it.) Saying something mean in place of an actual argument isn't a fallacy at all. It's just being mean.

Ad hominem is saying something about a person and implying or stating a link between what you said and the validity of his or her argument.

"Joe Sixpack is ugly and belongs to the Comnirepublicrat Party. What could he possibly know about tax policy?"

 

[Fifth Element]

Ad hominem is saying something about a person and implying or stating a link between what you said and the validity of his or her argument.

Yes, that's true, didn't state that clearly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

- I don't like X. I don't like bad things. Therefore, because I don't like X, X is bad.

That is an example of a faulty syllogism.

However, "bad" is a value judgement. Apart from some means to objectively make such judgments, what is "bad" is what you don't like.

(I am not 100% sure that there is no such thing as objective, or semi-objective, valuation, however. If one assumes commonalities between human beings, at least at some basic level, one can postulate some form of common valuation.)

- Any examples which run counter to my point are due to observer error, not any mistakes in whatever my point is.

This is only poor logic on the basis of the word "Any". It is quite frequently true that people will offer anecdotes to counter a point, but that does not mean that the anecdote is a valid counter. The rational person must consider the possibility that the other speaker is (1) mistaken in his observation, (2) mistaken in his characterization of his observation, and (3) is lying because he wants to firm up his position (to make it ironclad, as it were).

When someone solicits the opinions of others, and then reports on those opinions, you also have to consider how well you believe that person can sift the aforementioned factors.

For example, let us say that I claim to like eating strawberries. You need to take the context into account, as well as your general estimation of my personality. If you are offering me strawberries, and you know that I am the kind of person who is likely to avoid giving offense, you are not at all sure that my claim is true. Indeed, your subsequent observations may lead you to believe that my claim is false (I only eat one or two, and do not seem to enjoy them). Even if I do seem to enjoy them, you do not know that my claim is true, because you have reasonable grounds to doubt my motives about that claim.

On the InterWeb, where everyone wears a "mask" of sorts, and one cannot directly observe the "speaker", this problem is compounded.

The rational reader has to ask himself at least these questions:

What do I know of the poster? Has he been generally insightful in the past? Has he been generally truthful in the past? Does he admit errors, or does he take offense when error is suspected/pointed out? IOW, how much of his self-worth, in my estimation, is tied up in his being correct? The less likely he is to admit error, the less likely his anecdotes are to be trusted.

How rational does the poster appear to be? Should I assume that he is interpretting data correctly? Is the data he is relying upon hearsay? (And hearsay includes "My players say.......")

Not to put too fine a point on it, do I believe that, confronted with the same direct evidence that the poster is supplying indirect testimony of, that I would draw the same conclusion as the poster?

Does his anecdote make sense, within my experience and to the best of my knowledge? It would be a poor reader indeed who decided that Gygax was a major fan of 4e in the afterlife simply because I claimed his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years.

Any disagreement with my point is because my point is being misunderstood. I will further refuse to actually clarify my point because, that will also be misunderstood.

This is only irrational on the basis of the word "All".

You have claimed being misunderstood many times yourself, and you have misunderstood others many times yourself. As have I. As have we (nearly) all.

Intentionally or not, misunderstanding the other poster seems to be a normative for InterWeb conversations.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So it's not different then?

Not as far as I can see.

Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife? Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years? Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Both related to the "It's not an insult, it's just the truth" fallacy.

Insults are subjective, not rationally objective. This cannot be a logical fallacy, because insults cannot be defined by logic.

Moreover, in claiming that the poster is in error here, you seem to be claiming that you know his intent to insult, which is questionable at best, and against The Rules at worst.

Finally, this relates back to the Wounded Pride fallacy, mentioned earlier, in that "Your argument/conclusion is insulting" in no way relates to the logic of that argument or conclusion, but the Wounded Pride is used as a counter to the same.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Not as far as I can see.

Then we agree there.

Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife? Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years? Do you believe it if I say it happened at my table?

No, because that's an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. There's more to a discussion that formal rules of logic.

"Different people like to play games in different ways" is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed its converse "All people like the play games in the same way" would be an extraordinary claim that would require a great deal of evidence.

But I don't want to get into another argument in a thread that's not about that. So that's all I'll say about it here.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Which one is "if I send an insulting and profanity-laden diatribe to the admin, he will suddenly understand my point and allow me back on the site"? 'Cause I want that one on the list!

But, isn't that one actually true???

Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife? Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years? Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?

Yes. How else could you possibly be inspired to create your own mammoth RPG?



One common problem I regularly see is the players exhibit is the deductive fallacy. They come to incorrect conclusions by means of faulty reasoning.

Example:
The Prisoner told us that Malagaunt stole the reliquary;
Most prisoners are liars;
Therefore, the Prisoner is lying and Malagaunt didn't steal the reliquary.

This is not true; Malagaunt may well have stolen the reliquary even if the Prisoner is a liar.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, I thought the ultimate spell that blurred the line between subjective opinion and objective fact was solipisim (2e Tome of Magic version*).

* If I remember correctly.

Ah, man, that spell was SO much fun. And such a massive PITA for the DM. I've been on both sides of the screen for that one. Yikes. Someone was smoking something when they wrote that one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's more to a discussion that formal rules of logic.

Absolutely. But this thread is about logic, and logic is a useful tool in weighing evidence. Indeed, traversing the InterWeb without some knowledge of epistemology is like entering the dungeon without weapons, armour, or spells in D&D. Whatever conclusion you might come to, it probably isn't the best one.

"Different people like to play games in different ways" is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed its converse "All people like the play games in the same way" would be an extraordinary claim that would require a great deal of evidence.

Agreed. I don't think that we need to argue about that.

But, allow me to demonstrate a false syllogism, as this thread is about logical fallacies:

Different people like to play games in different ways.
Playing the game on fire is a different way.
Therefore, some people like to be lit on fire when playing the game.​

You can hopefully see that this is (very probably) untrue, and that the fault lies within the logical construction, and in the way the terms are defined.

Different people like to play games in different ways.
X is a different way.
Therefore, some people like to X when playing the game.​

therefore doesn't actually rationally follow. The "different ways" is not an infinite set, containing all possible variables. It is, instead, a set with undefined limits.

Whenever, therefore, I claim that "Some people like to X when playing the game", the agreed upon truth that "Different people like to play games in different ways" should not be taken as evidence that X is one of those ways.



RC

 

[Hussar]

This is only irrational on the basis of the word "All".

You have claimed being misunderstood many times yourself, and you have misunderstood others many times yourself. As have I. As have we (nearly) all.

Intentionally or not, misunderstanding the other poster seems to be a normative for InterWeb conversations.

But, you ignored the second part of that. The refusal to clarify your points on the basis that any clarification will also automatically be misunderstood. I might well have claimed to have been misunderstood. Sure. But, I don't think anyone would claim that I'm not stubborn enough to keep trying to make myself understood.

Misunderstanding is fine. Asking for clarification is fine. Refusing to clarify once you've been asked to do so on the basis that the asker will misconstrue every point is not fine.