Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5175634" data-attributes="member: 18280">No; the problem is that you don't listen.I have answered this sour old chestnut so many times that I have lost count of how many times I have done so.  When you PMed me, I went through a chain of reasoning for you that you agreed with until it became obvious that the previous things you agreed with caused a necessary inference that you disagreed with.In one thread, you argued that I was making an inference based on personal preference.  I went through the reasoning item by item, so that you could see exactly how the inference was gained, and you were forced to admit that the inference was correct (even though you again ascribed inferences to the chain of reasoning which had nothing to do with it; you had, apparently, hoped your evidence demonstrated something else).<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164564-post663.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164564-post663.html</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164602-post665.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164602-post665.html</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164702-post670.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164702-post670.html</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html</a>So, once more:1.  Each person has direct experience, which they use to build up a worldview.  For this example, I will deal with a given person, X, whose experience is Y.2.  People make claims which are contrary (Person Z claims not-Y).3.  Depending upon the strength of Y, person X will either accept not-Y outright, provisionally accept not-Y, or require additional proof.A.  If Y is weakly experienced, and Z claims not-Y is strongly experienced, and X knows Z to be rational, X may simply accept not-Y and modify his worldview. B.  If Y is moderately experienced, and Z claims not-Y, and X knows Z to be rational, X will accept Z's claim provisionally, ascribing it no relative truth-value, and likewise consider alterations to his worldview to take into account Z's testimony of not-Y.  That provisional acceptance is all that Z can or should expect, however, under any circumstances.....he is not "owed" anything more. C.  If Y is strongly experienced, or experienced in every instance, and Z claims not-Y, X may provisionally accept Z's claim, as described under B, if he knows Z to be rational.  If, OTOH, he suspects that Z is not rational, has a strong observer bias, or is willing to manipulate data to make it meet his ends, X is justified in dismissing the claim of not-Y.It should be noted that what consitutes an "extraordinary claim" is not based on the position of the claimant, but upon the position of whoever the claimant wishes to persuade.  If all of my experience is Y, then not-Y is an extraordinary claim.Or, as I put it upthread: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.Or, as Jeff Wilder put it:(<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164748-post677.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164748-post677.html</a>)So, please don't continue to PM me, dredge this up in various threads, and then pretend to be wounded about how I "pulled you into this".  And, if you are going to characterize my position, please do so correctly.Thank you, and enjoy having me on your Ignore list.RC</blockquote>

Verification