Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5503307" data-attributes="member: 18280">Do you understand what you are referring to?<a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/" target="_blank">Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority</a>An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" target="_blank">Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>.I am not arguing that Gygax's (etc.) statements are correct statements about his intent, or that his examples are correct examples of his intent, because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative, but because those individuals, making statements about their intent, or their use of said material, are authoratitive.This is true in the same way that it is true that Hussar is the foremost authority on what Hussar thinks.I can quote Gygax as an authority on Gygax's intent without falling into logical error (although he still might make false statements about his intent, and thus lead me to a false conclusion), but I cannot quote Gygax about what is possible in Danny Alcatraz's campaign (a subject on which he is not an authority) without falling into error.IOW, the "Appeal to Authority" may lead to a false conclusion, if Gygax etc. affirms a falsehood within said body of work, but so long as I remain in an area where Gygax has authority (i.e., his thoughts, works, and intent), I am on pretty safe ground.  OTOH, you are not, because (1) the body of Gygax's work (and other TSR 1e work) undermines the value of your testimony, and (2) you are attempting to appeal to the authority of the DMG on a subject which, not only is Gygax not an authority, but on which he expressly states that he is not an authority within the body of the quoted work.  IOW, you are committing the very fallacy you erroneously claimed I was.  Ironic, eh?Funny thing that.  You remember these rules, but don't remember where they came from so you can reference them, and somehow missed the references upthread (which you are now, apparently, aware of) to where they came from.In 1e, you are looking at Greyhawk Adventures.For 3e, you need Goodman Games' Heroes are Made, Not Born, and a module published in Dragon Roots #1 or #2 by C.E. Rocco (but I'd have to look up the name and issue to give you more information; it is on my shelf at home).And yet you are almost 100% sure that you are not screwing up the rules about normal men, despite examples to the contrary of your firmly held position?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />Again, ironic, eh?RC</blockquote>

Verification