Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6850086" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>It does have that concrete meaning. What you're doing here is taking that meaning, throwing away parts of it, and arbitrarily adding new information. In a sense, you're helping make my point. In 3d6, 18 is strictly three times greater than 6. You can't map IQ data to this because that isn't true of the ordinal data that is IQ. You doubly can't map IQ to INT using the 3d6 distribution because of that first issue, but also because you've chosen to throw away information from that 3d6 distribution when mapping it to INT, so you have false information assigned to IQ when you map it to 3d6, and then you throw away that false information when you map 3d6 to INT. Those steps don't cancel, because the transforms aren't equal nor is the process reversible.</p><p></p><p>Essentially, by noting that INT doesn't retain the information inherent in 3d6, you've helped make my point. I had stopped at mapping IQ to 3d6 because that was sufficiently wrong and I didn't follow the thought past that point. You've done an admirable job of completing the thought, even if you were trying to argue against my position. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, no fallacy. He presented his relevant experience and training along with reasons why he felt that the test could be wrong, and offered you his professional opinion. I'm very glad your daughter is healthy.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Firstly, it doesn't matter if you're aware of a general contention around an issue, the issue was in contention <em>in the argument.</em> Secondly, I don't think you can declare that word usage is empirical in nature. We often determine the meaning of a new word through deduction, not empiricism. Thirdly, the empirical and contention arguments fail the moment you touch prescriptive vs descriptive usage.</p><p></p><p>You're attempting to define away the controversy so that your presentation of credentials, which aren't at all relevant to the determination of the argument, aren't the set up for a potential fallacy. It's a good try, but you're asserting things that aren't in evidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is uninteresting. I'm not sure why you brought it up. It has nothing to do with the form of your argument, which was, 'I am a lawyer, I know what irrational means, and you, sir, do not.' That's the form of a fallacious argument. It may be true, but it's still of the form. You used your expertise as backing for why you know you're correct.</p><p></p><p>You finish by begging the question. lol.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6850086, member: 16814"] It does have that concrete meaning. What you're doing here is taking that meaning, throwing away parts of it, and arbitrarily adding new information. In a sense, you're helping make my point. In 3d6, 18 is strictly three times greater than 6. You can't map IQ data to this because that isn't true of the ordinal data that is IQ. You doubly can't map IQ to INT using the 3d6 distribution because of that first issue, but also because you've chosen to throw away information from that 3d6 distribution when mapping it to INT, so you have false information assigned to IQ when you map it to 3d6, and then you throw away that false information when you map 3d6 to INT. Those steps don't cancel, because the transforms aren't equal nor is the process reversible. Essentially, by noting that INT doesn't retain the information inherent in 3d6, you've helped make my point. I had stopped at mapping IQ to 3d6 because that was sufficiently wrong and I didn't follow the thought past that point. You've done an admirable job of completing the thought, even if you were trying to argue against my position. Agreed, no fallacy. He presented his relevant experience and training along with reasons why he felt that the test could be wrong, and offered you his professional opinion. I'm very glad your daughter is healthy. Yes. Firstly, it doesn't matter if you're aware of a general contention around an issue, the issue was in contention [I]in the argument.[/I] Secondly, I don't think you can declare that word usage is empirical in nature. We often determine the meaning of a new word through deduction, not empiricism. Thirdly, the empirical and contention arguments fail the moment you touch prescriptive vs descriptive usage. You're attempting to define away the controversy so that your presentation of credentials, which aren't at all relevant to the determination of the argument, aren't the set up for a potential fallacy. It's a good try, but you're asserting things that aren't in evidence. It is uninteresting. I'm not sure why you brought it up. It has nothing to do with the form of your argument, which was, 'I am a lawyer, I know what irrational means, and you, sir, do not.' That's the form of a fallacious argument. It may be true, but it's still of the form. You used your expertise as backing for why you know you're correct. You finish by begging the question. lol. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
Top