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
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: 6850332" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>That's nice, but not terribly relevant. Again, glad your daughter is well.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There isn't overwhelming evidence that philosophers and lawyers, much less published writers, have a relevance when deciding the absolute meaning of irrational.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It doesn't actually say that. It says that the presence of a consensus lends credence to the presumption of truth. Reveiwing your flat earth example, the word of an expert that the world is round paired with the existence of a consensus on that matter means that there is a presumption that the statement that the world is round is true. It shifts into fallacy the moment you insist that it must be true because of those things. You're insisting.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And he hasn't mentioned his credentials to lend weight to his arguments, either. This isn't about whether you or Maxperson is correct on the issue of the meaning of irrationality -- I"m not arguing that at all. I'm stating that you engaged in a argument from authority, and an fallacious one, but that, given it's an informal fallacy, that doesn't make your conclusion necessarily wrong. It just meant you mentioning your philosophy and law and writing backgrounds were a poor argument for you conclusion.</p><p></p><p>I don't understand your distinction.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not clear, as you're actually prescribing the definition of irrational to be what you say it is and not anything else. That's kinda exactly what prescriptivism is.</p><p></p><p>As for the usage among academics, sure, that can be relevant. You being a philosopher or lawyer isn't necessarily so, though, and that's what we're discussing. You didn't describe the usage among academics, you said that you were the only philosopher and lawyer published in the argument, so we should listen to you. Argument from authority.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not necessarily, but I'm not going to go into that particular can of worms. Let's let it lie, as my arguments don't depend on it I'll even withdraw the statement.</p><p></p><p>Argument from authority isn't only invalid in deductive reasoning, that's just one of the areas where it's always invalid.</p><p>You misdescribe my argument.</p><p></p><p>I used the word "irrational" in a post. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] queried my usage. I replied that my usage is consistent with the usage of a group of professionals (academic lawyers and philosophers) who have good reason to care, more than most, about the use of that word; and that I know this because I am a member of that group of professionals.</p><p></p><p>Here is a more formal statement of the argument that I have presented:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) Academic lawyers and philosophers have a particular reason (flowing from their professional concerns) to care about the use of the word "irrational".</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Therefore,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) The usage among that group is a permissible - even, perhaps, a canonical - usage.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(3) I am an academic lawyer and philosopher.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Therefore,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(4) I am familiar with the usage, among that group, of the word "irrational".</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Therefore, I am in a position to assert that</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(5) My usage of that word in this thread is consistent with the usage among that group.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Therefore,</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(6) My usage in this thread is permissible, and perhaps even an instance of a canonical usage.</p><p></p><p>I think that this argument is valid (though not deductively so, at least as I have presented it - eg the move from (1) to (2) rests on unstated premises about how permissibility of word use is established; the move from (3) to (4) rests on an empirical conjecture that membership of a group results in familiarity with its practices, including practices of word usage - but I have not seen anyone contest these unstated premises).</p><p></p><p>The only appeal to expertise is in relation to (5). That is, instead of instancing the usage of academic lawyers and philosphers and thereby indicating that my usage is consistent with it, I assert, on the basis of my familiarity with their usage, that my usage is consistent with it.</p></blockquote><p>I get that you want to slightly rewrite your argument, but that's not how it was presented. Intended, perhaps, but not presented.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, no. If one can show any of that chain to be false, that's sufficient to call the result into doubt. You can't constrain your opponents into only attacking your argument along those paths you choose for them. Either it's all open or you're not presenting an honest argument.</p><p></p><p>Let me reorganize your argument a bit.</p><p>1) some authorities care about how a specific word is used.</p><p>2) that word has a commonly understood meaning within that authority</p><p>3) I am a member of the authority</p><p>4) I know the common use of that word within the authority</p><p>5) my use of that word is in agreement with that common use</p><p>therefore </p><p>6) my use of that word in a manner consistent with the common use within that authority is correct in this case, which is not within that authority.</p><p></p><p>This is an appeal to authority. You've established the authority, declared yourself a member, and then presented that since the authority, which you are a member of, does it this way, that way is correct. Or:</p><p></p><p>X holds that A is true. -- pemerton holds that his use of 'irrational' is correct.</p><p>X is an authority on the subject. -- pemerton is an authority on the use of 'irrational'</p><p>The consensus of authorities agrees with X. -- The consensus of pemerton's authority buddies agree with pemerton</p><p>There is a presumption that A is true.[11] -- Therefore pemerton is correct about the use of 'irrational'</p><p></p><p>You see the difference in that last line? You went from a presumption that your use of irrational is correct to a statement that your use must be correct. Hence the appeal to authority.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6850332, member: 16814"] That's nice, but not terribly relevant. Again, glad your daughter is well. There isn't overwhelming evidence that philosophers and lawyers, much less published writers, have a relevance when deciding the absolute meaning of irrational. It doesn't actually say that. It says that the presence of a consensus lends credence to the presumption of truth. Reveiwing your flat earth example, the word of an expert that the world is round paired with the existence of a consensus on that matter means that there is a presumption that the statement that the world is round is true. It shifts into fallacy the moment you insist that it must be true because of those things. You're insisting. And he hasn't mentioned his credentials to lend weight to his arguments, either. This isn't about whether you or Maxperson is correct on the issue of the meaning of irrationality -- I"m not arguing that at all. I'm stating that you engaged in a argument from authority, and an fallacious one, but that, given it's an informal fallacy, that doesn't make your conclusion necessarily wrong. It just meant you mentioning your philosophy and law and writing backgrounds were a poor argument for you conclusion. I don't understand your distinction. It's not clear, as you're actually prescribing the definition of irrational to be what you say it is and not anything else. That's kinda exactly what prescriptivism is. As for the usage among academics, sure, that can be relevant. You being a philosopher or lawyer isn't necessarily so, though, and that's what we're discussing. You didn't describe the usage among academics, you said that you were the only philosopher and lawyer published in the argument, so we should listen to you. Argument from authority. Not necessarily, but I'm not going to go into that particular can of worms. Let's let it lie, as my arguments don't depend on it I'll even withdraw the statement. Argument from authority isn't only invalid in deductive reasoning, that's just one of the areas where it's always invalid. You misdescribe my argument. I used the word "irrational" in a post. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] queried my usage. I replied that my usage is consistent with the usage of a group of professionals (academic lawyers and philosophers) who have good reason to care, more than most, about the use of that word; and that I know this because I am a member of that group of professionals. Here is a more formal statement of the argument that I have presented: [indent](1) Academic lawyers and philosophers have a particular reason (flowing from their professional concerns) to care about the use of the word "irrational". Therefore, (2) The usage among that group is a permissible - even, perhaps, a canonical - usage. (3) I am an academic lawyer and philosopher. Therefore, (4) I am familiar with the usage, among that group, of the word "irrational". Therefore, I am in a position to assert that (5) My usage of that word in this thread is consistent with the usage among that group. Therefore, (6) My usage in this thread is permissible, and perhaps even an instance of a canonical usage.[/indent] I think that this argument is valid (though not deductively so, at least as I have presented it - eg the move from (1) to (2) rests on unstated premises about how permissibility of word use is established; the move from (3) to (4) rests on an empirical conjecture that membership of a group results in familiarity with its practices, including practices of word usage - but I have not seen anyone contest these unstated premises). The only appeal to expertise is in relation to (5). That is, instead of instancing the usage of academic lawyers and philosphers and thereby indicating that my usage is consistent with it, I assert, on the basis of my familiarity with their usage, that my usage is consistent with it.[/quote] I get that you want to slightly rewrite your argument, but that's not how it was presented. Intended, perhaps, but not presented. Um, no. If one can show any of that chain to be false, that's sufficient to call the result into doubt. You can't constrain your opponents into only attacking your argument along those paths you choose for them. Either it's all open or you're not presenting an honest argument. Let me reorganize your argument a bit. 1) some authorities care about how a specific word is used. 2) that word has a commonly understood meaning within that authority 3) I am a member of the authority 4) I know the common use of that word within the authority 5) my use of that word is in agreement with that common use therefore 6) my use of that word in a manner consistent with the common use within that authority is correct in this case, which is not within that authority. This is an appeal to authority. You've established the authority, declared yourself a member, and then presented that since the authority, which you are a member of, does it this way, that way is correct. Or: X holds that A is true. -- pemerton holds that his use of 'irrational' is correct. X is an authority on the subject. -- pemerton is an authority on the use of 'irrational' The consensus of authorities agrees with X. -- The consensus of pemerton's authority buddies agree with pemerton There is a presumption that A is true.[11] -- Therefore pemerton is correct about the use of 'irrational' You see the difference in that last line? You went from a presumption that your use of irrational is correct to a statement that your use must be correct. Hence the appeal to authority. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
Top