D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

This is sometimes called an "appeal to definition" if you want to add it to your list of logical fallacies.

Not sure where you're aiming that, as, depending on which explanation of that fallacy you go with, it's unclear what you mean by it.

And, while I love the current trend of inventing new fallacies, not sure that a good old fashioned special pleading (one interpretation of appeal to definition) or an appeal to authority (the other) shouldn't be used.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you, I was just going to post this myself. To be clear:

Appeal to Definition
The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y. Therefore, Y must not be part of X.

Or more detailed:

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term. Or in this context, what the term means in the context of 5th edition DnD vs what it means outside of that context.

This is a very common fallacy, Arial Black demonstrated it earlier in the thread and continues to do so because he believes that the definition from the dictionary of the word instantaneous is more important and/or negates the definition of the term in the context of 5e. But you know, maybe once we get questions out over twitter we can resolve the discussion once and for all. Hint hint nudge nudge Arial Black.

You asked for the definition before you then declared that it might not mean that, without explaining why. I didn't engage in appeal to definition because I did not assert the dictionary definition prior to your declaring that it means something else. Also, if you read the actual examples there, that version clearly works for people using one definition in one dictionary and ignoring other valid uses of the word. That doesn't work here because there is no other valid definition of 'immediately', especially when, in a different location in the rules text, it's paraphrased as 'right after.' That clarifies any confusion on the intent of the writer -- he means 'immediately' as in 'right after' which matches the dictionary definition.

Instead, what you're going, which is declaring that immediately might have another meaning in this case, without any explanation as to why that might be, is special pleading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So #319, then?

Are you saying "I didn't claim an appeal to authority except for the two times that I did?"

EDIT: Typo

Ah, good catch. I didn't go back far enough. Mea maxima culpa.

 

[Xvartslayer]

Not sure where you're aiming that, as, depending on which explanation of that fallacy you go with, it's unclear what you mean by it.

And, while I love the current trend of inventing new fallacies, not sure that a good old fashioned special pleading (one interpretation of appeal to definition) or an appeal to authority (the other) shouldn't be used.

I am not sure what the first sentence means.

As for the second, maybe some people keep making up fallacies because other people keep whipping them out on discussion boards. (My favorite new-to-me logical fallacy: "The Chewbacca Defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)

 

[Noctem]

Haha nice!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not sure what the first sentence means.

As for the second, maybe some people keep making up fallacies because other people keep whipping them out on discussion boards. (My favorite new-to-me logical fallacy: "The Chewbacca Defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)

It means, did you accuse me or Noctem of engaging in the dictionary fallacy?

And, yeah, the Chewbacca defense has been around for almost two decades, but it's a fun one.

 

[Xvartslayer]

I was trying to suggest that accusing others logical fallacies is almost always obnoxious and unhelpful. (And often elitist and exclusionary.)

 

[Noctem]

I was trying to suggest that accusing others logical fallacies is almost always obnoxious and unhelpful. (And often elitist and exclusionary.)

To be fair I started posting about them because they were rampant all over the thread in almost every post and actually going through the trouble of replying to them and explaining why and so on was getting frankly annoying. So posting a meme was a much more direct way of pointing out that if you're going to engage in fallacious discussion all I'm going to do is point it out for the most part and hope you realize what you're doing. At the same time it was a bit tongue in cheek.

Call that elitist or whatever if you want though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was trying to suggest that accusing others logical fallacies is almost always obnoxious and unhelpful. (And often elitist and exclusionary.)

Still trying to figure out why I should add that fallacy to my dictionary -- what I was able to find on the net on it had two different meanings that could either apply to me or to Noctem. Your larger point is valid, of course (I got fed up with the reply by image and fired back with the same ammo. Unfortunately, I missed one and have received, oddly, far more opprobrium from the masses for that one near miss than all of Noctems spam). I'd still like to know what you intended 'appeal to definition' to mean.

To be fair I started posting about them because they were rampant all over the thread in almost every post and actually going through the trouble of replying to them and explaining why and so on was getting frankly annoying. So posting a meme was a much more direct way of pointing out that if you're going to engage in fallacious discussion all I'm going to do is point it out for the most part and hope you realize what you're doing. At the same time it was a bit tongue in cheek.

Call that elitist or whatever if you want though.

You were also pretty much entirely wrong with most of them. :shrug:

 

[Noctem]

I believe that since you've been proven to wrongfully accuse someone of making an appeal to authority (and strawmen btw) and that you don't seem to actually know the definitions for the fallacies being brought up.. that I'll have to take a risk and say that I think you might be incorrect again when you say that I was "entirely wrong" about the ones I brought up. Just sayin'.