Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[pemerton]

Example
Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?
Person A: Because to judge something you have to be familiar with it. Judgment given in ignorance is worthless.

Also, you've commited a fallacy. "Judgment given in ignorance" assumes "you cannot judge the PHB without reading it" because there may be other ways to judge it. Hence, this still begs the question. If you can state any method other than reading it to "become familiar" then Person A is incorrect. If you can not, then the reasoning is entirely circular.

There is no fallacy or circularity in John Q. Mayhem's argument. Rewritten as a sequence of premises supporting a conclusion (rather than as a conversation) it goes like this:

1. Judgement given in ignorance is worthless.
Therefore,
2. To non-worthlessly judge something you have to be familiar with it.
Therefore,
3. To non-worthlessly judge the PHB you must have read it.

As presented the argument is enthymemic: the suppressed premises are:

1a. One is ignorant of anything with which one is not familiar.
2a. To become familiar with a book you must read it.
2b. The PHB is a book.

Now, premise 1 is unargued but is not simply a restatement of the conclusion 3. Hence, no circularity at that point (ie no begging of the question against someone who denies 3). Furthermore, premise 1 has at least a degree of plausibility.

Premise 1a is also somewhat plausible, and is not simply a restatement of any of the subsequent steps of the argument; hence we can (at least tentatively) deduce 2 without circularity.

Premise 2, combined with 2a and 2b, entails the conclusion 3. Now premise 2b seems pretty certain, so the only controversy is with premise 2a.

As suggested by Pawsplay, premise 2a is contentious. But it is not simply a restatement of the conclusion - it is a claim about how one comes to know a book (and hence does not beg the question against someone who denies 3 - to deny 3 is not to take any stand on how one comes to know books). Hence there is no circularity. It is certainly not the case that, if one can (truly) state no other way of becoming familiar with a book, then the argument is circular. If there really was no other way of becoming familiar with a book than by reading it, then 2b would be true, and the conclusion 3 would follow given premises 1 and 1a.

The natural response of someone who denies 3, but accepts premises 1, 1a and (the incontravertible) 2b is to deny 2a. But to do so is not to diagnose any fallacy - it's just to take part in a garden-variety argument.

My general experience on ENworld is that many posters are far too quick to diagnose fallacies, when in fact what they really have in front of them are perfectly valid arguments (ie the premises really do support the conclusion) which just happen to contain one or more premises that are disputable. In John Q. Mayhem's case, premise 2a may be false, but the argument is not fallacious.

 

[vagabundo]

Hei wats up guys!!

There is no fallacy or circularity in John Q. Mayhem's argument. Rewritten as a sequence of premises supporting a conclusion (rather than as a conversation) it goes like this:

1. Judgement given in ignorance is worthless.
Therefore,
2. To non-worthlessly judge something you have to be familiar with it.
Therefore,
3. To non-worthlessly judge the PHB you must have read it.

As presented the argument is enthymemic: the suppressed premises are:

1a. One is ignorant of anything with which one is not familiar.
2a. To become familiar with a book you must read it.
2b. The PHB is a book.

Now, premise 1 is unargued but is not simply a restatement of the conclusion 3. Hence, no circularity at that point (ie no begging of the question against someone who denies 3). Furthermore, premise 1 has at least a degree of plausibility.

Premise 1a is also somewhat plausible, and is not simply a restatement of any of the subsequent steps of the argument; hence we can (at least tentatively) deduce 2 without circularity.

Premise 2, combined with 2a and 2b, entails the conclusion 3. Now premise 2b seems pretty certain, so the only controversy is with premise 2a.

As suggested by Pawsplay, premise 2a is contentious. But it is not simply a restatement of the conclusion - it is a claim about how one comes to know a book (and hence does not beg the question against someone who denies 3 - to deny 3 is not to take any stand on how one comes to know books). Hence there is no circularity. It is certainly not the case that, if one can (truly) state no other way of becoming familiar with a book, then the argument is circular. If there really was no other way of becoming familiar with a book than by reading it, then 2b would be true, and the conclusion 3 would follow given premises 1 and 1a.

The natural response of someone who denies 3, but accepts premises 1, 1a and (the incontravertible) 2b is to deny 2a. But to do so is not to diagnose any fallacy - it's just to take part in a garden-variety argument.

My general experience on ENworld is that many posters are far too quick to diagnose fallacies, when in fact what they really have in front of them are perfectly valid arguments (ie the premises really do support the conclusion) which just happen to contain one or more premises that are disputable. In John Q. Mayhem's case, premise 2a may be false, but the argument is not fallacious.

!!

<Ducks out of thread>

 

[Hussar]

They spend an awful amout of time on how to kill and what to kill. And almost no time on the RP aspects of the game.

You dont find any of that odd?

I'm sure there are some, but its completely take a back seat to who, how, and when to kill things and loot stuff.

Not in the least. Why? Because the designers have flat out stated, emphatically, that they will not be releasing ANY RP guidelines or rules from the rules beforehand.

Now, that implies, at the very least, that there ARE, in fact, some sort of rules or guidelines in place. Now, it could be a fakeout, but, honestly, I doubt it.

 

[pawsplay]

The natural response of someone who denies 3, but accepts premises 1, 1a and (the incontravertible) 2b is to deny 2a. But to do so is not to diagnose any fallacy - it's just to take part in a garden-variety argument.

If there is no other way to become familiar with a book, then

2. To non-worthlessly judge something you have to be familiar with it.

becomes

To non-worthlessly judge a book you must have read it.

which is the same as the conclusion. If becoming familiar = read, then this is an argument by definition.

 

[pemerton]

The natural response of someone who denies 3, but accepts premises 1, 1a and (the incontravertible) 2b is to deny 2a. But to do so is not to diagnose any fallacy - it's just to take part in a garden-variety argument.

If there is no other way to become familiar with a book, then

2. To non-worthlessly judge something you have to be familiar with it.

becomes

To non-worthlessly judge a book you must have read it.

which is the same as the conclusion. If becoming familiar = read, then this is an argument by definition.

Not at all. That a proposition is true does not make it true by definition.

Consider the following argument:

1. Hercules is immortal.
2. All humans are mortal.
Therefore,
3. Hercules is not human.

This argument depends on the premise that no human is mortal, and thus that immortality entails non-humanity. But it is not a circular argument, because the claim that no human is immortal, while true, is not true by definition.

As far as I can see, your are asserting that every sound argument (ie every argument in which the premies (i) are true and (ii) support the conclusion) is circular.

 

[tomBitonti]

Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?
Person A: Because to judge something you have to be familiar with it. Judgment given in ignorance is worthless.

The problem is that this argument is essential thin, and because of the thinness, collapses too quickly back to the assertion that the only way to judge the PHB is is to read it:

Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why not?
Person A: Just because.

That is, person A is presenting a very thin modification to an assertion:

A: You cannot judge a book without reading it.

To get back to the earlier discussion, we need to move beyond thin arguments. The question should be more along the lines: What is reasonable to infer about the PHB given the information we have so far?

I personally don't think that the answer is "nothing". Otherwise, what is the point of the preview material? Isn't the whole idea to give us a taste of the overall game system?

Here is what I am hearing so far:

A: Hey, in 3.5E, I can trip, disarm, pin, and do subdual damage (with restrictions). What is there in 4E that lets me do similar things?

B: Well, not so much trip, disarm, or pin. But you can declare what would otherwise be a killing blow to be non-lethal.

A: Well, that seems rather limiting. Even if I'm a lot stronger or more capable, I can't even try those actions?

B: Nope.

A: So I can declare a crossbow bolt or a fireball to be non-lethal? I can decide even after I've rolled damage?

B: Yep.

A: Hmm, that doesn't feel quite right to me. I can make an acid spash non-lethal?

(And so on.)

 

[pawsplay]

As far as I can see, your are asserting that every sound argument (ie every argument in which the premies (i) are true and (ii) support the conclusion) is circular.

No, I am asserting that True Scotsmen are not logical arguments. Further, you are making an error: the illicit major. All circular arguments are, on their face, valid syllogisms. It does not follow then that all valid syllogisms are therefore circular. The problem in the argument is not in the construction of the premises, it is in their content.

 

[SSquirrel]

And they have said that there is XP for overcoming enemies, killing them or otherwise. XP available in a number of fashions besides just killing. So no, you dont' have to kill things all the time.

 

[SSquirrel]

Paawsplay>If you only go by what you hear from people about a product, you are relying on them a)not misinterpreting something, b)other people's bias and preferences. He is right, the only way to actually be familiar with the entirety of a book is to read it. This isn't quantum physics here.

If there is say an entire chapter of the book posted that makes no references to things covered in other sections, then you would be able to say you were aware of everything included in that if you read it. If you just let your roommate skim thru it, have him say it sucked and then make claims about the material in it based on only that, you have no leg to stand on.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't need to be familiar with the entirety of a plate of pasta if the first two bites put me off my appetite and make me annoyed with the chef. Being "completely familiar" with 4e is not a realistic, practical standard. There are plenty of people here who are not "completely familiar" with Synnibarr who still know enough about it to say whether it's likely to meet their gaming needs.

While there is still plenty of terra incognita, I can say with confidence I know plenty of confirmed facts about 4e and have a good idea of its overall structure. This is hardly the whisper game; I've read playtest reports and viewed actual stat blocks. I am also intimately familiar with SW Saga, which has been termed a "significant preview" and I am rather familiar with the Book of Nine Swords, which I hate.