Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "logical argument" - I don't think you mean valid, nor sound, but perhaps you mean "persuasive" or "non-tautological".

Anyway, I'm not asserting that all valid syllogisms are circular. I'm asserting that there is no circularity in the argument you critique, and also that your critique of it appears to imply that you regard every sound argument as circular, because you seem to be taking every sound argument as, in effect, an amplication of the definitions of the notions occurring in the premises. Hegel believed this, but he had his own peculiar approach to logic which I assum you are not intending to emulate.

In any event - how is it circular to assert (1) worthwhile judgements depend on familiarity, and (2) that familiarity with a book depends on reading it, and hence (3) that the judgements concerning the PHB of one who has not read the PHB are worthless?

Where is the circularity? None of the premises is analytic. The conlcusion is not analytic. None of (1), (2) or (3) on its own entails the other. Where, I ask again, is the circularity?

As I've said, (2) is highly contentious. But this doensn't make the argument circular.

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

I agree that the argument is thin, and that it is apt to engender a dispute about the necessary conditions for familiarity with a book.

I personally think it is possible to be familiar with a book without reading it (I have, in my time, been familiary with some books of which I've read rather little). That's what reviews, lectures, bibliographies etc are for.

But none of this makes the original argument circular or fallacious. It just makes it unsound.

 

[pawsplay]

Hegel believed this, but he had his own peculiar approach to logic which I assum you are not intending to emulate.

I'm not going to debate Hegel with you. I am going to lay out this challenge: demonstrate that to be familiar with a book you must read it. Specifically, that to be adequately familiar with a book you must read it completely. This is the hidden premise.

Notice that "adequately familiar" seems to mean about the same thing as "able to pass judgment." And judgment seems to include "able to decide whether to read something."

That is why ths argument is circular. Watch what happens when I use this sense for familiarity. Without the ability to pass a judgment on the book without reading it, we get the following:

You cannot declare whether something is worth reading without reading it. If something is worth reading, you should read it. If something might be worth reading, you should not, not read it. Therefore, if something might be worth reading, you should read it. Therefore, everything is worth reading, including things that are not worth reading.

 

[Insight]

I've seen some pretty ridiculous attempts at reasoning in this thread. Sure, you can be familiar with a book without reading it. Will you know specifics? Of course not!

Think about a biography. Let's say you consider reading a biography of FDR. Sure, you know quite a bit about FDR. You know he was President of the United States. You know he was married to Eleanor Roosevelt. You know he was President during the Great Depression and World War II. You may know he was a primary force behind the New Deal. Those are general things that most people know about FDR, and things you'd come in knowing without reading the theoretical biography in this discussion.

But would you know how he proposed to Eleanor? Would you know where he went to college? Would you know the names of his brothers and sisters (or even whether he had any brothers and sisters)? Probably not without reading the biography.

The analogy here is that, yes, we all are familiar with what is likely to be in the 4th ed PHB. We know there will be sections on creating characters, combat, wounds and healing, advancement, etc. We even know some of the specifics (in terms of what has already been released).

But we cannot know specifics that have not been released. Unless you are a playtester or work for the design team, you don't have prior knowledge of unreleased portions of the rules. We can theorize that certain things may or may not exist in 4th ed, but without concrete examples and rules snippets, we can't know with certainty what is going to be in 4th ed.

For example, none of the preview characters released at D&DXP had polearms. Does that mean there are no polearms in 4E? One could draw that conclusion, although it would be erroneous, as we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other in that regard. None of the preview characters had powers above 1st level. Does that mean there are no powers above 1st level? Highly doubtful.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You cannot declare whether something is worth reading without reading it. If something is worth reading, you should read it. If something might be worth reading, you should not, not read it. Therefore, if something might be worth reading, you should read it. Therefore, everything is worth reading, including things that are not worth reading.

This formulation is nonsense, and doesn't represent anyone's position. How about this instead: In order to pass judgement on a game system, you must be able to answer objections that are raised over hypothetical situations that would require a reference to the rules. In as much as you are capable of answering those questions using an incomplete set of rules, you have the ability to judge the game system. In as much as you have lacunae in the sorts of questions you can answer with the rules you have access to, you are unable to judge the game system. You do not know what rules you don't have access to. Therefore, in order to be in a position to judge the system as a whole, you have to read the rules; in order to judge some small aspect of the system, you need to have access to the rules that interact with that aspect.

That sounds a hell of a lot more like what people are saying. I don't see why everyone has apparently allowed you to define their positions in the way that you have, and then argue on your terms about what they're trying to say.

 

[Kesh]

You cannot declare whether something is worth reading without reading it. If something is worth reading, you should read it. If something might be worth reading, you should not, not read it. Therefore, if something might be worth reading, you should read it. Therefore, everything is worth reading, including things that are not worth reading.

Emphasis mine. If you've got to use a double-negative to make your point, you're on thin ice already.

The act of reading something does not inherently mean it is "worth reading." It simply means you made a choice to read it. Using your definition, any choice implies value judgement, including "should I get out of bed this morning?" Implied "worth," as you're using it, is a hell of a stretch, and I'll thank you to stop butchering the English language.

 

[Insight]

Emphasis mine. If you've got to use a double-negative to make your point, you're on thin ice already.

The act of reading something does not inherently mean it is "worth reading." It simply means you made a choice to read it. Using your definition, any choice implies value judgement, including "should I get out of bed this morning?" Implied "worth," as you're using it, is a hell of a stretch, and I'll thank you to stop butchering the English language.

Haha, true indeed! I deemed your post valuable enough to quote. How about that for a value judgment?

And of course, you don't always make choices just because you think the choice you made is "good" (whatever that means). When you were in school, you didn't read the assigned textbook because it was a great read; you did so because it was required as part of the curriculum.

In the case of 4th ed, if you want to stay current and play the officially supported version of the D&D rules, you need to play 4th ed. It's not a value judgment at this point -- it's a necessity. But honestly, most people don't play 3rd ed because it's the officially supported version, and they won't switch to 4th ed for that reason. They play 3rd ed and will switch to 4th ed because they like it. You could still play 2nd ed or 1st ed if you want; the books still exist and are fairly easy to acquire.

At this point, in terms of what's been released, if you've seen something that horribly offends you, and you know with certainty that you cannot ever consider playing 4th ed because of it, by all means, you are welcome to that opinion (strange as it might be). Likewise, if you've seen something that is so bloody awesome that you can't wait for 4th ed to be released and you'll be screaming from the hilltops til it does, that's fine too. Again, rather strange, but you're welcome to that opinion.

But I believe that the vast majority of us are waiting with either some optimism or some skepticism, without committing 100% one way or the other, until we can read the PHB and make a final judgment.

 

[Ourph]

The act of reading something does not inherently mean it is "worth reading." It simply means you made a choice to read it.

Actually, the act of reading something does imply that something was "worth reading". The choice may not have been made based on entertainment value, but it was almost certainly based on some kind of value judgement. To use Insight's example, you might have read the textbook, not because you found it interesting, but based on the value judgment that you'd prefer to get an A, rather than an F, in your class. Any choice that is resolved based on something other than a coin toss implies a value judgement on the part of the chooser.

 

[pemerton]

I am going to lay out this challenge: demonstrate that to be familiar with a book you must read it.

I don't think that it can be demonstrated. As I've said in a couple of bosts, I don't believe it to be true that familiarity with a book depends upon reading it.

But that an argument rests on a false premise doesn't make it circular, or fallacious. It just makes it a bad argument.

Notice that "adequately familiar" seems to mean about the same thing as "able to pass judgment." And judgment seems to include "able to decide whether to read something."

I don't agree that all these notions are imbedded in one another in the argument presented. The claim is simply (i) that worthwhile judgement depends upon familiarity (which I think is plausible) and (ii) that familiarity with a book depends upon reading (which I think is implausible). There is no circularity.

That is why ths argument is circular. Watch what happens when I use this sense for familiarity. Without the ability to pass a judgment on the book without reading it, we get the following:

You cannot declare whether something is worth reading without reading it. If something is worth reading, you should read it. If something might be worth reading, you should not, not read it. Therefore, if something might be worth reading, you should read it. Therefore, everything is worth reading, including things that are not worth reading.

Restating the argument you have presented:

1. You cannot judge whether or not a book is worth reading unless you are familiar with it.

2. You cannot be familiar with a book without reading it.

Therefore,

3. You cannot judge whether or not a book is worth reading unless you read it.​

This conclusion might be false, but there is no circularity in the argument. The conclusion is not even obviously absurd.

Now, you seem to be adding in the following extra premises:

4. If I read something, that means I judge it worth reading.

Therefore (given 3),

5. I cannot judge whether or not a book is worth reading unless I judge it to be worth reading.

Furthermore,

6. It is worthwhile to bring it about that I can make judgements on books.

Therefore (given 3),

7. Every book is worth reading.​

5 is a little paradoxical, and 7 is (I think) obviously false. But this doesn't show any circularity in any argument.

If 5 is doubtful, that means at least one of 3 or 4 is doubtful - I'm sceptical about both.

If 7 is false, that means at least one of 3 or 6 is doubtful - I'm sceptical of 3 and also of 6 (which I think is pretty doubtful if "books" is taken to mean "every single book").

If you've got to use a double-negative to make your point, you're on thin ice already.

Why?

 

[Ourph]

If you've got to use a double-negative to make your point, you're on thin ice already.

Why?

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Because I didn't not say so! That's why!

 

[The Little Raven]

Show me how.

Option 1

Vader's Player: Since combat is over, the ship is ours, and they pose no more threat... I'm going to choke this guy because he bugs me.
DM: Sure. You've already overcome the combat encounter, so doing something in narrative doesn't change your success at all, nor does it have any real impact on any other part of the game.

Option 2

Vader's Player: Since we're still in combat rounds, I'll make a Grab, then use Force Grip to choke him, since even if I had Crush, it's a ridiculously weak choking ability in comparison.
DM: Sure. In fact, it makes more sense for you to use Force Grip, since Crush's damage would take a fortnight to kill anyone.