Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 4098360" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>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:</p><p></p><p>1. Judgement given in ignorance is worthless.</p><p>Therefore,</p><p>2. To non-worthlessly judge something you have to be familiar with it.</p><p>Therefore,</p><p>3. To non-worthlessly judge the PHB you must have read it.</p><p></p><p>As presented the argument is enthymemic: the suppressed premises are:</p><p></p><p>1a. One is ignorant of anything with which one is not familiar.</p><p>2a. To become familiar with a book you must read it.</p><p>2b. The PHB is a book.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4098360, member: 42582"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill
Top