|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1567
   |
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
I spotted a thread trying to describe the use of logical fallacy in discussing DUST which the author had derped up (no hate, it was just a bad thread) but thought perhaps that such a thread may be a useful thing for people to have.
So here goes: the DUST 514 logical fallacy thread! This is not intended as a how-to. I might update the examples with posts from the forums if any are delicious representations of the fallacy described. Nominate notable posts if you think they meet these criteria!
Strawman.
In a strawman argument, you take the argument your opponent made, change it into something which is easier to dismiss and then reply to the argument you've invented. This can happen accidentally if there appear to be two sides to a debate and your position is similar to but slightly different to one of these options. Many will respond to you as if you are a die-hard supported of a suggestion you haven't made.
Example: WHAT? You think AFKers are simply making the best of a poorly implemented SP gain system? Well, here's what I think about people like you who AFK to make the game less fun for people.
False Cause.
When attributing something to false cause, you are taking two things which are somewhat related and making an assumption that one is the cause of the other.
Example: There has been considerably more lag since PC started so PC necessarily causes lag.
Appeal to Emotion.
Appealing to emotion is a manipulative tactic employed by trolls and scoundrels. Instead of using a compelling logical argument, you try to associate your position with positive emotions and your opponent's position with negative ones.
Example: If we do what you are suggesting, new players will be sad. Do you really want new players to be sad? Imagine those poor dear new players, booting up the game for the first time, their faces dropping as they are upset by the results of your suggestion.
The Fallacy Fallacy.
This fallacious fallacy is something you're guilty of if you use the fact that your opponent misused logic to conclude that their position was invalid.
Example: PC causing lag is a false cause, therefore PC does not cause lag.
Slippery Slope.
A slippery slope is an argument in which you argue that allowing your opponent's position to gain support will lead to the first step in a long line of inevitable events which lead to disaster, without giving any evidence for this.
Example: X is the first step towards this game becoming a COD CLONE!!!!!11one
Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem argument is one in which you attempt to undermine the opponent without engaging their position, overtly attacking them or casting doubt on them in order to dismiss their position by association.
Self-indulgent example: You're an IMP. Need I say more?
Tu Quoque.
Argumentum tu quoque involves turning a criticism back against the critic instead of defending your position. It's alleging hypocrisy despite that hypocrisy not changing the validity of the original argument.
Example: We dodge corp battles? Need I remind you about that YUO dodged a corp battle that one time?
Personal Incredulity.
Invoking personal incredulity is when you attempt to dismiss an argument simply by stating that you find it difficult to believe, ignoring the fact that your beliefs have no bearing upon reality. Often someone in a position of ignorance will use this against a position informed by mechanics too sophisticated to be grasped by the invoker of the fallacy.
Example: I find it hard to believe that out of everyone in his game, nobody is using lag switches. Is that really your argument? Really brah?
Special Pleading.
Special pleading is when, finding yourself proven incorrect, you change the terms of the original argument or assert that an exemption exists without justifying that exemption. This often happens when people are caught in lies. I'll bundle the "no true Scotsman" argument in with this, too, in which the goalposts are moved or the argument subtly redefined to escape its invalidity after it is proven incorrect.
Example: Oh, so matches only have 80 clones. I guess sometimes they have more which is how I managed to get 90 kills.
Loaded Question.
A loaded question is a question with a presumption built into it, such that it cannot be answered without appearing to accept the assumption.
Example: Hey bro, have you stopped sucking at DUST?
Burden of Proof.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not with others to disprove it. The inability to disprove a claim does not make that claim valid.
Example: Mass Drivers are overpowered. If they're not, prove why.
Ambiguity.
Using ambiguity to argue dishonestly is taking an argument which can be interpreted in multiple ways and arbitrarily giving preference to the interpretation which benefits you.
Example: MERC PACKS. BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE.
Bandwagon.
Using a bandwagon incorrectly in an argument involves using popularity to support the validity of a position.
Example: If damage mods aren't stacking incorrectly then why are so many people using them and saying they are?
Appeal to Authority.
Appealing to authority has no bearing on whether the claims made are true or not, though authorities can be useful in determining the likelihood of any given statement being true.
Example: CCP Blam says dropships are fine so they're fine.
Composition/Division.
This fallacy involves assuming that what is true of the whole is true of its parts, or that what is true of a part is true of the whole.
Example: Player X is a scrub, therefore his corpmates are also scrubs, as scrubbiness is clearly a property of members of his corp. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1567
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1576
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vin Vicious wrote:That's real cool and all but this is an video game forums, not public speaking/debating forums
Ain't no one got time for that
These forums are a channel through which we give feedback to the developers of the game. If we're incapable of coherently stating our positions and defending them without failing at logic, or of preventing our threads from being derailed by idiots, it's detrimental to the development of the game.
You're free to be against this but my general impression of you, based on my vague idea of what previous posts have been made under that name, is that you're simply a natural contrarian, so I'm not expecting your posting to improve by reading this thread.
Edit: Also, public speaking, debating and social dynamics are all skills required to competently contribute to a forum. It doesn't have to be a forum ABOUT English for English to be useful on it. Derp. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1576
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
hooc order wrote:"All the imps say the Tac is OP and they all use it."
Which one does that fall under?
My claim in the "FEAR the TAC" tthread of "If you want to nerf the TAC then you are a p*ssy" is an appeal to emotion.
So it is. I'll keep that one in mind.
As for the first quote, I don't think that's a logical fallacy. If someone says a weapon is excessively powerful and still uses it, it's likely they are avoiding being disadvantaged by this imbalance. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1579
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mary Sedillo wrote:Our experiences in the game, and how we reflect them here on the forums, are not fallacy. There is a reason that ANECDOTAL evidence is listed separately from true fallacies. Just saying, you may want to differentiate that.
Quite right. I've broken it off from the rest but they all need to be developed with real world examples given eventually. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1580
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 08:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
J-Lewis wrote:Mithridates VI wrote:hooc order wrote:"All the imps say the Tac is OP and they all use it."
Which one does that fall under?
My claim in the "FEAR the TAC" tthread of "If you want to nerf the TAC then you are a p*ssy" is an appeal to emotion. So it is. I'll keep that one in mind. As for the first quote, I don't think that's a logical fallacy. If someone says a weapon is excessively powerful and still uses it, it's likely they are avoiding being disadvantaged by this imbalance. Wouldn't it be mixed anecdotal and sharpshooter? Cherry picking a sample -- "All the imps say..." -- and their personal experience -- "... and they all use it." That doesn't mean TARs aren't OP -- they certainly are, we have numbers to back that claim: it can achieve similar damage output to a large blaster turret -- but the argument does use"facts" that aren't really useful to validating the argument -- that TARs are OP -- and so it can be classed as a logical fallacy.
Right. Presuming that because a fallacy was used in arguing the TAR is OP, the TAR is not OP, is called "The Fallacy Fallacy" further up in the thread.
I don't feel like it's cherry picking because the sample, in this case, does not have any bearing on the likelihood that the person will favour one position over another. Otherwise the scope of that cherry picking could be expanded such that no sample is valid. "You only used humans."
It's almost an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of the group described, except that arguing that something is overpowered is not arguing against its use. There's no conflict, IMO. |
Mithridates VI
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
1587
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 09:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Crash Monster wrote:For example, if there is a change which causes butthurt to all players (appeal to emotion) then there is a problem... whether or not that shows up as a fallacy on your list.
Derp.
If your argument is that players are upset, then using their upset as evidence is totally valid. That's not quite what appeal to emotion is. An appeal to emotion is when you try to use the emotions of the audience to sway their opinion, often against the side supported by evidence. |
|
|
| |
|