DUST Search - An actual guide to logical fallacy in DUST.

All Channels

General Discussions

An actual guide to logical fallacy in DUST.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

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.
Vin Vicious Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 97	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:22:00 - [3] - Quote That's real cool and all but this is an video game forums, not public speaking/debating/social dynamics forums Ain't no one got time for that
BOOOGERTRON BORTZORG Expert Intervention Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:25:00 - [4] - Quote WHAT HE SAID
RuckingFetard Better Hide R Die D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 110	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:27:00 - [5] - Quote You a lawyer , Mithrades?
Mithridates VI IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 1576	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:29:00 - [6] - 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.
hooc order Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement 125	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:32:00 - [7] - Quote "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.
Quirky CatchPhrase The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 2	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:34:00 - [8] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: 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. Many of us who were involved in the beta for a good length of time, might be able to remember a time when these forums were unusually useful, and in many cases not only helpful but also productive.
Mithridates VI IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 1576	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:37:00 - [9] - 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.
Mary Sedillo XERCORE E X T E R M I N A T U S 78	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:44:00 - [10] - Quote 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.

Mithridates VI IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 1579	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:47:00 - [11] - 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.
J-Lewis Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 98	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:51:00 - [12] - Quote 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.
BOOOGERTRON BORTZORG Expert Intervention Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:52:00 - [13] - Quote TC IS A MASTERDEBATER
Cosgar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 1100	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:53:00 - [14] - Quote I do believe the previous OP has been owned sufficiently.
Mithridates VI IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 1580	Posted - 2013.05.22 08:56:00 - [15] - 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.
Natu Nobilis BetaMax Beta CRONOS. 299	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:22:00 - [16] - Quote A decent list
R F Gyro The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 353	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:24:00 - [17] - Quote Is there a name for the situation where someone posts a rant to let off some steam and then someone else attempts to treat it as a rational debate? Not a fallacy, but something I think many of us would do well to look out for.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 341	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:28:00 - [18] - Quote That list is nice and all... but we are not engaged in a purely logical debate. 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. However, at the same time, some of the items (such as the strawman) provide a bit more utility in day to day discussions.
The Goram Batman Forgotten Militia 34	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:43:00 - [19] - Quote Quirky CatchPhrase wrote: Mithridates VI wrote: 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. Many of us who were involved in the beta for a good length of time, might be able to remember a time when these forums were unusually useful, and in many cases not only helpful but also productive. I miss those days. As to the OP, nice list man, thanks. I dig the examples you gave for each point +1
Mithridates VI IMPSwarm Negative-Feedback 1587	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:47:00 - [20] - 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.

Vin Vicious Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 98	Posted - 2013.05.22 10:04:00 - [21] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: 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. This thread has more to do about fallacies than about dust, just because you put capital lettered dust in the title does not mean this deals with dust's gameplay. Just because I put potato in the title of a book and mention potato a couple times does not mean the book is about potato. this thread belongs in the locker room Your assumption I'm a contrarian is hysterical, I chuckled. You assume I prefer to play the devils advocate in every situation regardless of my own experience/opinion. Rather, I think about both POVs before I voice myself. Matterafact the only topic I care to remember is My TAR posts that are on the side of the majority, I.e nerf TAR. Edit: look where it got moved. Back to breakfast
Echo Forgeborn Whalers At The Helm Outer Corridor Resource Acquisition n Procurement 0	Posted - 2013.05.22 15:11:00 - [22] - Quote Crash Monster wrote: That list is nice and all... but we are not engaged in a purely logical debate. 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. You can still rationally discuss why it gives you "butthurt". Just because something is causing an emotion doesn't mean it's inherently irrational and therefore cannot be worked through with logical discourse. Plus, it's more constructive to try and properly explain the butthurt, working through how/what hurt it than merely incoherently screaming "Waaaaaah! My poor butt!" like a baby at confused devs who have no idea what you're whinging about. See what I did there ^
hooc order Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement 125	Posted - 2013.05.22 18:03:00 - [23] - Quote 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. No i mean using it as an argument. example: I say TAC is not OP then someone else says well the Imps say it is OP. Seems like an appeal to authority to me...of course can the IMPs be seen as authority?
hooc order Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement 125	Posted - 2013.05.22 18:11:00 - [24] - 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. Saying the TAC is OP because it has the output of a blast turret is a sharpshooter fallacy as it ignore the disadvantages with using it: it is hard to aim has kick has less ammo in the magazine and is semi-auto. damage is not the only factor one can use when determining weather a weapon is OP or not.
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 1170	Posted - 2013.05.23 03:12:00 - [25] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: 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. Take Note! If you are going to claim an argument as a strawman argument, you must actually have an argument to begin with: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=843360#post843360 Take note: his only point as supplied was so: Quote: If it's a niche, it should take a heavier investement to widen your options. That was his thesis that he never supported, he merely stated it and went on as if it was his argument. You can not claim an argument as Strawman when you do not have an argument yourself. Mithridates am I correct in this?
Fingal Senga Codpiece Conundrum 30	Posted - 2013.05.23 08:30:00 - [26] - Quote Lol dude nice one. Back in the day I would have given you top marks for that. Most of the time when people try and be creative with informal logic it is just rubbish, but this was pretty good.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.