| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some rules types read da rules with Aristotelian logic. You have a known, you can proceed from a known by rational logic from that known in perfect, non contradictory order. If evidence doesn't absolutely 100% mean that something is a certain way, it's worthless. If something isn't 100% contradictory, it means absolutely nothing.
Another type is Baysean logic: you can weigh different kinds of evidence against each other, and something can PROBABLY mean that a rule works a certain way without being 100% proof.
Baysean logic can be more than a little subjective, but Aristotelian logic will give you outright contradictory answers depending on what you use as your start point and how you plinko that through a series of if/then to get to your answer. Aristotelian logic requires a perfect system with no exceptions in order to work, and as much as i love the PF rules set, that's not what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you're saying why one of those sides is wrong should probably key you in that you haven't gotten it right.
The fact that you're saying why one of those sides is wrong should probably key you in that you haven't gotten it right.
That would only be true if both sides were equally valid in some sense.
The fact that you're saying why one of those sides is wrong should probably key you in that you haven't gotten it right.That would only be true if both sides were equally valid in some sense.
You're the one assuming there are two sides, and choosing those sides. If all your assumptions are true, then sure. But if the Aristotelian side is permitted something more flexible than pure Aristotelian logic, then it's not the open-and-shut case you present. Or maybe the major source of disagreement is actually Beysians who favor what they want to do as a player, Beysians who favor what they want to prevent as a GM, and those who try to be impartial in the conflict by using Aristotelian logic whenever possible.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. My. Gödel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some rules types read da rules with Aristotelian logic. You have a known, you can proceed from a known by rational logic from that known in perfect, non contradictory order. If evidence doesn't absolutely 100% mean that something is a certain way, it's worthless. If something isn't 100% contradictory, it means absolutely nothing.
Another type is Baysean logic: you can weigh different kinds of evidence against each other, and something can PROBABLY mean that a rule works a certain way without being 100% proof.
Baysean logic can be more than a little subjective, but Aristotelian logic will give you outright contradictory answers depending on what you use as your start point and how you plinko that through a series of if/then to get to your answer. Aristotelian logic requires a perfect system with no exceptions in order to work, and as much as i love the PF rules set, that's not what it is.
What about the substantial number of people not using any logic at all, and relying on groupthink, emotion, or what benefits them personally?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. My. Gödel.
Ah, Bach to this again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The actual motives of posters also factor into this quite a bit. Some of the motives I have seen are: attempting to sway the opinions of others, wanting to understand the written rules, trying to show the absurdity of a rule, lookimg for support for one interpration, justifying a house rule. This is just a quick list of the top of my head. These different starting points are another source of difficulty in some discussions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something seems a little...*sunglasses*...incomplete.Oh. My. Gödel.Ah, Bach to this again.
Eh, sure, but Escher jokes work better when read aloud. Case in point.
What about the substantial number of people not using any logic at all, and relying on groupthink, emotion, or what benefits them personally?
They tend to sugar coat or sell it with something else.
"It doesn't say that I can't."
The major reason the argument starts 99 percent of the time.
Would be Aristotelian
It doesn't say i can't
I can do anything unless it says i can't
Therefore I can.
If you went Bayesian
It doesn't say I can't.
That is... pretty weak evidence that I can't, since the rules don't usually specify what you can't do...
You're the one assuming there are two sides
There are others, but this one seems to be one of the big underlying ones.
and choosing those sides.
Yes.. and?
I don't know where this idea that all ideas are equally valid or just opinion came from, but it's not true.
If all your assumptions are true, then sure.
Thats a huge problem. its entirely possible for your assumptions to be true, your logic to work, and STILL be wrong because that assumes a perfectly non contradictory system.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It doesn't say that I can't."
The major reason the argument starts 99 percent of the time.
Would be Aristotelian
It doesn't say i can't
I can do anything unless it says i can't
Therefore I can.If you went Bayesian
It doesn't say I can't.
That is... pretty weak evidence that I can't, since the rules don't usually specify what you can't do...
Except that in the logic model you're blaming, the person would also have to support the premise "I can do anything unless it says I can't", and if they can't logically support that premise, they won't make the argument you described.
The issues that you're seeing and labeling as sprouting from "logic" are in truth coming from a lack of logic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I think I've figured out a the major source of rules dissagreements."
People. The answer is people.
Equivalently (by the transitive property):
"Soylent Green. The answer is Soylent Green."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I think I've figured out a the major source of rules dissagreements."
People. The answer is people.
Equivalently (by the transitive property):
"Soylent Green. The answer is Soylent Green."
Well, as a GM and as a player, I do get more disagreeable when there aren't sufficient snacks...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that the source to all of the world's problems was "Global Warming"?
Citizen, we do not use that term any more. Please use "Climate Change". Report to your local re-education center for a refresher.
(sorry, been playing too much Paranoia recently)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, sure, but Escher jokes work better when read aloud. Case in point.Something seems a little...*sunglasses*...incomplete.Oh. My. Gödel.Ah, Bach to this again.
I went to an Escher exhibit last fall. I'm still there.
It's the False Dichotomy fallacy.
It would be if i said this was the only disagreement , but I'm not so it's not.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's the False Dichotomy fallacy.It would be if i said this was the only disagreement , but I'm not so it's not.
To be fair, your pre-edit thread title said both "a" and "the", and "the" is bigger and therefore more noticeable than "a". So it really looked like you were claiming this was the only disagreement. And then you never said anything to the contrary until now.
|
I thought at a while moved on to 'climate disruption'? Or did they drop that and go back to one of the others again?I thought that the source to all of the world's problems was "Global Warming"?Citizen, we do not use that term any more. Please use "Climate Change". Report to your local re-education center for a refresher.
(sorry, been playing too much Paranoia recently)
Climate Change and Global Warming have both been in common use for decades despite fictitious accounts to the contrary. Climate Disruption IS a relatively new term, though more focused on impacts than the underlying process itself.
You're the one assuming there are two sidesThere are others, but this one seems to be one of the big underlying ones.
and choosing those sides.Yes.. and?
I don't know where this idea that all ideas are equally valid or just opinion came from, but it's not true.
If all your assumptions are true, then sure.Thats a huge problem. its entirely possible for your assumptions to be true, your logic to work, and STILL be wrong because that assumes a perfectly non contradictory system.
I'm not saying that all ideas are equally valid. I'm saying that it's unlikely that, in this case, an interpretation in which one side is clearly wrong in their approach accurately represents a major reason for rules arguments. Maybe the ones where it's just one person repeating "But where does it SAY I can't?", but most rules disagreements have Beysian reasoning made on both sides. I'm also saying that while you can dismiss pure Aristotelian logic, you can't dismiss semi-Aristotelian logic out of hand.
"It doesn't say that I can't."
The major reason the argument starts 99 percent of the time.
And then people refuse to believe me when I tell them that's not how this ruleset was intended to be used.
"It doesn't say that I can't."
The major reason the argument starts 99 percent of the time.
Would be Aristotelian
It doesn't say i can't
I can do anything unless it says i can't
Therefore I can.If you went Bayesian
It doesn't say I can't.
That is... pretty weak evidence that I can't, since the rules don't usually specify what you can't do...
I think that the difference between "the rules don't say you can" and "the rules don't say I can't" is bigger than the difference between Aristotelan logic and Bayesian inference.
Formal Aristotelian logic is much like a computer programming language, where if the language has no way of describong a particular computation, then the language cannot perform the computation. However, the volumes of Pathfinder rulebooks are not big enough to describe every situation; nevertheless, the game needs a way of adjudicating every tactic the players can invent. Saying, "The rulebook does not mention that, so you can't do it" works for a computer game, but is very disappointing for a tabletop roleplaying game.
Bayesian inference relies on an underlying model of formal logic. The logics aren't different. The Bayesian method starts with incomplete and possibly incorrect data and tries to deduce correct results from the mess.
The Aristotelian versus Bayesian contrast is essentially the Rules as Written versus the Rules as Intended contrast.
Maybe the ones where it's just one person repeating "But where does it SAY I can't?",
It seems pretty common in a lot of rules arguments.
the reflex save while paralyzed over a pit: the spell says you jump. You cannot jump, therefore you're going to fall in
the jump dc question thread: you must move 15 feet to jump a 10 foot pit, therefore the dc is 15.
source stacking just.. source stacking...
I'm also saying that while you can dismiss pure Aristotelian logic, you can't dismiss semi-Aristotelian logic out of hand.
What would semi Aristotelian logic look like that wouldn't just be Bayesian?
If I got the original post right, BNW isn't saying "in any discussion there'll be Aristotelians vs. Bayesians", but actually "there will be Aristotelians fighting each other, as well as Bayesians".
Bayseans will also be fighting each other, BUT...
Bayseans can have a discussion about rules. What do the rules say, what do the rules mean, what pieces of evidence point towards one idea or another, how good is each piece of evidence, how overpowered is something really.
Aristotelians will just wind up bolding the text over and over and repeating themselves, saying that the text literally says and quoting the text either to themselves or another Aristotelian that's started with a different piece of information to plinko through the logic. Because to an
Aristotelians their logic PROVES in a fundamental way that they're right.
Maybe the ones where it's just one person repeating "But where does it SAY I can't?",It seems pretty common in a lot of rules arguments.
the reflex save while paralyzed over a pit: the spell says you jump. You cannot jump, therefore you're going to fall in
the jump dc question thread: you must move 15 feet to jump a 10 foot pit, therefore the dc is 15.
source stacking just.. source stacking...
I'm also saying that while you can dismiss pure Aristotelian logic, you can't dismiss semi-Aristotelian logic out of hand.What would semi Aristotelian logic look like that wouldn't just be Bayesian?
Sure, but you can describe the other side of the pit argument as saying, "It says you get a reflex save, so you get a reflex save" while describing the more Bayesian argument of the other side that if you're paralyzed, it's unintuitive that you would be able to move yourself out of your square, and thus it's unlikely the intent was to allow paralyzed creatures a save. Both sides had Bayesian logic and Aristotelian (starting from a different "known" point).
Semi-Aristotelian logic would probably be a flavor of Bayesian, yes. "If a logic chain can be made from a known, then you are done, otherwise resort to Bayesian. If logic chains conflict, consider them both strong arguments."
Sure, but you can describe the other side of the pit argument as saying, "It says you get a reflex save, so you get a reflex save" while describing the more Bayesian argument of the other side that if you're paralyzed, it's unintuitive that you would be able to move yourself out of your square, and thus it's unlikely the intent was to allow paralyzed creatures a save. Both sides had Bayesian logic and Aristotelian (starting from a different "known" point).
While the Aristotelian can take either position, the Baysean cannot be broken down that far because they have to at the very least weigh both options against each other: The baysean can certainly be wrong but they have to at least consider the opposition. The Aristotelian has no need to go beyond their one argument, a Baysean does.
Ah, I see what you're saying. With the "the" gone from the title, I kind of agree. I would view that divide more as fuel than a source, though, because you still have to consider the logic chains (especially for something like this pit paralysis question). There's still the disagreement amongst how people weight those arguments, so is somebody using binary weight the source of the disagreement? But "why it continues" is still a fair view of "source".
Sometimes a simple Aristotelian approach is good, though, and keeps things short. "The rules say what you can do. The rules don't say you can do that. Therefore the answer is no, but talk to your GM." And that's met with looser arguments that ultimately don't change what the rules actually support.
My pet theory on rules disagreements goes like this:
Everyone at some point encounters a rule that feels wrong. I'll use the ability to add Dex twice to trip maneuvers that swept the forums a while ago.
At this point there are two responses I've seen. The first group will say "this is how the rules work, and that's dumb. We should change this!" The second group will say "That's dumb, that can't possibly be the correct interpretation!"
The people with the second approach will often come up with increasingly tortured interpretations of rules terms to justify why the unfortunate rules interaction has always been wrong.
Unfortunately, from my point of view, Paizo falls on the second point of view, and so we are stuck with ability-scores-as-sources-but-only-sometimes instead of erattaing the unintended ability.
Edit: There is of course a third response that muddies the waters quite a bit, it is "This is how the rules work, and I'm ok with that."
The people with the second approach will often come up with increasingly tortured interpretations of rules terms to justify why the unfortunate rules interaction has always been wrong.
This is exactly the sort of interpretation where looking at all the evidence made the answer obvious.
<---- no stacking stacking----->
Yes, the rule feels wrong. It's overpowered. It probably is <---
An ability bonus is a bonus <---------
If its not a bonus, it's an untyped source, and untyped sources don't stack <--------
The game has gone out of its way to prevent stacking <---
Stacking would severely limit increased design options, as stat swapping or adding would get absurdly overpowered with each addition <--
Source is unclear, so the source is the feat, not the ability score ->
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've figured out a major source of the disagreements on this thread.
*looks over the thread with a pair of small reading glasses*
*draws unicorns and eggplants on chalkboard, muttering mathematical formulae under his breath*
*weighs two carrots on a scale and furrows brow*
Nope. Still stumped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've figured out a major source of the disagreements on this thread.
*looks over the thread with a pair of small reading glasses*
*draws unicorns and eggplants on chalkboard, muttering mathematical formulae under his breath*
*weighs two carrots on a scale and furrows brow*
Nope. Still stumped.
You forgot to carry the pinetree
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, right! Then it's Cosmo! The answer is Cosmo. Dammit, Cosmo!
The true source of rules disagreements: words. If there were no words, there'd be no rules to disagree over. Therefore, all writing and talking needs to be dealt with. We'll get to thinking later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WE DO NOT