669 "logical conclusion" fatal flaw of Roy's logic

[Alex Warlorn]

I've thought about it. And I've waited to make sure what I was writing wasn't just some knee-jerk reaction.

And Roy's argument on the idea of an existence of an afterlife in the minds of people encouraging people in light that Celia and other outsiders simply cease to exist when they die, is flawed.

Celestials have wagged war with Fiends since before mortal memory, and so have the inhabitants of Mechanicus/Nirvana with the inhabitants of Limbo, not to mention the perpetual three way civil war among the Fiends that the unholy trio has taken it upon themselves to cease long enough to finally cripple the upper planes.

And all those beings (with the exception of some Modrons who reincarnate from the energy pool) as peer the laws of the Stick-verse, cease to exist when they die. And it hasn't stopped them doing battle.

So Roy's argument is kaput. And the existence of an afterlife is not to blame. In fact, the stick verse proves just the opposite of what Roy was thinking.

I apologize again for waiting so long to make this response. But I wanted to make sure I wasn't just knee jerking when I wrote this.

[Haven]

First of all, I must admit I'm rather relieved that this wasn't a thread about someone who missed the joke.

Anyway...Roy didn't say that they wouldn't fight, only that they wouldn't do so as lightly as people on the Prime do. I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning, but it fits the observations: for instance, the rogues of the Thieves' Guild were willing to (for a surprisingly long time) charge right at an opponent who hadn't personally harmed them and who opposed someone they probably didn't particularly like. Whereas, in the examples you list, all of them are fighting for incredibly inspiring causes, the ones they are literally made out of.

Also, along those lines, I think Roy's case was more applicable to elementals, who aren't inherently tied to an ideology.

[Zerter]

We have all been there... reading OOTS, coming up with some crackpot theory and then spending days justifying it to ourselves in our heads until we can tell ourselves the theory is not only correct but we thought it out well. Finally you sum up the courage to make that post, summing up your theory and why you could not possible be wrong. With the certain knowledge you will bask in the glory of the forums as people look at you with awe and just a little bit of jealousy.

If it only was like that! The first reply explains why you were wrong using a simple argument you overlooked (in retrospective because you never looked for it in the first place, you were looking for arguments to back your theory up after all!). The next few are crackpotters of their own, looking for their own little piece of glory. You read their replies and tell yourself "What a idiots", but feel a bit of sting as the focus of attention drifts from the original topic to one liners and unpolished theories.

I feel your pain.

[Alex Warlorn]

"Anyway...Roy didn't say that they wouldn't fight, only that they wouldn't do so as lightly as people on the Prime do."

Doubt it. Modron and Formian fight just because they have different definitions of what Order IS.

"I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning, but it fits the observations: for instance, the rogues of the Thieves' Guild were willing to (for a surprisingly long time) charge right at an opponent who hadn't personally harmed them and who opposed someone they probably didn't particularly like."

Sounds like some of the lesser fiends who fight for their evil overlords most of whom they'd slit the throat of given the chance.

"Whereas, in the examples you list, all of them are fighting for incredibly inspiring causes, the ones they are literally made out of."

I thought this comic liked pointing out how outsiders could be as petty as primes. Sabine has no fear of death in her battles in spite of knowing she has only oblivion to look foreword to.

"Also, along those lines, I think Roy's case was more applicable to elementals, who aren't inherently tied to an ideology."

Water vs Fire. Wind vs Earth.

[Acero]

Celia CAN fight, and CAN cease to exist. She just doesn't want to take the risk by fighting.

'nuff said:smallamused:

[Roderick_BR]

(...)
And Roy's argument on the idea of an existence of an afterlife in the minds of people encouraging people in light that Celia and other outsiders simply cease to exist when they die, is flawed. (...)
Maybe that's just Roy's opinion, based on what is considered common-knowledge in the OotS-verse? While their existence IS 4th-wall breaking, I don't think everyone there have access to a full source of their cosmology, and are aware of how everything trully works in their reality.

So, maybe they actually cease to exist if killed? Some settings says that their being is re-absorved by their respective planes, and then re-created in some other form later. The Snail would be the only thing known thus far to break that cycle.

[spargel]

No, Roy just said there would be a lot less warfare.

So, you didn't find any fatal flaws in anything.

[Haven]

Doubt it. Modron and Formian fight just because they have different definitions of what Order IS.

Well, it's not necessarily true that that's a conflict in this setting, or that it's one Roy is aware of. But like I said, that's pretty much a religious reason for Modrons.


Sounds like some of the lesser fiends who fight for their evil overlords most of whom they'd slit the throat of given the chance.

Sure, but the lesser fiends are doing it for a chance at advancement and satisfying their ambition (which is practically what Baatezu run on), or because it's more dangerous to say no (unlike the thieves who repeatedly ran to certain death).




I thought this comic liked pointing out how outsiders could be as petty as primes. Sabine has no fear of death in her battles in spite of knowing she has only oblivion to look foreword to.

I think Sabine's behavior might be what gave Roy this idea in the first place, actually. She surrendered very quickly, twice, as soon as it seemed even possible she wasn't going to win. She probably would have surrendered in the third fight if the tables hadn't turned as quickly as they did.


Water vs Fire. Wind vs Earth.

Eh, those aren't really ideologies, and even if there were "Inner Planar Blood Wars," Celia isn't a soldier in them and that's who Roy was making his argument to.

[Bibliomancer]

Doubt it. Modron and Formian fight just because they have different definitions of what Order IS.

Actually, Formians and Modrons fight because the Formians want to expand and the Modrons want to keep the system unchanged. Both of these mindsets are part of their essence, so this conflict is as logical and as predictable as the Blood War or the Heaven v. Hell grudge match.


Sounds like some of the lesser fiends who fight for their evil overlords most of whom they'd slit the throat of given the chance.

This rank based conflict is also a natural manifestation of being evil, and the other part of the alignment dictates its forms: Devils find loopholes and file paperwork to advance themselves, Demons fight battles within their own ranks all the time and the Yugoloths...mix the other two in ways that is not sufficiently explained in any sourcebook.


I thought this comic liked pointing out how outsiders could be as petty as primes. Sabine has no fear of death in her battles in spite of knowing she has only oblivion to look foreword to.

Um...Sabine is fighting to advance Nale and increase Nale's power, while putting him in debt to her superiors, thus advancing a very small facet of the Blood War or Celestial/Fiend War. This behavior is thus perfectly predictable and supersedes any peaceful tendencies relating too not having an afterlife. Roy's point was primarily aimed at elementals, who are depicted as relatively conflict free in most sourcebooks. Even if there is conflict, it is less focused on death. For example, the LE efreet only enslave beings for a certain amount of time based on the money they owe.


Water vs Fire. Wind vs Earth.

It is possible that there were conflicts of this nature in the past, but Races of the Wild implies that the conflict is a smoldering rivalry, nothing more. This is supported by the fact that the Raptorans (who gained the ability to fly by pledging allegiance to the Wind Lords) have not been called to fight for their masters once in the millennia since the pact was forged.

Something else to keep in mind was that Roy's logic contianed overtones of irony when viewed from our perspective, because we know that our world is quite violent without a guaranteed afterlife. However, within the context of the Stickverse, his conclusions were accurate, especially since the Fiends seem to be more willing to compromise than in the Greyhawk Campaign Setting.

[waterpenguin43]

Water vs Fire. Wind vs Earth.

No, elemental beings understand the need for balance, and don't have blood wars to annihilate there opposite, they just dissaprove of the nature of there opposites and don't like the opposite habitat.

[Thanatosia]

I think in Ootsverse Outer plane outsiders follow different rules then the inner plane outsiders. For example, Undead Celestials (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

[Sanguine]

I think in Ootsverse Outer plane outsiders follow different rules then the inner plane outsiders. For example, Xykon was able to raise dead celestials as Undead.

This sounds familiar but I can't remember where could you point me to the strip he does this in?

Edit:Ninja Edit never had that happen before.

[Thanatosia]

haha, sorry, I went back to add the strip immediately after posting it.

[derfenrirwolv]

A logical conclusions and a correct one aren't the same.

[PId6]

A logical conclusions and a correct one aren't the same.
Especially when it comes to human behavior.

[Porthos]

A logical conclusions and a correct one aren't the same.

As a wise philospher once said:

"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority." :smallcool:

Besides, why people actually expect Roy to be an Infallible Expert on philosophy still boggles my mind. Especially when he gave the matter all of a few minutes thought. :smalltongue:

[Haven]

I think in Ootsverse Outer plane outsiders follow different rules then the inner plane outsiders. For example, Undead Celestials (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

I could've sworn there was some Word of God somewhere that those were just winged humans, not actual celestials. Which makes sense considering how easily they went down.

But in Start of Darkness, Xykon kils several celestials, and their bodies just disappear, so that example doesn't necessarily apply to all.

[spargel]

As a wise philospher once said:

"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority." :smallcool:


That philosopher doesn't sound wise to me.

[Tijne]

A logical conclusions and a correct one aren't the same.
Every logical conclusions is correct.
Maybe you are confusing false or moral logic with actual logic. .. which is what the person of the below quote may have been refering too;
[ "Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority." ; Doctor Who, in "The Wheel in Space". ]; except being a philospher, they don't need to clarify themselves or communicate properly so it sounds stranger than it's meaning; and like all things that aren't clarified or communicated properly, it can be repeatedly misinterpeted, misquoted, and twisted continously*. =/.

*Which does not guarantee that I even have the faintest of what heck the guy was meaning when he said/wrote it."

[Porthos]

That philosopher doesn't sound wise to me.

You want to argue with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(Doctor_Who)), be my guest.

But he was right, you know. :smalltongue: Just because one can make an logical argument about something, doesn't actually mean they'll be correct about the subject.

Unless said person is: Infinitely Wise, Infinitely Smart, and can see Infinite Possiblities.

And even then, that person only has a 50/50 shot of being right. :smalltongue:

[Porthos]

Every logical conclusions is correct.

Not if they're based on faulty premises. :smallsmile:

You see, EVERY logic problem (especially when trying to apply logic to the "real world") is based on, at some level, certain presumtions. Every. Darn. One. Call them First Principles. Now you can set up a wonderful logical chain of arguments that are perfectly and absolutely correct. But if your postulates that form the base of the pyramid are faulty (or even worse, the presumptions that are inherently built into certain logical connections), then the whole stack comes crumbling down..

Hence "all logic does is enables one to be wrong with authority". You've set up a very convincing argument (authority) that might be hoplessly wrong. Either because you overlooked something and didn't account for it in your chain of reasoning, or because you were mistaken about certain conditions.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Course the context of the quote (a base of logicians under seige from a ruthless implacable horde of cyborgs) should be taken into account as well. :smalltongue: Basically all The Doctor was saying is, "Just because you arrived at a conclusion via logic, don't expect it to always be right".

An argument that was made a few times, I believe, in another SF show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek). At least as memory serves. :smallamused:

[WristWatchMafia]

Anyway...Roy didn't say that they wouldn't fight, only that they wouldn't do so as lightly as people on the Prime do.

If plane-wide rampaging demons eviscerating and maiming isn't fighting as hard as people on the prime material, what the heck is?
Or are they not really fighting as harder because the sun's in there eye so it doesn't count or they pet kittens or something.

Isn't that just a no true scotsman fallacy?




Also, along those lines, I think Roy's case was more applicable to elementals, who aren't inherently tied to an ideology.

Generally elementals don't get along with anyone when I summon them. :smallbiggrin:



I feel your pain.

I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for your suffering (http://www.wordlstiniestviolin.com/).

Look at me go.
Vroom Curtis :smalltongue:

[Haven]

If plane-wide rampaging demons eviscerating and maiming isn't fighting as hard as people on the prime material, what the heck is?
Or are they not really fighting as harder because the sun's in there eye so it doesn't count or they pet kittens or something.

Isn't that just a no true scotsman fallacy?

...Did you quote me by mistake? Because this doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Because I didn't say they wouldn't fight hard, just that they wouldn't fight at all unless they had a really good reason. (By Roy's reasoning, anyway, which I think mostly holds up.)

[spargel]

You want to argue with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(Doctor_Who)), be my guest.

But he was right, you know. :smalltongue: Just because one can make an logical argument about something, doesn't actually mean they'll be correct about the subject.


"all logic does is enables one to be wrong with authority"
"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

The way these are worded makes it sound like logic will always give you the wrong conclusion. He should have said something like "Logic lets you be wrong with authority if you don't have the correct premises." Or at least remove the word "merely".



Unless said person is: Infinitely Wise, Infinitely Smart, and can see Infinite Possiblities.

And even then, that person only has a 50/50 shot of being right. :smalltongue:

Infinite knowledge would probably work.

[Optimystik]

"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority." :smallcool:

Ironically, his statement is itself based on a faulty premise: that all logical arguments are based on faulty premises. :smalltongue:


Besides, why people actually expect Roy to be an Infallible Expert on philosophy still boggles my mind. Especially when he gave the matter all of a few minutes thought. :smalltongue:

I agree completely with this. For a meatshield, that was pretty damn deep, cut him some slack!

[Porthos]

The way these are worded makes it sound like logic will always give you the wrong conclusion. He should have said something like "Logic lets you be wrong with authority if you don't have the correct premises." Or at least remove the word "merely".

Don't take things so literally. :smalltongue:

As I said before, context matters. And in this context, the author of the quote was disabusing someone who believed in the wonders and universal applicability of logic.

And as for why I didn't bring up that context... "Never explain the joke while your telling it." :smallbiggrin: That is, I was being a bit (i.e. a lot) sarcastic. Whenever I see a group of people abusing logic, or discussing the philosophy/mechanics of logic in ways that I think miss the mark, I feel a tremendous urge to engage in a little bit of pushback.

It just so happens that that quote is the perfect pushback for this situation. Which is why I love it to pieces. :smalltongue:

Look, logic is a tool. And like all tools, it can work wonders when it is used correctly and in the right situation. However, like all tools, logic has its drawbacks and its limitations. Quite frankly there are times when people will tie themselves up in logical knots or misinterpret situations through faulty logic, when if they had just looked at situation with a bit of common sense, then they wouldn't have come to the wrong conclusion. And Roy in #669 serves as a perfect example of my last statement (ignoring for the moment that it was intentional irony on the part of the writer).

Or to put it another way, sometimes gut feelings are more correct than logical conclusions. And, of course, sometimes logic can't answer a question. For instance, there is literally a zero percent chance that I could logically come up with an answer on who will be president in 2020. Heck, I'd have only a small percentage of chance of coming with the correct answer logically about which party will control the WH in 2020. Sure, I have a 50/50 shot of being right in the latter case. But my reasons would probably be faulty. Unless I went with the most broad reasons possible.

So what is this post saying? This post is saying that logic is fine as far as it goes. But (to pick a logical argument at random) don't be so wedded to Occam's Razor that you cut your own throat with it. :smalltongue:


Ironically, his statement is itself based on a faulty premise: that all logical arguments are based on faulty premises. :smalltongue:

If he had really intended it to cover all logical arguments, I would agree with you. But since he was being a tad sarcastic (and trying to wake someone up to the dangers of the "real world") I don't think he exactly meant it that way.

But I suspect you already knew that. :smalltongue:

[multilis]

Meanwhile and far away, an elf explains to his girlfriend that the cause of war is greed and other selfishness. Because of the afterlife that rewards virtue, pursuing these causes is actually known to be foolish.

Meanwhile outsiders don't have same hope of afterlife so they wage relentless war, such as fiend wars and the celestials who went into X's dungeon.

So the "logical conclusion" the elf explains is that belief in afterlife reduces war.

[multilis]

A small hut in the middle of a vast wilderness, a church of snarl guru explains to his well endowed female followers/lovers that order is the cause of war. Without order and laws there would be no structure to fight for and everyone would live in peace.

Meanwhile in a guard tower a distance away, the head officer explains to his troops how they are the first line of defence against the violent anarchists who threaten war, while law and structure bring peace and security.

[spargel]

Don't take things so literally. :smalltongue:

As I said before, context matters. And in this context, the author of the quote was disabusing someone who believed in the wonders and universal applicability of logic.

And as for why I didn't bring up that context... "Never explain the joke while your telling it." :smallbiggrin: That is, I was being a bit (i.e. a lot) sarcastic. Whenever I see a group of people abusing logic, or discussing the philosophy/mechanics of logic in ways that I think miss the mark, I feel a tremendous urge to engage in a little bit of pushback.

It just so happens that that quote is the perfect pushback for this situation. Which is why I love it to pieces. :smalltongue:


I know how you feel.



Look, logic is a tool. And like all tools, it can work wonders when it is used correctly and in the right situation. However, like all tools, logic has its drawbacks and its limitations. Quite frankly there are times when people will tie themselves up in logical knots or misinterpret situations through faulty logic, when if they had just looked at situation with a bit of common sense, then they wouldn't have come to the wrong conclusion. And Roy in #669 serves as a perfect example of my last statement (ignoring for the moment that it was intentional irony on the part of the writer).


He could be correct, depending on how accurate his perception of other stickverse people is. He basically said that if mortals weren't sure that they would go to an afterlife when they died, there would be a lot less warfare. We, and Roy, don't really have enough information about the OOTS world to know how true that statement would be.



Or to put it another way, sometimes gut feelings are more correct than logical conclusions. And, of course, sometimes logic can't answer a question. For instance, there is literally a zero percent chance that I could logically come up with an answer on who will be president in 2020. Heck, I'd have only a small percentage of chance of coming with the correct answer logically about which party will control the WH in 2020. Sure, I have a 50/50 shot of being right in the latter case. But my reasons would probably be faulty. Unless I went with the most broad reasons possible.


That's because you don't have enough information.



If he had really intended it to cover all logical arguments, I would agree with you. But since he was being a tad sarcastic (and trying to wake someone up to the dangers of the "real world") I don't think he exactly meant it that way.

But I suspect you already knew that. :smalltongue:


I never actually watched that show, so that's how he sounded to me.

[Optimystik]

That's because you don't have enough information.

That was Porthos' point; not having enough information is not a flaw of logic.

While we're on the subject...


And all those beings (with the exception of some Modrons who reincarnate from the energy pool) as peer the laws of the Stick-verse, cease to exist when they die. And it hasn't stopped them doing battle.

This argument is also lacking information. Outsiders only cease to exist if destroyed on their plane of origin (i.e. when they have the [Native] subtype.) For example, if you kill a demon anywhere else but in the Abyss, they reform back home some time (much) later.

Logically, any outsider waging war as per Roy's argument would be doing so in their enemy's home plane or a neutral battlefield of some kind, not at home, so they have the same assurance of rebirth that a mortal would. And also logically, an outsider battling at home would be doing so to protect their domain, and wouldn't care if they died in its defense.

Haley comments on the process (and the confusion it causes) in this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)

[WristWatchMafia]

Because I didn't say they wouldn't fight hard, just that they wouldn't fight at all unless they had a really good reason. (By Roy's reasoning, anyway, which I think mostly holds up.)

Yes, define a good reason.

[Ehra]

Yes, define a good reason.

Battling living incarnations of the forces antithesis of those that make up your very being sound like a good reason to me. These are beings of pure concentrated good/law battling beings of absolute evil/chaos. One's very existence is in opposition of the other.

[Alex Warlorn]

That was Porthos' point; not having enough information is not a flaw of logic.

While we're on the subject...



This argument is also lacking information. Outsiders only cease to exist if destroyed on their plane of origin (i.e. when they have the [Native] subtype.) For example, if you kill a demon anywhere else but in the Abyss, they reform back home some time (much) later.

Logically, any outsider waging war as per Roy's argument would be doing so in their enemy's home plane or a neutral battlefield of some kind, not at home, so they have the same assurance of rebirth that a mortal would. And also logically, an outsider battling at home would be doing so to protect their domain, and wouldn't care if they died in its defense.

Haley comments on the process (and the confusion it causes) in this strip. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)


I think our resident Air outsider said that if she died ANYWHERE she ceases to exist, and her consciousness ceases to be, and her spiritual essence is assimilated back into the home plane of reality. In my campaign I do indeed use the rule that an outsider can only be erased from existence on their own reality (this is why non-magical or non-awakened animals can't be resurrected in my campaign world).

But in the stickverse, and in the later official D&D rule set, it doesn't quite work like that.