The Meta Fallacy

[AmberVael]

So I've been reading through the forums and keeping noting a little trend. All around me, people are using the word 'fallacy.' They attach little names to this word to specify different erroneous views that have been noted and spoken of by other forumites (and those from other forums).
Oberoni Fallacy. Stormwind Fallacy. Archangel Fallacy. Others have started cropping up and appearing...
There are other little catch phrases tossed about too, like Schroedinger's wizard (which I have used once or twice), or even labeling wizards as Batmen or using other names to refer to guides that have been posted.

Somewhere along the line, people came to the consensus that these were generally correct and right things, and then after them people started picking them up and saying they were like laws and rules of the DnD universe, until we have now, where people say "SUCH AND SUCH FALLACY!" and "BATMAN RULES" and etc.
You know, the original author of whatever text you refer to had a point. They probably even had a good point. The problem is that it's being taken too far. In summary, I offer something I said a long time ago:

"Those who quote others too often speak and think for someone else."

Come on, people. Don't just say "fallacy! BLARGH!" and run off like you're superior. Really, even if you pointed out something that's right, someone else did all the thinking for you, someone else made the point, and all you're doing is pulling someone else's work out and saying "aha! I can quote! I'm so good!" It's really not any better than copying someone else's homework.
Just because you can quote someone else's points for every argument doesn't mean you are exempt from making your OWN arguments. Just because you know of a fallacy doesn't mean you can just cite it and run away without an explanation, use of your opinion, or explaining your own thoughts on the matter.

Come on, people. Draw your own opinions. Bring out facts and proof and mesh it together with your own thoughts and ideas. Sometimes the fallacies can be appropriate, sometimes you can suggest certain things, but they shouldn't be used in the massive quantity that they are tossed out in now. Think for yourselves a bit, and explain. When you're going to quote a fallacy, ask why that fallacy fits, explain why you cite it, show how it fits and then actually give credit to the person who came up with it rather than acting smug like you came up with it yourself.

People get into a lot of discussions and arguments on this board. I'd like to see at least some of them be based around original thought...

[Gorbash]

It's kinda pointless to say everytime 'Battlefield Control and Utility Wizard, which we call Batman', since everyone knows who and what Batman is. If they don't - they will catch on.

When I first started lurking the threads, when I saw someone say Batman I had no idea what were they talking about. Quick search of the forum got me the answer I needed. Same goes with CoDzilla, Stormwind Fallacy, etc etc...

[AKA_Bait]

I'm in the middle bettween the OP and Gorbash. For some things, shorthand makes sense. Those things are reference. Using the term Batman Wizard or even Schroedinger's Wizard without explanation is fine. In fact the point of using the term, as Gorbash points out, is to keep from having to explain the term so that the argument can proceed more smoothly.

However, when it comes to fallacies, they should be explained in terms of both what they are and how they apply. This is for several reasons:

1. They may not really apply. Simply stating the fallacy doesn't mean much unless it's explained how it applies to the situation. Doing that, requires understanding what it is.

2. The person making the fallacious statement is probably unfamiliar with the fallacy. If they were, they wouldn't be making the argument would they?

3. The fallacy may be incorrect, or incorrectly interpreted from it's original intent. The Stormwind fallacy is a huge offender in this regard.

[Project_Mayhem]

Stormwinds the one about roleplaying and powergaming yeah?

[Frosty]

I, for one, don't know what any of the fallacies mean. Can someone briefly explain them to me?

[Illiterate Scribe]

This is the real list of fallacies.

Most of the other D&D related ones are either variations on those ones, or just a statement of 'nuh-uh! you're wrong', wrapped up in fancy language, and aren't really fallacies at all.

[AKA_Bait]

This is the real list of fallacies.

Most of the other D&D related ones are either variations on those ones, or just a statement of 'nuh-uh! you're wrong', wrapped up in fancy language, and aren't really fallacies at all.

And really, most of those need to be stated as well. Quite a few are simply arguments or philosophical assumptions rather than real logical fallacies. The Naturalistic Fallacy for example sometimes makes me want to dig up G.E. Moore and do mean things. Not because he's wrong, but for calling it a fallacy.

[AmberVael]

I'm in the middle between the OP and Gorbash. For some things, shorthand makes sense. Those things are reference. Using the term Batman Wizard or even Schroedinger's Wizard without explanation is fine. In fact the point of using the term, as Gorbash points out, is to keep from having to explain the term so that the argument can proceed more smoothly.

There are times and places for references, and then times and places for your own arguments. When I criticize the use of Batman wizard, for example, I point to situations where people simply yell "he's batman! Win!" and that's practically the sum of their argument.
Schroedinger's Wizard is can be used in a similar fashion, as a sort of a self made argument. Together, you can essentially have two people arguing saying only (in essence):
Batman wizards are awesome!
Schroedinger's wizard proves it wrong!
Batman!
Schroedinger!
My argument is better than your argument!
Nuh-uh! Mine can beat yours up!

And so on into depths of frustration.

I do not call for all references to cease. There is a time and a place and a good use for them. But when they become your every answer to a situation, argument, or thread, things become irritating.

[AKA_Bait]

I do not call for all references to cease. There is a time and a place and a good use for them. But when they become your every answer to a situation, argument, or thread, things become irritating.

Well if you just want people to stop arguing badly then I'm totally with you. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration though, I haven't seen very many, if any, of those type arguments around these parts (except for the Monk threads on occasion).

[bosssmiley]

Together, you can essentially have two people arguing saying only (in essence):
Batman wizards are awesome!
Schroedinger's wizard proves it wrong!
Batman!
Schroedinger!
My argument is better than your argument!
Nuh-uh! Mine can beat yours up!

And so on into depths of frustration.

For what else were PvP tourneys invented than to settle such arguments?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm affski before this thread on discussions of fallacies about play styles in a role-playing game goes meta on itself and the nested degrees of abstraction cause reality to divide by 0 and eat the boards.

("Sooooo many levels of abstraction." *rocks gently*)

[Frosty]

This is the real list of fallacies.

Most of the other D&D related ones are either variations on those ones, or just a statement of 'nuh-uh! you're wrong', wrapped up in fancy language, and aren't really fallacies at all.

Can you tell me which fallacies on these boards correspond to which fallacies over there? The link doesn't help me by itself.

[MeklorIlavator]

I, for one, don't know what any of the fallacies mean. Can someone briefly explain them to me?

Well, there's a list up there of the real fallacies, so lets move on to DnD specific:
Stromwinds Fallacy: This was created by a Wizard.com poster called Tempest Stromwind, and it simply means that there is no inherent relation between power-level and role playing ability. It was supposedly created during a time when many people on the forums were saying that there was a correlation, and thus anyone who tried to make effective characters were simply munchkins and had no ability to roleplay. Note that this does not say that all powergaming is justified or anything like that. It simply means that there is not connection between the two.

Oberoni Fallacy: This is an evolution of the Oberoni Principle, which states

Though rule 0 is the rules as written, any specific application of rule 0 is not the rules as written. This is because if it was the rules as written you would not have needed to change it with rule 0 to make it so.

Thus, even though Rule 0 may fix a problem, there is still a problem. This goes hand in hand with the perfect Dm fallacy(assuming everything is all right because a hypothetical perfect Dm could solve it).

Archangel Fallacy: I actually needed google to even know what this one is, but it seems relatively simple; Neither core-only Dm's nor Anything-goes Dm's are idiots. Some backup on this one would be helpful.

Batman Wizard: Wizard archetype popularized by Logic ninja's guide, involves being very versatile and using your abilities to hamper the opposition and then let the meatba.... valued comrades mop up/do actual damage.


Schroedinger's XXX: This doesn't apply to classes, but builds. The idea behind it is that just because you could defeat Y with abilitys T and V, that doesn't mean that you would actually have these abilities unless you knew that you would be fighting/dealing with Y. Thus, builds that really on many ill-defined, limited, and possibly mutually exclusive abilities are Schroedinger X, where X is the main class used in the build. Often used against wizards(sure, that spell is perfect, but would you actually prepare it in a normal game), or Gaimonks(yea, if you have infinite Wealth those items/wands/scrolls would allow you to do that. But all of those abilities don't fit into WBL, so which would you have on you in normal play?)

That being said, I think that you should provide evidence for claims that you make. I think a good example would be Talic in the "Beating Batman" thread, who has called the build Schroedinger's Monk, and then given his reasons why the label fits.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Well, the most common one is 'no true scotsman' - you start out by arguing one thing, subtly change what you're arguing in favour of to something that's easier to justify, and then use that conclusion to justify the truth of your initial position.

[AKA_Bait]

The Nirvanna Fallacy (That a soloution to a problem is no good because it is not perfect) and the False Dillema (the assertion that there are only two, usually extreme, positions that can be taken on a topic) are also pretty common. I try not to call people on them directly. Always seemed rude to me.

Of course,once people start tossing around the phrase fallacy all bets are off...

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Well, there's a list up there of the real fallacies, so lets move on to DnD specific:
Stromwinds Fallacy: This was created by a Wizard.com poster called Tempest Stromwind, and it simply means that there is no inherent relation between power-level and role playing ability. It was supposedly created during a time when many people on the forums were saying that there was a correlation, and thus anyone who tried to make effective characters were simply munchkins and had no ability to roleplay. Note that this does not say that all powergaming is justified or anything like that. It simply means that there is not connection between the two.

This is almost correct, but not quite.

The Stormwind Fallacy does not claim that there can be no correlation between excessive optimization and poor roleplaying, it says that there is no causality or that correlation is not perfect.

Whether there is some correlation between the two is an empirical question.

In fact, the fallacy may arise because of perceived correlation erroneously has been indicative of causation in the minds of those making the claim (logical fallacy: correlation proves causation) often called cum hoc ergo propter hoc (latin: with this, therefore because of this).

[MeklorIlavator]

Sorry, I meant what you said, I just used the wrong words.