472 réponses à ce sujet

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Arguments containing fallacies can still reach correct conclusions!

It's a fallacy fallacy to claim otherwise!

/throws wrench into discussion

lol

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Goddess Of Boobs wrote...

Because you don't buy a car without test driving it. Sure it's not as extreme but it's a stupid decision. But anyway the point is I shouldn't have to pre-order to get A WHOLE CHARACTER.

Entitlement issues!

"Gimmie it because I want it!"    You don't deserve content that was designed from the start to be extra. 

The car example fails, as usual.  The better example is MP3 players and digital cameras come from the same factory.  One was designed for one job, one was designed for another.  The same factory makes them, but you don't deserve one because you bought the other, or because you bought one last year.

Strawman argument!

[JrayM16]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Arguments containing fallacies can still reach correct conclusions!

It's a fallacy fallacy to claim otherwise!

/throws wrench into discussion

That post in and of itself was a fallacy fallacy.  *head spins*

[metal_dawn]

Ffs. I wish "Critical thinking" courses had never entered into university curriculum. The excessive pointing out of "fallacies" is reaching pop culture status. I bet you all feel so darrrrn smart.Cudos on the regurgitated book smarts.

Modifié par metal_dawn, 29 octobre 2010 - 12:09 .

[Leonia]

metal_dawn wrote...

Ffs. I wish "Critical thinking" courses had never entered into university curriculum. The excessive pointing out of "fallacies" is reaching pop culture status. I bet you all feel so darrrrn smart.Cudos on the regurgitated book smarts.

Um? If anything universities should support more critical thinking courses so more human beings are taught how to think outside the box. If we all were a little more creative in our thinking, we wouldn't have such mundane debates where fallacies are so prevalent. I mean, look up the definition of fallacy if the concept confuses you because when one hopes to win an argument they shouldn't be using tactics based on fallacy.

But if you want everyone to be pretty boring and straightforward, sure take critical thinking out of the equation. While you're at it, let's all go back to being a soup of primordial goo instead complex organisms with functioning brains. That way we can't argue at all!

[metal_dawn]

leonia42 wrote...

metal_dawn wrote...

Ffs. I wish "Critical thinking" courses had never entered into university curriculum. The excessive pointing out of "fallacies" is reaching pop culture status. I bet you all feel so darrrrn smart.Cudos on the regurgitated book smarts.

Um? If anything universities should support more critical thinking courses so more human beings are taught how to think outside the box. If we all were a little more creative in our thinking, we wouldn't have such mundane debates where fallacies are so prevalent. I mean, look up the definition of fallacy if the concept confuses you because when one hopes to win an argument they shouldn't be using tactics based on fallacy.

But if you want everyone to be pretty boring and straightforward, sure take critical thinking out of the equation. While you're at it, let's all go back to being a soup of primordial goo instead complex organisms with functioning brains. That way we can't argue at all!

People can think for themselves. I took the course, I am aware of the subject matter. The thing about critical thinking courses is, they should not be about listening and then pointing out logical fallacies in peoples arguments by calling them by name, but about listening to how things are presented, recognizing when a logical fallacy has been presented and countering with an argument. Not saying, AhA! THat's a strawman, I win!

The problem is the critical thinking course material fails. People are not taught to think in school. They are taught to memorize and regurgitate that knowledge at a later time.

Modifié par metal_dawn, 29 octobre 2010 - 12:21 .

[termokanden]

I can think of worse things than basic logic reaching pop culture status.



I can also think of many things that are more likely to happen. Such as one person winning the lottery ten times in a row and then being struck by lightning... and surviving it.

[metal_dawn]

termokanden wrote...

I can think of worse things than basic logic reaching pop culture status.

I can also think of many things that are more likely to happen. Such as one person winning the lottery ten times in a row and then being struck by lightning... and surviving it.

My gripe is not with the fact that the knowledge exists, but with how it is being used by those who posess it.

[termokanden]

Well I couldn't agree more about that.

[Leonia]

metal_dawn wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

metal_dawn wrote...

Ffs. I wish "Critical thinking" courses had never entered into university curriculum. The excessive pointing out of "fallacies" is reaching pop culture status. I bet you all feel so darrrrn smart.Cudos on the regurgitated book smarts.

Um? If anything universities should support more critical thinking courses so more human beings are taught how to think outside the box. If we all were a little more creative in our thinking, we wouldn't have such mundane debates where fallacies are so prevalent. I mean, look up the definition of fallacy if the concept confuses you because when one hopes to win an argument they shouldn't be using tactics based on fallacy.

But if you want everyone to be pretty boring and straightforward, sure take critical thinking out of the equation. While you're at it, let's all go back to being a soup of primordial goo instead complex organisms with functioning brains. That way we can't argue at all!

People can think for themselves. I took the course, I am aware of the subject matter. The thing about critical thinking courses is, they should not be about listening and then pointing out logical fallacies in peoples arguments by calling them by name, but about listening to how things are presented, recognizing when a logical fallacy has been presented and countering with an argument. Not saying, AhA! THat's a strawman, I win!

The problem is the critical thinking course material fails. People are not taught to think in school. They are taught to memorize and regurgitate that knowledge at a later time.

So your solution is to keep dumbing down the masses by revoking their chance to learn what fallacies even are or how to avoid them? People don't think very well on their own, in general, unless they are challenged to do so.

I've never had a single "critical-thinking" course in my life but as a scientist I learned how 1-dimensional thinking is a great way to never achieve anything. If people were forced to take such courses as part of a normal curriculum, at least it would give them an opportunity they never had. Not everyone learns the skills simply by taking a few science courses (and most non-science majors wouldn't have any need to do that).

There's probably a lot of reasons that contribute to the "dumbing down" of society, a lot of probably education-related, but taking away opportunities isn't going to help people out. It's not the courses themselves that are bad, it is how they are taught or how the students respond to them (because they are so used to the "pass this exam to move on" syndrome, medical school is a scary place full of people who know a lot of textbook-knowledge and not a lot of real-world knowledge).

I'm definitely pro-critical thinking. There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour in this thread regarding fallacies and the art of argument, mostly because the posters involved have argued over many things before and are quite used to one another and how each approaches these sorts of discussions. It's not really indicative of a "I call fallacy, I win!" mentality.

EDIT: Sorry for the poor grammar, I'll edit this post more when I wake up later. The meaning should still be clear, however.

Modifié par leonia42, 29 octobre 2010 - 12:30 .

[Maconbar]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Arkynomicon]

Chris Priestly wrote...

So if you didn't like us giving you free content for pre-ordering, what do you think of our Free Hindsight belt from Penny Arcade?

Seems nice.

Shame I can't seem to use it because I have a PS3.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Goddess Of Boobs wrote...

Because you don't buy a car without test driving it. Sure it's not as extreme but it's a stupid decision. But anyway the point is I shouldn't have to pre-order to get A WHOLE CHARACTER.

Entitlement issues!

"Gimmie it because I want it!"    You don't deserve content that was designed from the start to be extra. 

The car example fails, as usual.  The better example is MP3 players and digital cameras come from the same factory.  One was designed for one job, one was designed for another.  The same factory makes them, but you don't deserve one because you bought the other, or because you bought one last year.

Strawman argument!

Only if I misrepresent what the person was after (gimmie free cookie!), which I didn't.  :P:P

[FellowerOfOdin]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

you are obviously not getting the notion of how much DLC is abused by game companies. 5 years ago the average shooter would release 15-20 maps on day one, and we would pay the exact retail price for the full game. Nowaways they release with 6 maps and sell the rest as DLC. along with map packs, weapons, perk packs....

DLC is just an excuse to ommit finished content and to sell as profit. Content that should have been released on day one for the paying customers of EA

Unlike most hypocrits in this thread who whine and spam like there was no tomorrow (o hai NK) yet will buy the game anyway, I am just realistic. 

Bioware is run by EA now.

EA is well-known for bad policies, both customer-wise (rip-off policy, e.g. Sims, Sports series) and developer-wise ("Okay guys, finish that C&C but you'll get fired anyway buahahaha!").

Bioware is well-known for being a Triple-A-developer (Awakening left aside) and is the leading RPG company on the market.

You will still get a Triple-A game yet it will be heavily influenced by EA's will to maximize profit and this means having a lot of DLC content that might be taken out from a game.

So, what's the deal? You know what you will get, nobody lied to you, in the contrary, everyone told you exactly what you will get and what will happen with future DLCs. 

This is how the gaming market works nowadays. It's a DLC avalanche and it takes more than very few complaints by individual (potential) customers to stop the avalanche - right now, you can say that you are not okay with how the market works, yet you will just be run over and left in the dust. I can't go out there, claim that capitalism is bad and suddenly, the whole world changes and denies capitalism. That's not how real life and business alike work.

It's not about what a few people think, it's only about how well a game sales. EA could not care less about a few people complaining about free DLC stuff when there are millions still buying the game. And you know what? There WILL be millions buying DA2 because it will be a great game (it's a Bioware game) and there will be a few people complaining about DLC.

So what? From a realistic point of view, nobody will care for those people. You are free to share your opinion but honestly, it's pretty worthless. Yes, a lot of people here at the forums disagree with how DLC thing runs. So what?

First of all, most people here at the forums, even those who currently complain about the DLC thing will buy the game anyway. Result: nobody cares, a sold game is a sold game, money is money, your opinion is less important. A lot less important actually.

Secondly, most people who buy the game do not even post at the forums. Actually, how many people post here? 5%? Even less?

And thirdly, in the end, there are only so few people who will not buy the game because of the way EA sells the DLC. Very few people. Will they matter? No. The game will sell millions of copies and nobody will care for your "I am not ok with this yo" opinion.

This actually sounds extremely harsh, yet it's how the video game market works. If you are ok with that, you buy the game. If you aren't, either don't buy the game or complain as much as you want, just get realistic and be honest with yourself: you won't change the world. You are just another 50$ among millions of $$$ and your opinion matters as much as the opinion of all other customers. 

Hard facts hurt, sorry to pop your bubble guys but some people in this thread are just ridiculous.

[Taura-Tierno]

... double post. 

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Taura-Tierno]

[quote]FellowerOfOdin wrote...
First of all, most people here at the forums, even those who currently complain about the DLC thing will buy the game anyway. Result: nobody cares, a sold game is a sold game, money is money, your opinion is less important. A lot less important actually.
/.../
This actually sounds extremely harsh, yet it's how the video game market works. If you are ok with that, you buy the game. If you aren't, either don't buy the game or complain as much as you want, just get realistic and be honest with yourself: you won't change the world. You are just another 50$ among millions of $$$ and your opinion matters as much as the opinion of all other customers.
[/quote]

You can buy the game and be opposed to DLC; just don't buy DLC. Many people buying the game does not mean that many people will buy the DLC, so it's still entirely possible to complain about the DLC while buying the game. If you can convince enough people NOT to buy DLC, that would send the signal that DLC is undesirable, and if people don't buy it, it probably won't be implemented anymore.

Also, why would the opinion that DLC is bad be unimportant? If that opinion does not matter because we, on the boards, are such a small part of the target group, then NONE of our opinions, on any subject, matter. By that argument, we shouldn't discuss anything.

[/quote]

[FellowerOfOdin]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

You can buy the game and be opposed to DLC; just don't buy DLC. Many people buying the game does not mean that many people will buy the DLC, so it's still entirely possible to complain about the DLC while buying the game. If you can convince enough people NOT to buy DLC, that would send the signal that DLC is undesirable, and if people don't buy it, it probably won't be implemented anymore.

Also, why would the opinion that DLC is bad be unimportant? If that opinion does not matter because we, on the boards, are such a small part of the target group, then NONE of our opinions, on any subject, matter. By that argument, we shouldn't discuss anything.

I was talking of all those people complaining about the DLC you get with pre-ordering the game

[Maria Caliban]

JrayM16 wrote...

On another note, I was looking through the fallacies site(it's been a few years since my course in argument) and I realized that basically everything on this forum applies to logical fallacy.  Now I'm all depressed.

Fallacies represent, to some people, 'rules' of conversations even though they were never intended to apply to 90% of human interaction. It's far simpler and easier to point out someone's fallacy than it is to understand their viewpoint, effectively communicate one's own, and come to mutual agreement. Especially as humans and human thought, feelings, and belief are messy while logic is very clean.

The simple phrase 'Smoking cigarettes is bad for your health because the Surgeon General says it causes lung, throat, and mouth cancer' is a fallacy even though the majority of people would accept it as a sound argument.

Likewise, it's a sound argument to say that a known child molester should not handle child endangerment laws, that if the sun has risen every day of human history that it will probably rise today, and if you liked Dragon Age: Origins, you will probably find something to like in Dragon Age 2 as it's developed by the same people.

Yet, these all have logical fallacies.

This is because logic is a system designed for a specific purpose. It's intended to strip down every statement and discussion of things like common sense, experience, and basic human psychology, and have them function purely within the realm of logic.

Being unhappy that this conversation has tons of fallacies is like being unhappy that you can't do push-ups with your tongue. It's a specialized organ that does what it's developed for quite well, but 'push-ups' is not one of those function. Likewise, you have several limbs in place that are useful for push-ups, even if you think the tongue is inherently superior to one's hands and arms.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 octobre 2010 - 03:37 .

[Eldragon]

Since you can't return a retail game to the store, and you can't return DLC, there is really very little difference between the two. If you are concerned about DLC quality, wait for reviews. Personally I have skipped DLC for most games because A) The DLC comes out after I completed the game The Reviews indicate the DLC is not up to the same standard as the original. C) The DLC is too short. I want full blown expansions that develop a story, not 2 hours of hack/slash and 5 minutes of story development.

[Eldragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...
<Excellent point on the use of Fallacies on every day conversation>

To offer a counter point, the advantage of pointing out glaring fallacies in an argument is that it helps show the flaw in an argument. Hopefully the person in question will refrain from using such broken logic in the future. In other words, it encourages people to use sound logic when forming their opinions. Its impossible to have intelligent discourse with someone who sees insults and stawmen as valid arguments.

[AlanC9]

AdamNW wrote...

The fact that the list of bonuses from pre-order specifically mentions only one exclusive feature.

Hint: It's not the character.

Also note that the DAO special edition's bonus list was written the same way. Shale wasn't mentioned as being exclusive to that edition. And of course, Shale.... wasn't exclusive.

Does anyone remember if we had the same level of hysteria back then that we have now?

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Likewise, it's a sound argument to say that a known child molester should not handle child endangerment laws, that if the sun has risen every day of human history that it will probably rise today, and if you liked Dragon Age: Origins, you will probably find something to like in Dragon Age 2 as it's developed by the same people. 

Yet, these all have logical fallacies.

What's the fallacy in the two probability-based arguments?

[Dave of Canada]

AlanC9 wrote...

Does anyone remember if we had the same level of hysteria back then that we have now?

A little of it but not as much, less entitlement.

[AlanC9]

And speaking of fallacies....

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
You will still get a Triple-A game yet it will be heavily influenced by EA's will to maximize profit and this means having a lot of DLC content that might be taken out from a game.

This simply does not follow. As a project management matter it makes no sense to pull content out of the game for DLC rather than develop the DLC on a separate track; it's all cost and no benefit to the developer and publisher.

Unless the argument is that having DLC available makes gamers willing to accept shorter main games for the same price. It's not inconceivable, but do you have any evidence of this? Note that even if Bio/EA suddenly decided halfway through development that DA2 could be shorter than they had planned, they would still have had a plan for Day 1 DLC at that moment. Though I suppose they theoretically could pull some content and make it Day 1 DLC while keeping whatever had been planned for Day 1 DLC as a future paid DLC. Except for the management and QA issues, of course.

No objection to the general argument from me.

[FellowerOfOdin]

AlanC9 wrote...
This simply does not follow. As a project management matter it makes no sense to pull content out of the game for DLC rather than develop the DLC on a separate track; it's all cost and no benefit to the developer and publisher.

It makes a lot of sense actually as promoting it to everyone who preorders will make more people pre-order the game - great if you'd expect some people not to buy it because of radical changes. Additional stuff will not make anyone buy the game if he did not plan to buy it anyway, it is supposed to convince those who might not buy it. And since EA/Bioware currently have a close-to-0 info policy...this might be a good idea. Not everyone gew up with the awesome Baldur's Gate series