Mini 876 - Tree Stump II [Day None] (Abandoned)

[Mr.Jester]

/confirm

[Mr.Jester]

I think a little principle of charity is in order on the chinaman wagon. I think it is reasonable to assume that by the principle of charity, we assume that scum are logical. So considering the case of the wagon, you have two cases here. Either he is scum or he isn't and was joking (albeit a very poor joke).

If he were scum, then his move would be a highly illogical one. But by assumption, we assert that scum are logical. So based purely on the premises that the wagon is built on, it is more reasonable to assume for now that he was joking and has a poor sense of humour. However, based on his future actions, this act could serve to support his lynch later on. As for now it isn't conclusive.

Considering, how unreasonable this case is, its odd that so many people are on this wagon.

[Mr.Jester]

Unvote

Vote: Mr.Jester

Is the case unreasonable or is inconclusive? Surely those aren't the same thing to you.

Of course they are not the same thing. Just to be clear let me define what I mean by what I mean by both.

Unreasonable: is an evaluation of the cogency of an argument. i.e given (A,B,C) => D. The argument (A,B,C)=> D is not cogent or reasonable, in other words poor. We can do this on several reasons, ie rejection of premises, relevance and grounds.

Conclusive: Given a set of arguments (A,B,C). The truth of all the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, in other words, that the argument is "valid". An argument being inconclusive is the negation of this. it, the truth of all the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.


As for your vote, you have given no justification or reasoning. That's twice you've done this already in a game that's 3 pages long.

[Mr.Jester]

Unvote

Vote: Mr.Jester

Is the case unreasonable or is inconclusive? Surely those aren't the same thing to you.

Of course they are not the same thing. Just to be clear let me define what I mean by what I mean by both.

Unreasonable: is an evaluation of the cogency of an argument. i.e given (A,B,C) => D. The argument (A,B,C)=> D is not cogent or reasonable, in other words poor. We can do this on several reasons, ie rejection of premises, relevance and grounds.

Conclusive: Given a set of arguments (A,B,C). The truth of all the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, in other words, that the argument is "valid". An argument being inconclusive is the negation of this. it, the truth of all the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.


As for your vote, you have given no justification or reasoning. That's twice you've done this already in a game that's 3 pages long.

Twice? What was the first time? My vote for Cobalt? Because surely you don't mean my vote for Chinaman. Did you miss post 45? I would expect someone weighing in and commenting on the oddness of the Chinaman wagon to pay more attention to me than that.

As for my case against you that caused my vote:

If you think the argument that Chinaman's scumclaim makes him scummy is unreasonable, why in the world would you say this:

However, based on his future actions, this act could serve to support his lynch later on. As for now it isn't conclusive.

What future actions did you have in mind? You were practically arguing that it was a town tell (which I have no problem with, by the way), and here you are saying "hey, maybe if Chinaman gets into trouble we can remember this and lynch him".

What?

There's no conflict between an argument being unreasonable and inconclusive, but it seems off to say an argument is inconclusive when you are also saying it is unreasonable, because the second one is much stronger.

I think I'm being ambiguous on 2 counts.

1. By justification or reasoning, I mean a cogent argument that Chinaman is scum. Post 45, is in no way any sort of cogent argument. The argument that chinaman shrugging off his claim as a joke implies that he is scum is completely unreasonable.

2. You are correct in finding a flaw in my wording. That should read "for not it is unreasonable" not "conclusive", that was ambiguous english on my part. But yes, for now the argument is not persuasive. However, if that premise is supported by other premises in the future then it could turn into a cogent argument.

[Mr.Jester]

"No justification or reasoning" is a bogus way to describe an argument just because you don't agree with it.

False.

I can respect arguments that are reasonable yet don't persuade me. For example, I am pro Choice. However, I can certainly respect the Pro Life argument as being reasonable and cogent but I am not persuaded by it.

On the other hand, I can dismiss poor arguments on the basis that the argument itself if poor. Take your argument, you claim that because he shrugs of his comment as a joke he must be scum.

If a person shrugs of a comment as a joke imply they are scum. As I said before, logically, we must assume that Chinaman was joking because if we do not then we assume illogical scum, which is illogical. If a comment is a joke, then he can claim that it is a joke (ie, If A, then A). So then if you know he was joking and claims it is a joke, which is true, that certainly does not imply that he is scum. Logically, the point to debate here is that whether we can conclude that he was in fact joking, because if you assume that he was joking, then of course he can claim it is a joke, from which it follows that your argument is not cogent.