Erfworld 152 - tBfGK - 139

[Jon Pander]

You forgot to mention that Greens breathe a blast of wind:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html

Well... while not multiple, you have proven your point that it's 'conceivable' that it could be foolamancy, though I doubt it since Jack did not regain his 'compos' until several panels after the Van De Graaf.

Still... nice eye on the call. Impressed am I.

[Jon Pander]

{Scrubbed}

[dr pepper]

Way back when, there was a guy named Cesare Borgia. I might misspell the name, but the point is clear. Incidentally, he was the guy that Machiavelli based 'Il Principe' on.

Yeah, i mentioned him back when Caesar first appeared. But someone else imformed me that it was a more complex reference than that because "Caesar" and "Borgata" are the names of two casinos.

[Justyn]

It was Cash Cab. I don't know if there's an American version: this one's from Toronto.

It's a little late, but yes, there is an American version: it's set in New York City.

We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

Yes, we have. Take a look at the blue dwagon in panel five on the linked page. It also shows red, brown, pink and yellow dwagons using their breath weapons (okay, the yellow's isn't a "breath" weapon.) Purples are shown using their sonic attack here (panel 8), and greens are shown using their gas breath in panel 10.

[Goshen]

Just saw this, finally. Great page.

Okay, that does it. People can go on about how hot Wanda is and the Fox-mud redhead. My crush is on Vinnie.

[Fjolnir]

ok, we know crap exists in erfworld, and we know that most biological units perform this action I doubt the ball of crap from the yellow dragon's rear end is it's special weapon...

[Kreistor]

Two propositions are here:
Supernatural comes from our world--so you're saying that the idea of things being supernatural comes from our world and not from a world in which marshmallow peeps have a high flying movement score. Okay, I can accept that.

Magic is inherently supernatural (in our world)--this proposition depends upon context, especially cultural context, locale, language, and numerous other factors. The only way it can be true is to narrowly define what we mean by magic, which you haven't done til here:

I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

[Pointyleaf]

I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

Right - it's most appropriate to define "supernatural" and "natural" with respect to the worlds that they are in. "Magic" is supernatural in our world, and science is not, but magic might be natural in another world, and our kind of science might be supernatural.

I think the lack of visible blood is just an artistic artifact of the world being cutesy; we've no indication that Erfworld biologies are different than normal fantasy/roleplay humanoids.

[Midnight Roamer]

I capitalized Supernatural trying to indicate the word "supernatural", where I should have quoted, I suppose. Let me rephrase.

The word "supernatural" comes from our world, not Erfworld. Magic, to us, is inherently supernatural because magic is not natural in our world. All things not natural are supernatural, by definition: note that supernatural has nature in its formation: that is no mistake or accident. Supernatural means that which is beyond nature. Science is the study of the natural world; ergo, anything that is not natural, that is explained by science, must be supernatural. Magic is supernatural in our world because if it was explained by science, it would become science. Science is, in the end, the elimination of magic by explanation. If there are things that cannot be explained by science, then there is a supernatural and a new term would be needed to study that: magic being the obvious choice, but perhaps those involved would choose something else.

The OP's question, which asked why is magic supernatural comes to this: it is supernatural in our world, because it is not natural. Magic is not supernatural in Erfworld, because it is natural there.

I would still argue with you about the nature of magic and how it is seen in our world, but that is more of a cultural/semantic issue. (This doesn't mean that it's not important, just prolly not important to people who aren't moldy academics.)

Now that I have a better picture of what you were saying, I think I agree. Since Erfworld lacks what someone from our universe would refer to as natural laws, I suppose supernatural is a term for which they would have little use, or frame of reference.

[fendrin]

{Scrubbed}

[Tredrick]

The proper way to use Occam's Razor is as a starting point for investigations. All other factors being equal, the simplest solution is the best place to start looking. If it proves correct, awesome, you are done. If it is incorrect, you have often gained valuable information that helps investigations into the other options you had in the beginning.

[Kreistor]

You still don't get it. You keep trying to use it as a way to select between multiple possibilities. That is inherently an incorrect way to use it.

No, you are wrong.

Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Occam's Raqor is designed specifically to select between competing hypotheses.

And? If you want your posts to be taken seriously it is advisable to either defend your positions or concede the point. Going off on a tangent based on an example is not going to help, and only contributes to the 'wall of text' phenomenon.

You're kidding, right? It's a distraction tactic, useful for many reasons. It can reveal poor knowledge of the topic under discussion, gain knowledge of hypocritical aspects of an opponent's character, or find weaknesses in the opponent's style. You, for instance, have revealed that you won't fight tangents, which gives Pander a style he can use to undermine you. It also inspires you to become preachy, which loses you respect. Telling others about their mistakes can work, but you've got to dot your own T's first. There's nothing substantive in your entire post, all of it being counter-argument, so your suggestion on how to debate sounds completely self-serving. Losing you the points you were hoping to get off him.

As for walls of text, well, I compare your post to the one you quoted... fendrin kicked your butt in terms of size and readability. You quoted everything of his, broke up your comments, and didn't make a single cohesive argument. Much like I've done here, ironically. Fendrin just wrote a couple paragraphs that flowed together and stayed on a single point. You started the wall of text, not him.

I have not taken a stance on whether or not blood exists in Erfworld. It does not seem particularly relevant nor is it particularly interesting to me.

So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential?

[tomaO2]

Fendrin, the exisitance of blood is certainly relevent with regards to aspects of the Transilvito vampires and especially with Parson. It exists but not in the way we know it. The lack of bleeding means that Erfworlders can survive wounds that would be fatal to Parson because he would bleed out and die. This is is a critical difference because no bleeding means it's far easier and more precise to run a hit-point based system. I also wonder what effect seeing blood would have on Erfworlders, as they are not used to reactions like that when damaged.

On the other hand, Parson doesn't seem to need to shave. Does Erfworld shave him every day or did it stop his beard from growing? Seeing him wounded would show if Erfworld magic is effecting him in other ways. I think any and all potential and proven differences between Parson and Erfworlders merit attention and I hope they are given time in the book.

I'd love to know if Parson can walk across hexes, how others might react to his lack of stats, if his pupils have any relevance (probably not but they might), what reaction that he or, preferably, some other human might garner when his corpse doesn't disappear when he dies and, yes, if he bleeds differently then Erfworlders and what effects these changes might have in Erfworlders reactions to him.

[Jon Pander]

You still don't get it. You keep trying to use it as a way to select between multiple possibilities. That is inherently an incorrect way to use it.

I'm glad to see that you think you know better than scholars who have studied it extensively for their professional lives and been published on the subject.


[QUOTE=fendrin;5965796] And? If you want your posts to be taken seriously it is advisable to either defend your positions or concede the point.
Hrm... I not only defended my position, I used actual evidence of the meaning of Ockham's razor from a scholar who was widely published on the subject. But I guess that's no competition for your google skills.

Going off on a tangent based on an example is not going to help, and only contributes to the 'wall of text' phenomenon.

Uh... look who's talking.... your post takes up most of this page......

I have not taken a stance on whether or not blood exists in Erfworld. It does not seem particularly relevant nor is it particularly interesting to me.

And yet you continually debate it. Glutton for punishment.

No, I don't. The obvious answer is in my experience often not the correct one.

1) It is.
2) This isn't something you can actually debate by saying 'no you don't.' This is widely published fact.

Newtonian relativity was obvious until Einstein came along. Atoms were atomic until we discovered electrons. The world was flat until we circumnavigated it. Obviousness and simplicity make for easy answers, not correct ones.

I'd respond but you warned me to not encourage tangents.

Oh heck I don't care.

Dude, Newtonian relativity was never 'obvious'... nor was Einstein's theories.
As for the world being flat, it had quite a few holes in that theory... such as 'what hapens when you fall off the edge? Where do you go?

The answer? Here Be Monsters! Don't Go there!

Yeah.... real iron clad obviousness - so much so that they didnt wnt to answer the question.

Now... which is more obvious an answer, that when you go too far in the ocean, you fall off the edge of the world into some ill-defined nether region of nothingness, or that the world is spherical, so you can't fall off the edge, which renders the question of 'where do you fall' moot.

Big words like what? 'Idiomatic'? That hasn't been a 'big word' since I was 12. Do you have any actual criticisms of what I wrote or do you concede the point?

You seem to like to both argue your point and ignore the points others make to refute you. Must make it really easy when you ignore half of what's said in any conversation or debate. Why would I concede a point when I've given you published information stating my point, which has been used um.... for about 90 years as a standard in philosophy and scientific theory for debating hypotheses?

[Jon Pander]

Yes, we have. Take a look at the blue dwagon in panel five on the linked page. It also shows red, brown, pink and yellow dwagons using their breath weapons (okay, the yellow's isn't a "breath" weapon.) Purples are shown using their sonic attack here (panel 8), and greens are shown using their gas breath in panel 10.

Yeah someone else pointed that out to me and gotta admit that does show that blue dragons CAN breathe lightning, though it still seems different than the Van De Graaf effect (which seemed to go everwhere, even behind the dragon) and there was not 'veil of bats' in the picture when Stanley attacked Cesar with Van De Graaf.

So instead of it being a 95/5 chance in favor if it being Stanley's weapon and not a veiled blue dwagon, the odds have changed to 50/50.

But I do admit that it's been shown a bunch of different breath weapons can come from dwagons. You sure it's bubble gum btw? That seems.... ineffective.

[Jon Pander]

So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential?

Kriestor, you may soon be my new hero.

[HandofShadows]

Here is another example of a blue unleashing it's breath weapon http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0127.html It's top left corner 1st panel. It's at a distance, but the effect certainly is blue colored, like lightning. Wonder what the Brown dragons breath? Looks like smoke.

In response to how effective bubblegum would be. It would certainly restrict your ability to move and if happened to hit you head/face, well breathing is important if you want to stay alive very long.

[fendrin]

No, you are wrong.

Occam's Raqor is designed specifically to select between competing hypotheses.

Er, no. 'Occam's Razor' is widely used that way, but it is a misapplication of what William of Ockham wrote. Wikipedia is a great reference (I use it quite a bit myself), but it is not an authoritative source. I recommend the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on William of Ockham. Section 4 is the relevant portion.

You're kidding, right? It's a distraction tactic, useful for many reasons. It can reveal poor knowledge of the topic under discussion, gain knowledge of hypocritical aspects of an opponent's character, or find weaknesses in the opponent's style. You, for instance, have revealed that you won't fight tangents, which gives Pander a style he can use to undermine you. It also inspires you to become preachy, which loses you respect. Telling others about their mistakes can work, but you've got to dot your own T's first. There's nothing substantive in your entire post, all of it being counter-argument, so your suggestion on how to debate sounds completely self-serving. Losing you the points you were hoping to get off him.

I would say that using a distraction tactic is good for revealing one's own poor knowledge, not in bringing it out in one's debate opponent. Can Jon Pander use tangents to undermine me? As far as I can tell, tangents are used to shift the conversation away from an opponents area of strength, trying to get them onto shaky ground (to paraphrase Sun Tzu, attack where your enemy is weak). Refusing to to be drawn off topic would be a defense against tangents, not a weakness to them.

As for being preachy, yes, it is a failing of mine. Misuse of 'Occam's Razor' is a pet peeve, and it brings out the worst. However, that does not undermine the validity of my points. I reject your notion that my response to Jon Pander was weak by only being counter-arguments. I made the initial argument (that he was misusing Ockham's razor) and presented evidence (the same article I linked to above). He responded by quoting another source, which I then used to reinforce my original point (by pointing out a section he seemed to ignore). At that point, I had two sources backing up my claim and he had zero.

As for walls of text, well, I compare your post to the one you quoted... fendrin kicked your butt in terms of size and readability. You quoted everything of his, broke up your comments, and didn't make a single cohesive argument. Much like I've done here, ironically. Fendrin just wrote a couple paragraphs that flowed together and stayed on a single point. You started the wall of text, not him.

I am honestly confused by this... I'm not sure who this is addressed to. You are responding to my post, but then you say "fendrin kicked your butt" and other similar statements that seem to indicate you are talking to Jon Pander.

So you're arguing about what, exactly? If the premise of the OP is unimportant to you, and you're arguing on other things, then aren't your own arguments inherently tangential?

Although I may not have an interest in the original discussion, the rhetoric employed is an interest of mine.

Fendrin, the exisitance of blood is certainly relevent with regards to aspects of the Transilvito vampires and especially with Parson.

Perhaps I was unclear; I meant that it is not relevant or interesting to me. I understand that it may be interesting or relevant to others.

I'm glad to see that you think you know better than scholars who have studied it extensively for their professional lives and been published on the subject.

Hrm... I not only defended my position, I used actual evidence of the meaning of Ockham's razor from a scholar who was widely published on the subject. But I guess that's no competition for your google skills.

I don't know better than the scholars, I learn from them. I read what they write, and I seek to comprehend. That is far different from 'google skills'. In fact, the SEP article I have posted twice now does not show up on the first page of google results for either "Occam's Razor" or "Ockham's Razor". So why did I use it, if it is merely a source found through broad internet searching? That fact is I have researched the term before, and in a context where google searches and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources.

You have shown that you did not thoroughly read the source you posted, as the very text you quote went on to point out your error.

And yet you continually debate it. Glutton for punishment.

Indeed, I am.

1) It is.
2) This isn't something you can actually debate by saying 'no you don't.' This is widely published fact.

Fact? Hardly.

Dude, Newtonian relativity was never 'obvious'... nor was Einstein's theories.
As for the world being flat, it had quite a few holes in that theory...

Oversimplifying leads to 'holes' and inaccuracies. That is why more complicated theories have become widely accepted in their place.

You seem to like to both argue your point and ignore the points others make to refute you. Must make it really easy when you ignore half of what's said in any conversation or debate. Why would I concede a point when I've given you published information stating my point, which has been used um.... for about 90 years as a standard in philosophy and scientific theory for debating hypotheses?

Kreistor says I only counter-argue, you say I ignore your points. These are contradictory, and I have to say that Kreistor has established far more debate credibility that you. I would also like to point out that instead of countering my points, you have ignored them or tried to shift the focus. It seems that your criticisms of my posts are at least as relevant to your own posts, if not more so.

[Kreistor]

Er, no. 'Occam's Razor' is widely used that way, but it is a misapplication of what William of Ockham wrote. Wikipedia is a great reference (I use it quite a bit myself), but it is not an authoritative source. I recommend the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on William of Ockham. Section 4 is the relevant portion.

Way to obfuscate. That reference is so complex and difficult to draw any useful information from that you can say anything and get away with it. Nowhee is there a definition of Occam's Razor, at least that I can find. And it is Occam's Razr that we are discussing, not Occam's Nominalization, or his shoe size. Neither are relevant to the discussion at hand. What Occam believed or stated is actually no longer relevant. What is important is what people believe it means now. If you are using a different definition (as I sometimes do), it is vital that you indicate that the common definition does not apply. WHen I talk about using the Razor to eliminate assumptions and unproven elements, I make certain peopel know that's the definition I am using, not the more commonly accepted "The simplest answer is the best."

Now, you can continue to obfuscate if you wish, but you're still wrong. You are not using the common definition of Occam's Razor, and however historically accurate you are being, you are not being accurate to the modern definition. That's your mistake, not that of the other participants. You are the exception, and they are the rule, because over time, definitions do change -- that is part of the evolution of English.

I would say that using a distraction tactic is good for revealing one's own poor knowledge, not in bringing it out in one's debate opponent.

It worked against you. It made you react to your weakness. Now you're scrambling trying to find a way to make the technique inappropriate. You're only digging a deeper hole. Argue all you want, the damage is done, and the only way to correct it is to learn how to deal with it without revealing your weakness.

Can Jon Pander use tangents to undermine me? As far as I can tell, tangents are used to shift the conversation away from an opponents area of strength, trying to get them onto shaky ground (to paraphrase Sun Tzu, attack where your enemy is weak). Refusing to to be drawn off topic would be a defense against tangents, not a weakness to them.

But that's not what you did. You protested the tactic invalid, and tried to act as an expert on something that no one is an expert on -- internet debating process. No one gets to define what is acceptable, except the moderators of the forums involved. Now you're on a deep tangent in which you can't win, becaus again you are trying to achieve control over the same topic you failed to control before. Dig, dig, dig.

As for being preachy, yes, it is a failing of mine. Misuse of 'Occam's Razor' is a pet peeve, and it brings out the worst.

Fighting the evolution of language is plainly a failing effort. Getting hung up over it suggests you're in the wrong medium for debating.

However, that does not undermine the validity of my points.

It does. Your definition is not accurate anymore. They used it the common way, which is inherently the correct way. Are you going to try to insist that we all try to undo the Great Vowel Shift in order to speak english the right way?

I reject your notion that my response to Jon Pander was weak by only being counter-arguments. I made the initial argument (that he was misusing Ockham's razor) and presented evidence (the same article I linked to above). He responded by quoting another source, which I then used to reinforce my original point (by pointing out a section he seemed to ignore). At that point, I had two sources backing up my claim and he had zero.

The weaknes was in the form of the response. He wrote a single post with a theme and flow. You responded by breaking your argument into pieces, facing individual sentences of his, instead of replying as a single argument as he did. I'm using the same technique as you, for the same reason. I don't have a basic position. By responding like this, you lose initiative, trying to breka apart the argument in hopes of defeating one small part of it. If it's a lynchpin, you can break the chain of logic. IBut it doesn't prove anything for yourself, it only disproves the opponent. That's why your method is inherently weaker if you're trying to prove something.

I am honestly confused by this... I'm not sure who this is addressed to. You are responding to my post, but then you say "fendrin kicked your butt" and other similar statements that seem to indicate you are talking to Jon Pander.

Got your names reversed, that's all.

Although I may not have an interest in the original discussion, the rhetoric employed is an interest of mine.

That's fine. I'm arguing because I'm bored.

I don't know better than the scholars, I learn from them. I read what they write, and I seek to comprehend. That is far different from 'google skills'. In fact, the SEP article I have posted twice now does not show up on the first page of google results for either "Occam's Razor" or "Ockham's Razor". So why did I use it, if it is merely a source found through broad internet searching? That fact is I have researched the term before, and in a context where google searches and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources.

Ah, but you are on the internet debating, not in a theatre with predetermined rules. This is "anything goes debating", and learnign how to deal with all forms of argument is what makes you good out here. "Idealists need not apply." Protecting that people argue in a different way than you only reveals that your skills are lacking: you need a particular arena, and where that arena does not exist, you flounder.

Kreistor says I only counter-argue, you say I ignore your points. These are contradictory...

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If you counter-argue irrelevant points, then you ignore the bg ones and counter-argue useless ones.

But I was talking about the style of counter-arguing. By responding to quotes, you are inherently not making your own argument, but replying to your opponent's position.

Look at Pander's 206. He doesn't quote you, but he replies to you. That's how you make a new argument. He doesn't reference your own thoughts, and thereby begins the thought train fresh. Your 220 follows the quote-respond style, and that is counter-arguing. Hopefulyl that explains the difference. You're not making a single argument because your style is choppy, and doesn't flow together to create a train of thought.

[BillyJimBoBob]

As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.

I thought he was Vinny Barbarino.

In reference to the earlier posts, vampires can be supernatural in comparison to other Erfworlders, if we define supernatural to mean "beyond the ordinary". They certainly do seem to be stronger than standard infantry, but we haven't seen much in the way of line troops from them either, unless the bats are it. To me, there is no "natural" in Erfworld, so it would be a poor point of comparison.

In the RTS genre a side can have side specific units and this isn't typically supernatural as much as its a means to give some differences between the sides for the sake of replayability. GK has Twolls, FAQ (probably) had gwiffons, and trolls and griffons are "supernatural" just as much as vampires are. Transylvito having bats and flying warlords is just another Erf expression of the genre, it doesn't set TV apart as being weird in this world.

The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.

You're forgetting Charlie, whose archons cite corporate speak and who dresses his thinkagram visitors in a Mork costume. Not to mention "getting" a lot of slang that Maggie just thought made Parson weird enough to understand Charlie.

[fendrin]

Way to obfuscate. That reference is so complex and difficult to draw any useful information from that you can say anything and get away with it. Nowhee is there a definition of Occam's Razor, at least that I can find. And it is Occam's Razr that we are discussing, not Occam's Nominalization, or his shoe size. Neither are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Section 4.1 is entitled "Ockham's Razor", and has 3 paragraphs directly related to the concept. It refers to the opening portion of section 4 and is expounded upon in sections 4.2 and 4.3, which is why I referred you to section 4 as a whole.

If that's too obfuscated for you, then I don't know what else I can do.

Now, you can continue to obfuscate if you wish, but you're still wrong. You are not using the common definition of Occam's Razor, and however historically accurate you are being, you are not being accurate to the modern definition. That's your mistake, not that of the other participants. You are the exception, and they are the rule, because over time, definitions do change -- that is part of the evolution of English.

Very well. I reject your notion that common misuses of jargon are acceptable definitions, but I do not wish to drift into a tangent on the philosophy of language, and shall therefore endeavor to work with your definition:

The commonly accepted meaning of 'Ockham's Razor' is a logical fallacy.

Well, that's about the best I can do.

The weaknes was in the form of the response. He wrote a single post with a theme and flow. You responded by breaking your argument into pieces, facing individual sentences of his, instead of replying as a single argument as he did. I'm using the same technique as you, for the same reason. I don't have a basic position. By responding like this, you lose initiative, trying to breka apart the argument in hopes of defeating one small part of it. If it's a lynchpin, you can break the chain of logic. IBut it doesn't prove anything for yourself, it only disproves the opponent. That's why your method is inherently weaker if you're trying to prove something.

Now who's trying to be an expert at internet debating? Your criticism is either false or hypocritical.

Not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If you counter-argue irrelevant points, then you ignore the bg ones and counter-argue useless ones.

True, though I would argue that I had not done so.

But I was talking about the style of counter-arguing. By responding to quotes, you are inherently not making your own argument, but replying to your opponent's position.

Look at Pander's 206. He doesn't quote you, but he replies to you. That's how you make a new argument. He doesn't reference your own thoughts, and thereby begins the thought train fresh. Your 220 follows the quote-respond style, and that is counter-arguing. Hopefulyl that explains the difference. You're not making a single argument because your style is choppy, and doesn't flow together to create a train of thought.

I suppose I favor substance over style, completeness over generality. If I tried that sort of tactic in my papers, I would flunk my classes. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean that good form is useless, merely that poor form is more common. I take pleasure in being the positive exception.

[BillyJimBoBob]

There's been some speculation that Stanley will become a barbarian. this strip seems to indicate that he will not. If Stanley being in the field when Saline IV was killed and GK fell didn't make him turn barbarian (or be disbanded) because he was the Heir Designate, then being in the field when GK falls won't make him turn barbarian because he is the leader.

Access to the treasury is a different matter. In the RTS genre you need a city to access your wealth. It's clear that some funds can be carried (or credited to a person in some abstract way) or Sizemore couldn't have paid Janis for training and Jillian couldn't pay for her own and her band of barbarian's upkeep.

So the question is: How long can Stanley afford Jack's upkeep plus a few dwagons and the odd KISS member?

And the next question is: Is Stanley on the hook for upkeep of casters in the magic kingdom?

And the final question is: Where did Parson go?

[Kreistor]

You favour substance over style? So you make a grandiose statement about the common form of Occam's Razor being false, and fail to support the theory in any way. There's absolutely no substance to such a claim, so the only thing you're left with is style. Which you use bold type for, just to make it absolutely certain the lack of substance isn't missed.

And you accuse me of being hypocritical? Heh, I never made any claims to be proving anything here. All I'm doing is having a nice little conversation playing the spoiler. I don't have any position to actually attack, so you're limited to facing the details of what I choose to attack.

BTW, I read section 4. I said the thing didn't define Occam's Razor, and it didn't. It discusses how Occam's Razor developed from Occam's nominalism. Occam's Razor was developed because of Occam's work in his own field, and named after him because others realized that his postulate extended beyond his own field. You can't look back at Occam for Occam's Razor, because he didn't postulate it outside a specific field, but you can look to him for inspiration using parallels to what he was discussing.

Still, Ockham's “nominalism,” in both the first and the second of the above senses, is often viewed as derived from a common source: an underlying concern for ontological parsimony. This is summed up in the famous slogan known as “Ockham's Razor,” often expressed as “Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.”[26] Although the sentiment is certainly Ockham's, that particular formulation is nowhere to be found in his texts. Moreover, as usually stated, it is a sentiment that virtually all philosophers, medieval or otherwise, would accept; no one wants a needlessly bloated ontology. The question, of course, is which entities are needed and which are not.

Look at that marvelously clear language. "Parsimony"? "Ontological"? I called it obfuscated for a reason. How many people are going to understand those words? We could write it as "underlying concern for the simplicity of the metaphysical world." That's language that doesn't obfuscate, but pretty much anyone can understand. It's still confusing in a way, though. Science, where Occam's Razor is most used, is not about the metaphysical, but the physical world.

Technical language is inherently exclusionary. Anyone not aware of the definitions are unable to participate, not because they are incapable of understanding, but because those that involve themselves want to limit participation. That's what using Stanford does. If someone can't understand what is being written there, because they lack the knowledge of the language used, then it let's you feel superior. Is that why you use it? You're incapable of actually facing people on the grounds of what they intend: you can only face them on ground they don't understand because the words being used are designed to confuse?

Occam's Razor is summed up in Stanford as "Don't multiply entities beyond necessity." OKay, that has to mean something relevant.

Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

Okay, Wikipedia actually posits the same thing. "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" vs. "Don't multiply entities beyond necessity." Well, I don't see a difference, but you seem to suggest WIkipedia got it wrong. Ah, well. It must come down to the explanations.

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Oh, right... Stanford doesn't actually explain what that ancient english means, does it? To them, if you don't know what "entities" means in context of analysis, you're out of luck. There's that technical thing happening again to deny access to the uninitiated.

Ockham's Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not “beyond necessity”; the necessities are not always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary.

Now, this tells us that what Occam is telling us is that unproven "entities" are sometimes necessary, basically because we lack enough knowledge to explain everything. So, at that point, we can theorize and postulate on the unknown. This will inevitably result in multiple competing theories, and using Occam's nominalization, choose between them. That's what it is there for: to choose which of many postulates is the most likely truth. Stanford doesn't tell us that, because it assumes we'll know. Wikipedia jumps straight to the explanation.

Stanford really isn't saying anything different. It simply doesn't present Occam's Razor in a modern setting because this si a history of Occam the man, not his Razor. Note that it tells us that Occam never formulated what we call his Razor. The quote for Stanford about entities is his work. That's the ultimate obfuscation at work here. Occam never stated the Razor for a reason: Ocam was a monk and his philosophy concerned religious theory, not scientific. Stanford refers to "ontological parsimony" because that's what Occam dealt with: the metaphysical, not physical, world. This history of Occam was never intended as a disucssion of the Razor he never invented: it's discussing his own work. The Razor was developed by other people with Occam's nominalization as inspiration.

When Occam discussed entities, he was really talking about religious entities. You'll notice that in the Stanford article, Occam's Razor is discussed in the "Metaphysics" section. Occam was 14th century, before the invention of teh scientific method: his developments attempted to explain metaphysics. That's why his own statement seems confusing to us, since Occam's Razor, our only source for knowing the man existed, is used in science and debates: metaphysics has been forgotten, except by historians. When you know that Occam was discussing religious matters about angels, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity," suddenly makes sense. He's talking about explaining religious matters using fewer angels, not scientific principles while attempting to avoid assumptions.

We can't return to Occam himself, because his work is not directly applicable to science. He only inspired others to extend the basis for his philosophy beyond his field -- "Reducing entities" becomes "reducing assumptions". We can look to him for inspiration, but if we tried to explain things using entities, like he did, we'd be discussing angels on pinheads. The modern Occam's Razor is merely a rephrasing of his principles in a modern context. Eliminating as many assumptions is an exact parallel to eliminating entities: only the field the philosophy applies to changes.

[fractal]

Can we finally stop the debate about debating tactics? It's not an activity likely to accomplish much.

I've always thought of Occam's Razor as something that biases you in favor of simpler explanations over more complicated ones - but it certainly proves nothing. Example: If I were a detective, and wondering what route a criminal had chosen to get from point A to point B, I'd check the direct route first. After all, the shortest path between two points is a straight line. However, after having checked that, I'd check other possibilities too.

Just because something is "more likely" doesn't mean that it is guaranteed.

Occam's Razor suggests that Caesar is a jerk. He acts like a jerk. However, there is some unlikely possibility that he actually has Jillian's best interests at heart, and he's just "helping" in an extremely roundabout fashion. Occam's Razor isn't capable of proving otherwise.

[DevilDan]

Regarding Jillian's "suicidal" attack on Caesar: simplest theory is that she's distraught and that her usual style is never either particularly cautious or defensive. I don't imagine that she'll be completely dropped from the story.

About Stanley's reaction: depending on how feasible it is to rebuild GK, he may not be terribly upset. Sure, he'd rant and rave, as is his wont, but he'd be happy to see the RC coalition toasted and Ansom gone. The potential loss of the pliers might be more upsetting, though who know how his thinking has evolved of late, vis a vis the Tools and the Titans. We don't really know what a "treasury" looks like, but it might simply be there for whoever rebuilds/conquers/claims GK: Erf is a game-like world, after all. I never got to see the sequence I was hoping for, the "magical" rebuilding of a Faq city, but I may yet get to see the reconstruction/reestablishment of GK.

How long the volcano stays active is anybody's guess. This sort of croakamancy/dirtamancy likely has nothing even close to a precedent, on Erf or on Earth (That is, unless someone can point to another living volcano.)

How anyone can make a thoroughly unfounded statement like "He's [Caesar] probably the strongest warlord left on what's left of the coalition" is beyond me.

About "supernatural": just kidding. I'm not getting into that zero-zero game.

I propose Occam's Swiss Army Knife: "My explanation is prettier." (Other options: Occam's Machete and Occam's +1 Razor.)

Finally, it's minor point, but the kingdom is named Faq, not FAQ.

[fendrin]

<what you said>

heh, well, we've obviously started to annoy fractal and DevilDan. Probably others too who just haven't spoken up.

I propose we wrap this up. I will make my final argument here and then allow you to get the last word (if you so desire).

Jargon exists for a reason; it is not to obfuscate but rather to be a precise language, which naturally evolved languages are not. It's not quite as good as a deliberately planned artificial language (such as a programming language or logical language), but the point is the same: to provide a means for communications between experts to be as clear as possible.

One of the advantages of a good jargon is that it is a lot easier to learn than a full natural language. Words and phrases tend to have fewer meanings than in a natural language, and changes much more slowly, if at all.

The problem with jargon is that it is often adopted into common usage natural language. In the process, it is often misunderstood and becomes subject to the evolutionary pressures that cause a natural language to change.

Ockham's razor is an example of this. In philosophical jargon it indicates a rule of thumb for creating metaphysical claims. The common/natural language use is a largely fallacious method for choosing between two hypothesis on the basis of simplicity. I call this fallacious because there are many other more relevant ways that hypothesis should be judged that are more important than simplicity. For instance, truthfulness. Choosing on simplicity is problematic in far more cases than it is useful.

[Jon Pander]

I thought he was Vinny Barbarino.In the RTS genre a side can have side specific units and this isn't typically supernatural as much as its a means to give some differences between the sides for the sake of replayability. GK has Twolls, FAQ (probably) had gwiffons, and trolls and griffons are "supernatural" just as much as vampires are. Transylvito having bats and flying warlords is just another Erf expression of the genre, it doesn't set TV apart as being weird in this world.You're forgetting Charlie, whose archons cite corporate speak and who dresses his thinkagram visitors in a Mork costume. Not to mention "getting" a lot of slang that Maggie just thought made Parson weird enough to understand Charlie.

Charlie -might- have extra-erfly knowledge. He might be extra-erfly, or he might just be an erfworlder with an odd mind. He might just be able to understand Parson-speak because of the dish, or because the dish makes him think differently than other erfworlders.

Parson -definitely- has extra-erfly knowledge, because he is definitely an extra-erfly being.

[SomeUnregPunk]

Right now the other royalty groups are trying to pick up the pieces of what happened.

One if not all of them is probably go to look at all the past intel on the battle ever since Parson got into the fight. They going to see something really scary.

They going to see Stanley actually allowing himself to be decoy, sacrificing his own men and capital just to take one of the Tools away from the Coalition and then going so far as to wiping out the Coalition's armies in one shot.

The Coalition is obviously broken and if Charlie is start to over-think the last few battles since Parson got enlisted, he may start to believe that Parson played him for a fool since the very beginning. That in all his communications with him, Parson was trying to make him overconfident and pull his Archeons into his dirtamancer trap.

The rest of the various nations in this place might assume Stanley is now a weak barbarian since he lost his capital and he doesn't have any cities to fall back on. I'd bet Charlie is going to assume the worst scenario, Stanley is backed by the Titans and the rules just may not apply anymore.

That Dirtamancer and Wanda must have leveled a couple hundred times now. They took out massive amounts of troops of various levels on multiple hexes.

[Jon Pander]

{Scrubbed}

[Jon Pander]

{Scrubbed}