Theomore post chapter 2

Baelon wrote:

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:Of course, it all breaks down when you add the human element...which is that behaviors are not deterministic, or strictly logical.

Hence the dice throwing.

The motive behind his behaviors is not really what this is about. It is about truth (or lack thereof) in his words - and that is precisely what logic was developed for.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Pfffft, Theomore cannot be confined within such simple logic :;
):

Well, I kept it at an intro to logic level, but if you'd like I can ratchet it up - I kind of hid a modal claim in the propositional logic, just to make it easier to understand... I can use modal operations in higher order, fuzzy, or quantum logics if you would prefer. It all comes out the same. :;
):

[url=proof by verbosity][/url]

Septon Arlyn wrote:Essentially what I think the baelon is trying to say is that because Theomore was not eaten by a dragon, and Theomore is an "
obvious"
liar and Theomore is treacherous

That's the gist of it.

Septon Arlyn wrote:the fact that Theomore has not been eaten by a dragon proves that
1. that prince Daemon does not in fact feed traitors to Dragons and Theomore is lying about that action the prince took

That is one possible interpretation, but not what I meant.
I actually think the lie is that he had no choice. I do think Theo would have taken another option if it was available - the negative 'press' he's getting for this is not something he would choose if he had an alternative. However, he did have an alternative that he didn't take - which means this negative 'press' - and the lives consigned to Vhagar's maw - were an acceptable cost for achieving some objective.

[url=hasty generalization][/url]

Septon Arlyn wrote:1. The prince does in fact feed traitors to Dragons' however Ser Theomore is not a traitor to the prince

Covered that at the bottom of the logic post.

Septon Arlyn wrote:2. The prince does in fact feed tratior's to dragons, Theomore has betrayed him but the prince has yet to find out about it.

That's the fuzzy/modal claim I hid in there - basically, this argument against Theo's story could be wrong - the proof against it would be Theo getting eaten. Future counterfactual conditions are annoying to work with though, and harder for the untrained to follow - so I fudged it.

However, I have reason to believe that Prince Daemon already knows. Mostly because I already informed him, provided evidence, etc.
(the messages etc. would probably arrive no later than the epilogue of Story 2, though some of the evidence might not get to him until early Month 1 of this offseason - taking travel times into account)
[/quote]

So what this is, is an [url=Appeal to probability][/url] with a dash of [url=affirming the consequent][/url], [url=Argument from silence][/url],

I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong, merely that the metodology used to draw this conclusion is wrong

Septon Arlyn wrote:Over all I would suggest that we do not have have enough information to draw any conclusions about what Theomore is up to, all we can do is draw assumptions, which are usually biased as we do not know Ser Theomore's motivations behind his actions

See my comment to Gwyn above - I speculate about his motivations at the end, but the logic is just abut whether or not he is lying.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Heck, maybe even Ser Theomore will betray raff

Or maybe the prince will betray Theomore

Red herrings, all. None have an impact on the logic presented.
[/quote]
this could be considered a [url=False Dilemma][/url], [url][/url][url=ad homienem][/url]

Septon Arlyn wrote:As I said, there are simply too many threads that can be tugged on to have it broken as as if this then this

After decades of logic training, I am confident that you are wrong. :;
): [/quote]

[url=moral high ground,][/url] , [url=Appeal to authority][/url], [/url][url=ad homienem][/url]

Nerds and tryhards, all of you.

:mrgreen:

...and yes, that's ad hominum. Hehe.

armchair :ugeek: ... yeah that happened

Ehm...not to rain on the parade...but maybe we could table the discussion about logical arguments and instead speculate wildly upon Theomore's acts and motivations?

quote="
Baelon"
]

Theomore Tullison wrote:Pfffft, Theomore cannot be confined within such simple logic :;
):

Well, I kept it at an intro to logic level, but if you'd like I can ratchet it up - I kind of hid a modal claim in the propositional logic, just to make it easier to understand... I can use modal operations in higher order, fuzzy, or quantum logics if you would prefer. It all comes out the same. :;
): [/quote]

It's all fuzzy logic, sorry to break it to you:P

I think the good opd septon is right, there is no single explanation for what you said. Lying is no simple thing. If I tell someone that I'll go straight to bed, am I lying? I have to drive around a mountain to get home, so I'ts not possible for me to drive straight home. Your logic us not strong enough to encapture human existence:P

Septon Arlyn wrote:
[url=hasty generalization][/url]
[url=Appeal to probability][/url] with a dash of [url=affirming the consequent][/url], [url=Argument from silence][/url],

[url=False Dilemma][/url], [url][/url][url=ad homienem][/url]
[url=moral high ground,][/url] , [url=Appeal to authority][/url], [/url][url=ad homienem][/url]

I never knew there was even this much info just on logic, We pay professors from our tax money for them to write all of this...

Theomore Tullison wrote:So Theomore's statement becomes this when paraphrased: "
Prince Daemon executed traitors to the crown by feeding them to Caraxes, after having judged them as such"
. Which would throw the line of argumentation off balance.

Not really. Princess Rhaenyra is the heir. Any action to undermine her position as heir (other than trying to convince the King to change his mind) is by definition an attempt to undermine the King's will. That, in feudalism, is the very definition of treason to the crown.

Septon Arlyn wrote:armchair :ugeek: ... yeah that happened

A few minutes of wiki-searching does not a counter-argument make.
If you want to form a counterargument, you need to either deny the validity of my argument or the truth of my premises.

Let's go down the list... without the embedded links that make it almost unreadable.

• Proof by verbosity - by definition accusing such is an ad hominem, as it has to do with the style of the presenter rather than the content presented. Also, not actually a logical fallacy. no matter how long or convoluted a proof, that has no bearing on it's validity or soundness.[/*121ufexd]
  
• hasty generalization - would apply if I had denied that your interpretation was possible, but I did not. I simply said what interpretation I believed to be true. Also, has no impact on the logic... just the interpretation of the results.[/*121ufexd]
  
• appeal to probability - does not apply. I'm not saying "
  he's probably heard and therefore he has heard"
  . I'm saying 'there is evidence that he has heard'. See also modal logic, fuzzy logic, and future counterfactuals to see what I opted to avoid, at the expense of making my proof vulnerable to being contradicted. Note: the necessary contradiction comes in the form of 'Theo gets eaten by Caraxes'.[/*121ufexd]
  
• Affirming the consequent - does not apply. You might be mistaking a modus tollens (aka 'denying the consequent', a valid argument form) for this. A common error.[/*121ufexd]
  
• Argument from silence - does not apply. Especially given the modal claim. See also modal logic, fuzzy logic, and future counterfactuals.[/*121ufexd]
  
• False dilemma - does not apply. I'm not saying those things couldn't be true, I'm saying they are not relevant (the red herring fallacy is the general form of any fallacy of relevance)[/*121ufexd]
  
• Ad hominem - does not apply. Whether or not your ideas were red herrings has nothing to do with who you are.[/*121ufexd]
  
• Moral high ground - does not apply. No moral claims were made.[/*121ufexd]
  
• Appeal to authority - does not apply. I did not claim 'because I am an expert, you are wrong'. I said that my expertise made me confident that you were wrong. See also: expert testimony[/*121ufexd]
  
• As hominem - does not apply. I did not claim that some aspect of who you were made you wrong. I claimed that some aspect of me was responsible for my attitude towards whether you were right or wrong.[/*121ufexd]

Seriously, I teach this stuff. Accusing me of making such a fundamentally flawed argument is kind of insulting, whether you meant it that way or not. I'm not saying you should accept my argument uncritically (I think all arguments should be viewed critically), but if one of my students did this on an exam, they would be getting an F. If you are going to use technical terms, know what they mean and be sure they actually apply.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Ehm...not to rain on the parade...but maybe we could table the discussion about logical arguments and instead speculate wildly upon Theomore's acts and motivations?

Sorry, not my modus operandi. Logic is more reliable.

(as a side note, I almost played as Daveth - he would have been using this kind of reasoning IC... you are probably all glad I didn't. )

Yoren longshore wrote:It's all fuzzy logic, sorry to break it to you:P

naw, see, fuzzy logic takes the fuzzy-ness you are feeling and incorporates it into the fundamental operation of the logic - in other words, it's even more incomprehensible.

Yoren longshore wrote:I think the good opd septon is right, there is no single explanation for what you said. Lying is no simple thing. If I tell someone that I'll go straight to bed, am I lying? I have to drive around a mountain to get home, so I'ts not possible for me to drive straight home. Your logic us not strong enough to encapture human existence:P

The hardest thing to do in logic is to properly formalize the natural language sentences. Your example is a prime example of this. There is an ambiguity in 'straight'. Formalized properly, it is clear that no, you are not lying.

Yoren longshore wrote:I never knew there was even this much info just on logic, We pay professors from our tax money for them to write all of this...

Actually, most of that was probably written by students, based on works from hundreds to thousands of years ago. What your tax money pays us for is much more advanced (and is also directly responsible for the technology that allows us to have this conversation - computers function off of logical principles).
EDIT- also, that's not even half of the critical thinking class I've taught. It's barely even scratching the surface of info on logic.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Ehm...not to rain on the parade...but maybe we could table the discussion about logical arguments and instead speculate wildly upon Theomore's acts and motivations?

he has been in congress with the dragon

There you go

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:So Theomore's statement becomes this when paraphrased: "
Prince Daemon executed traitors to the crown by feeding them to Caraxes, after having judged them as such"
. Which would throw the line of argumentation off balance.

Not really. Princess Rhaenyra is the heir. Any action to undermine her position as heir (other than trying to convince the King to change his mind) is by definition an attempt to undermine the King's will. That, in feudalism, is the very definition of treason to the crown.

So....shall we be feeding half of Westeros to Caraxes, then? :mrgreen:

Theomore Tullison wrote:

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:So Theomore's statement becomes this when paraphrased: "
Prince Daemon executed traitors to the crown by feeding them to Caraxes, after having judged them as such"
. Which would throw the line of argumentation off balance.

Not really. Princess Rhaenyra is the heir. Any action to undermine her position as heir (other than trying to convince the King to change his mind) is by definition an attempt to undermine the King's will. That, in feudalism, is the very definition of treason to the crown.

So....shall we be feeding half of Westeros to Caraxes, then? :mrgreen:

That would be treatchery, as Caraxes would die of over eating...

Theomore Tullison wrote:

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:So Theomore's statement becomes this when paraphrased: "
Prince Daemon executed traitors to the crown by feeding them to Caraxes, after having judged them as such"
. Which would throw the line of argumentation off balance.

Not really. Princess Rhaenyra is the heir. Any action to undermine her position as heir (other than trying to convince the King to change his mind) is by definition an attempt to undermine the King's will. That, in feudalism, is the very definition of treason to the crown.

So....shall we be feeding half of Westeros to Caraxes, then? :mrgreen:

Princess R was confirmed heir so that prince Daemon would not be ruler of the seven kingdoms

The king also did not have a male heir at the time

The king also is a bit naive and hoping that the blacks and the Greens could both get along.

Princess R was confirmed heir so that prince Daemon would not be ruler of the seven kingdoms

That seems like speculation to me. The king never made his reasoning plain on the matter. It's certainly a possibility...and plausible arguments can be made in favor of it based on the rocky relationship of Daemon to the King...but it's far from certain that's the only factor that went into the decision.

The king also did not have a male heir at the time

Besides Daemon? Or am I missing something in terms of timing?

The king also is a bit naive and hoping that the blacks and the Greens could both get along.

I'd honestly be a bit surprised if that was the case. It may be he didn't anticipate such a violent backlash, or it may be that he was hoping that the 'blacks' and 'greens' would be so busy with one another that they'd leave him alone? Or, it may have been a misstep...an action taken in the heat of a passionate moment that he was then bound to adhere to lest he seem weak and wishy-washy.

Hard to say.

Exactly, there is no one correct answer, as the answers can vary based upon what evidence we choose to use/have access to. In all its basically that more evidence is needed.

And yet, we may never get evidence...but we must all deal with the consequences.

Sometimes decisions must be made, even with inadequate evidence. The alternative is paralysis.

Not disagreeing with that either. But we can not pretend to know, due to logic or otherwise, how someone was going to act or behave with certainty, that is why we can save that they've probably meant to do this so he can't say this is the reason why they did XYZ

Leaving aside the very long semantic argument, I'd like to answer Theo's comment to me with the clarification that, following the Cold Fury thread, Corrine is no longer hostile towards Theo, merely wary, but, if he says/does anything that incriminates him, that may change. I've not read anything he says at trial yet.

Theo is going to don his snake charmer mask, enter the nest of green mamba's that is Lord Tully's court, and then he's going to feed them juicy and delicious morsels.

And they have a craving for little black mice. Ones named after high profile blacks are a particular delight.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Theo is going to don his snake charmer mask, enter the nest of green mamba's that is Lord Tully's court, and then he's going to feed them juicy and delicious morsels.

And they have a craving for little black mice. Ones named after high profile blacks are a particular delight.

Your subtlety knows no bounds.

That you think this will not put you significantly closer to Caraxes' maw baffles me.

EDIT: responses to other posts in this thread forthcoming when I am not on my phone.

Theo does like to play Xanatos Speed Cyvasse with high stakes. :8-):

Now now, lets not bait one another.

I think we all know everyone here is a master baiter. No need to prove anything.

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:Now now, lets not bait one another.

I think we all know everyone here is a master baiter. No need to prove anything.

ha ha ha master baiter

Theomore Tullison wrote:So....shall we be feeding half of Westeros to Caraxes, then? :mrgreen:

Funny. No. There is a world of difference between holding a position and committing crimes based on it.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Princess R was confirmed heir so that prince Daemon would not be ruler of the seven kingdoms

That may have been true at the time, but is demonstrably false now, as I have pointed out elsewhere. More logic - simpler this time.

1. If King Viserys preferred Prince Aegon &
the Hightowers be in power to Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Daemon being in power, then he would declare Prince Aegon his heir.
2. King Viserys has not declared Prince Aegon his heir.
Therefore,
3. King Viserys does not prefer that Prince Aegon &
the Hightowers be in power to Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Daemon being in power. (From 1 &
2 by Modus Tollens)

Also, King Viserys sacked his Hand (the Queen's father) for trying to get him to declare Prince Aegon heir. He clearly could but does not want to do so.
Why he does not want to do so is up for debate, but his desires are clear.

Septon Arlyn wrote:The king also is a bit naive and hoping that the blacks and the Greens could both get along.

That may be true.... or he may feel he has no real power to stop it. It's not like the Greens are backing down despite his adamant stance on Rhaenyra inheriting. What's he going to do - imprison his wife and her entire family? Kill one or two off as an example? He's not Maegor.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Exactly, there is no one correct answer, as the answers can vary based upon what evidence we choose to use/have access to. In all its basically that more evidence is needed.

That there is a truth to the situation and being able to know what that truth is are two very different things. The best option is to use all of the available evidence, not picking and choosing, and to be honest about what you can and cannot know.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Not disagreeing with that either. But we can not pretend to know, due to logic or otherwise, how someone was going to act or behave with certainty, that is why we can save that they've probably meant to do this so he can't say this is the reason why they did XYZ

That's a fallacy of probability (in the possibility form - see your post above for the wikipedia link). "
It is possible that X will do something different this time than they did the last ten million times, and therefore we cannot predict what they will do this time."
Not being able to predict absolutely is not the same thing as not being able to predict with reasonable accuracy.

Viserys could have sacked Ser Otto and the other greens on the council, replace them with moderate blacks and neutrals, betroth Prince Jacaerys to one of Borros' daughters to shore up his loyalty. Keep Vhagar and Sunfyre confined to the dragonpit and ensure that the forces in King's Landing are loyal to Daemon and keep Aegon and Aemond in King's Landing, so that when he kicks the bucket, any contenders to Rhaenyra can be kept safely locked away in the Red Keep until she has been crowned and her grip upon the Iron Throne is secure, and for good measure, they can be kept that way until they die of old age.

That's what Theo would have done.

Not bad, but to be fair we've no idea what sort of politics are involved in the matter. It may be that the Queen outmaneuvered him somehow on that front. The King's power seems paramount, but in reality is circumscribed by a number of factors.

...or he might just have screwed up.

probably would have started the war earlier