>Subject: Re: Re: slings and arrows

From: t.s.baguley_at_...
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:50:27 +0100


> From: philip.hibbs_at_...
>>Why would you have a contest if both sides knew what the truth was?
>
>I did not stipulate that both sides knew what the truth was, just that one
>side is right. Thinking further about it, it doesn't in and of itself make

My (albeit well hidden) point was that unless both sides know it is true, truth per se is no advantage (except via truth magics and even then they mostly work on what people believe to be true).

>any difference, what matters is the evidence, which may have a tendency to
>support the truth. Good evidence, ie. convincing evidence rather than
>merely accurate, should give bonuses. I think it should be in the form of a
>TN bonus rather than an edge or AP bonus, or an ability rating that the
>arguer can use to augment his ability. That way, if you try to push the
>evidence beyond plausability, you get no bonus. It's a bit complex, though,
>and non-intuitive in terms of deciding what ability rating a piece of
>evidence should have. Fixed bonuses are easier.

I agree with everything here. Most oral cultures have fairly rich knowledge of rhetorical devices and arguments which are considered effective or good. As the speakers have no formal logical training the have to be careful to spot holes in arguments, for this reason I think counterexamples are probably very important defenses. Quality of evidence is important, but also the appropriateness to the target. For example, what our ancesters have said might influence our own clan, but might have little effect on another.

Thom

Powered by hypermail