Recent content by AnotherDilbert

Your "rational expectation" is not my "rational expectation", it's your belief of what a "rational expectation" is.

It is your belief that it's reasonable. That is not a provable statement. Based on your belief of what is reasonable. Your belief is not a settled, proven fact, hence not a base for a logical proof. If you can do the proof without using "it's reasonable to expect", I'm eager to hear it. If...

I was just paraphrasing you own motivation for the fallacy: I find your usage of the word "reasonable" rather unreasonable.

That is not what I said, I said it's your belief that its so important it has to be mentioned in every description. I don't doubt you believe that. Yes, that is your belief. Yes, we disagree about if every detail must be mentioned in every article. The description in JTAS is still brief...

Yes, it's a logical fallacy. You deliberately argue from ignorance, because you believe it is reasonable. I don't believe jump space is a small room, or that the exact composition of the plasma in it is an elephant.

So your argument rests on that you believe that a hydrogen-filled bubble is so important that it must be mentioned in all discussions of jump space. I don't believe that every description of a technology in an RPG must be complete. Details may be left out. The description in HG is incomplete...

I believe the main cause of contention is: vs.: The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant. The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles. I maintain there is no contradiction (they are not mutually exclusive) as "does not mention" is not evidence of absence...

No, saying that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is argumentum ad ignorantiam. From your reference: Absence of evidence ISN'T evidence of absence is saying that without evidence we don't know if the proposition is true or not, as we have no evidence either way...

Yes, I understand what you say, but I see a bit of apples vs. oranges here. We have several conditions for a functioning jump ship, e.g.: The ship must also be 100 Dt, we must have a computer, etc. All are necessary conditions, we can't jump without ALL of them. They are not mutually...

Could, sure, but it would not be my first assumption. I would await more information.

No, not unless they are mutually exclusive. If one rule states a sunhat prevents sunburn, and another rule states that sunscreen prevents sunburn, that is not a contradiction. They can both be true. No, you need Power (or valid replacement) AND jump fuel (or valid replacement), just as in T4...

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Does it say it collect pi-mesons? Exactly what "exotic particles" does a Collector collects? It does not say, so we don't know. We can't assume it does or doesn't collect pi-mesons, we just does not know. If another source said the Collector...

Oh, joy, we are debating the definition of words again... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/contradiction A and not A is a contradiction. A and B (but does not mention A) is not a contradiction. If one source says hydrogen-filled bubble, but another source says absolutely...

If one source says hydrogen filled jump-bubble, and another says a Collector collects particles, I would infer a Collector collects some hydrogen since both sources are canon. I would infer absolutely nothing about lanthanum from those sources. So, we can infer some things, but not whatever we...

Yes, apparently. If one source says A and another not A, I would call that a contradiction. If one source says A and another says B but fails to mention A, I would call that more datapoints.