2012-09-05, 10:21 | Link #30381 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Not explaining Yasu's logistics very well is also a problem with the plotting (outside of Our Confession maybe), but it isn't a plot hole.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-05, 11:14 | Link #30382 | ||||||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the end what you fail to realize is that it's the very fact of assuming what you need to argue that makes a circular reasoning a logical fallacy. When you extrapolate a circular reasoning from the context of a discussion the very premise that makes it an invalid logic doesn't exist anymore. For example "Humans are mortal therefore humans are mortal". this is both formally valid and sound (defined as an argument whose premise is true), then how would it be a logical fallacy according to you definition? But a circular logic is defined as a logical fallacy, so you're missing something here. Quote:
Quote:
But the reasoning doesn't really work in the first place, because people normally do not adopt other people just because they know them, they'd normally bring them to a hospital. the two cases person adopting random amnesiac and person adopting known amnesiac aren't that much different in their scare likelyness to happen. Quote:
I just wanted to make sure I understood what you mean before answering. I think you've been more than clear (in only asked one example). So then I ask you. The infamous scene of the parlor of EP5, couldn't be defined as a plot hole, if I refuse to accept as intended by the author and valid the various explanations proposed by fans?
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-09-05 at 11:45. |
||||||||
2012-09-05, 11:53 | Link #30383 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Well, it could be a plot hole. People have thought of it as such. Other people say there is an explanation.
I'd say it's probably a plot hole, but it could also be an example of a property or aspect of the narrative that just wasn't explained properly and thus appears to be a plot hole to people who are incredulous about the explanation as written, when the explanation may indeed cover it.
__________________
|
2012-09-05, 12:07 | Link #30384 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
I can make another example, but here some people might not agree with me. I consider a plot hole even a case in which a certain character should logically do something but conveniently doesn't because the plot requires for him to fail. Therefore the fact that Erika isn't even thinking about the possibility of shkanon, given that she was always shown to be capable of out of the box thinking (bordering with ridiculous) and that it didn't really required such an ingenius mind, can also be seen as a plot hole.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-05, 13:27 | Link #30385 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
I think it's a plot hole given her characterization the entire episode of asking for incredibly specific definitions and then not doing that at any point where it would be necessary, and also stopping with her questioning when she has no apparent reason to need to do so.
However, that might be less a plot hole and more poor characterization, where she's alternately portrayed as ruthlessly cunning and a bumbling incompetent. Vaguely like Battler himself, but not executed correctly. The entirety of "Battler Solves the Logic Error" is basically predicated on the notion that Erika could have asked a bunch of things but didn't, and the consequences of leaving those questions both unasked and unanswered. It's a joke, but it's partially expressing my frustrations with the entirety of Dawn. It could have been a much better episode, but it got lost in its own gimmick. However, that might not necessarily be a plot hole so much as just shoddy presentation. Erika not asking isn't the problem, it's Erika not seemingly wanting to ask. There would be no problem, really, if Erika tried to ask but was forbidden from doing so, or asked and Battler was evasive.
__________________
|
2012-09-05, 15:42 | Link #30386 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Skipping the ones done by Jesus a person can be declared 'dead' and then 'revived' by quick medical aid. It's just that in this case death generally last few minutes (and as of late the definition of dead had been updated in many countries to make sure that it means 'irreversible death' while previously you were dead when your heart stopped and you weren't breathing anymore... no idea if the definition had been updated in Japan as well). Due to this Ryukishi might have thought it was perfectly fine to have a type of death from which you can be resurrected. Now... I still don't like it though I guess part of the problem is that Umineko is written as such we think we can trust Beato on a certain level... that's actually more than we should give her credit for. In more than one Christie's mystery the culprit is also the narrator. The narration is reliable exept for the parts in which the narrator/culprit avoided facts like 'after this I killed the victim' or 'I pretended to speak at the phone with a certain guy but I was actually talking with someone else' or 'once alone I removed all the evidence of my trick to kill the victim' and so on. In short it skipped some parts and was misleading. I guess Ryukishi pushed it to an extreme and thought it was a fair trick because, despite all the ramblings about trusting Beato... well, Beato is the culprit for her own admission so we should have known better than to trust her blindly even when she was using red. I still don't like it, I don't know if I'll ever like it but I'll give Ryukishi the benefit of doubt on the topic he thought it was a legittimate trick to use a misleading definition of 'death'. I guess I just won't agree with him. |
|
2012-09-05, 17:14 | Link #30387 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
The red truth should have been a tool you could trust in unconditionally (and as such it was presented) and should have merely worked as a crutch for your reasoning, while the mystery and the mystery alone should have been the one you would be required to focus on and which you would need to find the trick in. With misleading red truths, it isn't the actual mystery that tricks you, but the red truths themselves. It's only natural that disappointment comes from people that expected a difficult to solve riddle and realized it was only difficult because of a misleading input given.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-06, 01:50 | Link #30388 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
After all, as someone once said, would you say that if an identical twin pretending to be Kanon and indistinguishable from him tricked Jessica then they are the same person? We probably won't ever agree because you and I approach Kanon from different perspective. Quote:
As for the playing with reds, I sort of liked it. Maybe it's because I often use that method of stating facts to twist the truth as a joke on my friends, but I thought it was fun. In fact I bet you didn't even mind it when it was being tricky but not about personality death yourself. |
||||
2012-09-06, 02:02 | Link #30389 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Impressive number of individual discussions happening at once, here.
Quote:
Quote:
I make the assumption that she learns his identity very quickly, and decides not to subject her new, only friend to the public turmoils Eva is going through. Also, I'm sure Tohya is just so sexy when he's desperately reassembling his shattered psyche. Quote:
About Yasu possibly protecting Battler from Eva ... well, not to repeat myself, but Eva has no basis on which to make a claim about what happened on Rokkenjima. If she thinks Battler is guilty, she can't prove it, and really, if she sees that he's clearly amnesiac, shje'd PROBABLY bite her lip and get over it. Also, I'd mention that Yasu never legally gained control over ANY of Kinzo's money, which was always controlled by Krauss. Well, we're told there was a will, but it was never put to use, so ... /shrug. I'd also mention, as a side to Random!Ikuko, that Tohya mentions in the ??? "Yeah , so it turns out she wasn't lying about the stuff with her family", or something like that, so it sounded like he had checked it out himself a bit. |
|||
2012-09-06, 07:28 | Link #30390 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-09-06, 08:46 | Link #30391 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Even in instances of impersonation, the rules become fuzzy with "personalities." Particularly when the argument is the impersonator is the person with that personality in the first place. It's like asking me, philosophically, to impersonate myself. I can try to exaggerate and affect my own mannerisms, contemplate how I would react to scenarios and pretend like that deliberation is necessary, and so forth, but would you ever realistically accuse me of not appropriately being myself? If I can't impersonate myself, how exactly does this Shkanbeato construct manage to do it, when said construct is those characters, apparently fully consciously? This goes back to a long-ago discussion about the actual rules of operation of the character, none of which really make any sense. This example is just one of the ones that demonstrates that. Quote:
If Kanon did not behave as Kanon, Jessica would not have recognized him as such. Ergo, she actually recognized Kanon. Which means Kanon was there. Ryukishi (and Maria) already said appearance isn't important, so it doesn't matter if the person Jessica was talking to wasn't dressed as Kanon. She couldn't perceive Kanon's physical appearance, but responded to his voice and mannerisms. So... Kanon was there, which means Kanon was alive where once he was dead. Quote:
We also have no actual evidence Shannon and Kanon acted "independently," at least in the sense of being distinct personalities. We can still always make the argument "in matter of fact, it was 'Beatrice' posing as two servants the whole time, and Battler was misled into believing in the existence of 'Shannon' and 'Kanon.'" It is true that we see them as two separate disguises and thus have some evidence for it, but going strictly off what Battler sees and knows it's possible he's merely being deceived by an actor. Of course, if Shannon and Kanon exist only as they're perceived to begin with, you can argue that merely acknowledging who he's seeing makes it such that Shannon/Kanon is present. Indeed one could argue they exist only when Battler is observing them.
__________________
|
|||
2012-09-06, 09:09 | Link #30392 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Spoiler for Endless logic crap:
Quote:
By the way, I don't think such a mistake is hard to make. Quote:
I don't think you can win any argument claiming- given the same encounter with Battler- that Yasu would not be more likely to adopt Battler than a stranger would. Quote:
Didn't take me long; basically I suspected it wasn't her after I figured out the setting where "mystery person" was found didn't really match well with anywhere Ange might realistically be. |
|||
2012-09-06, 13:34 | Link #30393 | |||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
If you pull a circular logic in the middle of a discussion (and we were discussing) then you're either pulling something completely irrelevant or you're blatantly falling into a logical fallacy. What I told you back then was that I didn't understand the relevance of your point unless you were assuming your very premise which, as I pointed out, would have been a circular logic. If you had simply explained your point rather than going on a tangent on how circular logic isn't wrong per se, disregarding the fact that I was assuming the context of a discussion, since it was what we were doing, we wouldn't be arguing about all this pholosophical "crap" (as you like to define it). Quote:
I was merely providing evidences that logical fallacies are defined as invalid. Whenever you try to define a group there is almost always the inherent problem that you can't check all the single individuals of that group. If you thought that you can only define a group if you find proof for that for every single individual of that group, then you wouldn't be able to state that "all crows are black" and so on. Of course if I show you 100 black crows that still doesn't fully demonstrate the theory, but it's also wrong to state they don't mean a thing, in fact the theory can be considered valid as long as you don't find a crow that isn't black. I've shown you several black crows, I'm not saying that this proves definitely that I'm right, but it's your turn to prove that there is a crow that isn't black. In other words show me where it is stated that a logical fallacy can be considered valid in a general sense and not in its specific parts. The example of the circular logic you've used doesn't work because in the case in which it can be considered valid, it isn't a logical fallacy anymore. Quote:
Quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid?s=t Logic . (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. If the premises are not jointly asserted, your logic is not valid. Clearly outside of academic circles "valid" and "sound" are synonyms. Quote:
I will also disregard that there are other people outside Yasu that aren't stranger to Battler. Let's make this case even more clear-cut, and let's assume that if Beatrice encountered Battler she would definitely adopt him, that is a 100% probability. If a stranger encountered Battler there's a very low probability that he would adopt him. Let's assume it's 1%, it's probably lower but for the sake of this logic experiment it doesn't matter (Yasu's probability isn't 100% either anyway). Given these premises you can claim that the probability that Beatrice would adopt Battler is definitely higher than the probability that a stranger would do the same. Absolutely. But you're forgetting that the fact that "Battler was adopted" is already known. While "who adopted Battler" is what we don't know. Imagine that there are 10.000 cards that have a "stranger" on their front and a card that have "Yasu" on its front. You know that the Yasu card has definitely Battler on its back, and you know that only 100 out of the 10.000 stranger cards have Battler on their back. Now the card that you have in your hand was extracted randomly from the 10001 cards and it has Battler on its back, this is your known fact. You don't know what's behind it, and you need to use a statistical reasoning to infere what is more likely to be behind: Yasu or a Stranger? You should be able to see that the fact that the Yasu card has a 100% of probability to have Battler on its back doesn't mean much in this case. The probability that you have a stranger card in your hand is higher: 100 cases against 1.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-09-06 at 14:49. |
|||||
2012-09-06, 13:45 | Link #30394 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
The problem is that "Ikuko = Yasu" and "Ikuko = Random Eccentric Interested in the Case" both have sufficient motive to be looking for Battler or someone like him, and both have incentive to hide him away once they find him. But the field could be narrowed significantly.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-06, 13:54 | Link #30395 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While it can be debated that Kinzo owned the gold illegally so technically the siblings can't claim rights on it ifsomeone where to discover Ikuko isn't who she said to be thngs could turn unpleasant. We don't really know if Eva can't prove something. She's not talking so we don't know which info she has nor we know what exactly remained of the place in which the crime took place. Things that might look as nothing important, if placed in the right context, can become evidence. And anyway if Eva were to be sure Battler was involved (regardless of this being a misunderstanding or not) she would likely accuse it and hope someone would manage to prove she's not lying. She lost her husband and son and, for all she knows, Battler might be faking his memory loss. But the point isn't really what Eva can and can't do but what Yasu thinks Eva will do and how she fears it can evolve. I honestly don't remember this and need to check it over. All I can remember was he saying he checked her car. |
||||
2012-09-06, 14:04 | Link #30396 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Well the problem is that "Yasu is looking for battler" is still an unknown variable, that is a variable that needs to be demonstrated.
In the end the only premise we all agree about is that "An amnesiac was adopted". So while this is extremely improbable, since it is the known fact, we can ignore this implausibility when trying to evaluate the related variables. I guess that if you theorize that Yasu escaped with Battler, then it wouldn't be a random encounter anymore. My example wouldn't work anymore. It however still works in any other case where you theorize a random encounter, whether it is Yasu randomly finding Battler (I still consider it random even if she is actively searching him, unless she knew where to find him. Else it would be improbable for her to find him before someone else), Yasu finding a random amnesiac, or a stranger finding a random amnesiac. Again specifically looking for a random ameniasac isn't acceptable unless you explain how exactly one can improve his chances to find such a person and to take her home.
__________________
|
2012-09-06, 15:35 | Link #30397 |
"Senior" "Member"
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
But aside from all of that, in both Ikuko=Yasu and Ikuko=RandomStranger there is the possibility, that Tohya's memories about "Tohya's first encouncer with Ikuko" may have been manipulated by Ikuko. For example it is possible that Tohya was actually NEVER hit by a car, but by telling lies for a long time, she may have made him believe it happened like in the bits of EP8.
The first time i saw these scenes i doubted them. In the middle of EP8 there was suddenly some story about Battler/Tohya (i instantly knew it was him, because i got spoiled about that info), then suddenly it goes back to Ange. Also Ikuko's behavior seemed inconsistent, as sometimes she had the personality from the tea party and sometimes she was a very shy person, which remembered me a bit of chick Beatrice.
__________________
|
2012-09-06, 15:35 | Link #30398 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
If you happened to be interested in seeing what turned up (whether that be just objects of interest or survivors), you might be inclined to visit the area more frequently. If you hear about some homeless guy in the area, well... it makes a lot more sense than pure random coincidence no matter who Tohya and Ikuko are. But again, that applies as much to Ikuko being just who she is as it would to Ikuko being Yasu. They'd both have incentive to go check out the area's beaches or whatever and see if anything intriguing turned up.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-06, 20:18 | Link #30399 | ||
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now back to topic. 'Personality death' 'Red absolute text' 'Anti-mistery vs Anti-fantasy' In-gameboard, those are some rules that are followed to solve the crimes. You heard about CLUE? Yeah, they're playing that in the witches' hall. Its a GAMEboard! Taking possible scenarios from the games, we can grasp hints of what really happened, the motivations, the possibilities... our job as readers is fish those hints out and piece together a scenary that fits. A theory. A blue stake. What is happening outside the catbox gives us the aftermath, some hints of what might have actually happened in Rokkenjima Prime and some drama with Ange. and nobody said that all the Gameboard rules applied to 'Rokkenjima Prime'. There are things, like the red text and the serial murders, that were put there to spice the forgeries. You know why Battler's death has nothing to do with those rules? Because that's what happened in the world outside the catbox. No red texts, no magic, no 'gameboard rules' and certainly no 'character death'. That, as far as Umineko as a whole was concerned, happened outside Rokkenjima's mistery, 'In real Life' so to speak. He got brain damage. He stopped believing himself Battler. Arguably, he got better after some decades. Calling it 'personality death' like in-gameboard is just pulling an Irony as a Name. So yeah. To solve the GAMES is possible through reasoning and following RULES like 'personality death' or the 'absolute red'. Solving Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is not just explaining those forgeries. As objetive you have to try and figure the big picture that went boom on that 4-5 oct, and it's gonna be out of your reach if you try to connect and make everything about forgeries fit, because, as much as those games give us hints, their original purpose is to obscure the truth. EP8 tried to make us remember that the catbox was cut from the real world in Umineko. Catbox, better known as Rokkenjima, is a fantasy setting for a game. Out of the game, things are not forced to follow the catbox rules. Isn't Ryuukishi's purpose to show us a layered work? You can't honestly say you believed that all the rules apply to all the layers... Meta world, game board, featherine's reality, Ange's 1998, the real 1998... they're not the same. If you forget about thinking in levels, you forget what the world of Umineko is about. There was some metaphor involving cheese and brains given by Erika that'd fit your situation if that's the case. So maybe Ryuukishi's answers don't have any logic and sound as bull. Maybe some resources he used are seem as unfair. Remember that Ryuukishi is the witch that's trying to hide the truth? Remember that even the in-story detectives follow his lead to hide/ignore what could give away Beatrice's heart? Yeah, something like that. With detectives and witch hunters crying about the unfairness of a game made by a Witch, I fear for the future of the Anti-fantasy fanbase. We're just going down so hard I can almost hear how Featherine alias 'AuthorAvatar' is laughing at us...
__________________
Last edited by Patchwork Chimera; 2012-09-06 at 20:36. |
||
2012-09-06, 20:38 | Link #30400 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Shouldn't we be applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the catbox? Basically you're completely incoherent.
__________________
|
|
|
|