The Issue with "Name Fallacy"

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I have been running into this issue on the wiki, and I think it's time to address it formally. The so called, "name fallacy" where someone makes the claim that the name of a technique cannot be used as supporting evidence for what said technique does. I think this line of argument to be plain silly and not conducive to debating or talking about a subject. Not only is the name fallacy not an actual fallacy, it isn't recorded on the fallacy page. It's an informal argument that is being used to formally shut down conversations.

A common example of the name fallacy would be such things as: "Just because Vegeta's attack is called the big bang attack, doesn't mean it's an actual big bang". True but the conclusion isn't that we ignore the names of attacks all together. That's not logical. We instead take in all the information, we conclude that the visual depiction of the attack and the context of the narrative, doesn't support the attack being an actual big bang attack and we conclude that the name is figurative and not a 1:1 description. Had the visual depiction and the context surrounding the attack showcased the a rapid expansion of spacetime, releasing energy to form a new universe, then we conclude that the name would have been descriptive and not figurative.

Another example would be a character using the attack, "Gravity smash" and the story depicting their opponent being pushed to the ground by an invisible downward force. Under the current wanton use of the "name fallacy" someone would claim that just because the attack is called gravity smash, doesn't mean it uses gravity. They could even suggest that the character could be using telekinesis or wind manipulation. It makes no sense to completely ignore the name of attack. It should be included as supporting information along with the other elements of the story.

I also find the name fallacy to be unfair to certain works of fiction. In many works like Shonen there are narrators that explains what happens or repeats things, or have characters who do the same thing. Some works of fiction do not have this. Some are short and fast pace. The name of a technique is one of the ways an author can quickly tell the reader what the technique is or does without wasting screentime for more important things or if the visual depiction would be too vague.

If people are going to use name fallacy as an actual thing on this site it should be added to the fallacies page, and it should be noted that users will need to explain and provide evidence as to why the name is not a 1:1 description of a technique, instead of just invoking the fallacy to completely rule out using the name of technique as supporting evidence because "that's just how we do things here."

 

[Bobsican]

It's more so a standard in general, and it has official precedent on the site with how we don't give Absolute Zero to moves that only happen to have that name for reasons unrelated to our purposes.

However, the term is used very frequently in fiction to either exaggerate the degree of cold a character's powers are capable of or to simply make a technique sound more intimidating.

- Absolute Zero Feats in Fiction

The best way to put it is that a technique having a name isn't the same thing as describing what it is, something could be named "outerversal" yet not have any traits even close to tier 1, something could be called a explosion yet not have any actual traits like an explosion, etc.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It's more so a standard in general, and it has official precedent on the site with how we don't give Absolute Zero to moves that only happen to have that name for reasons unrelated to our purposes.


- Absolute Zero Feats in Fiction

The best way to put it is that a technique having a name isn't the same thing as describing what it is, something could be named "outerversal" yet not have any traits even close to tier 1, something could be called a explosion yet not have any actual traits like an explosion, etc.

That's not what the Absolute Zero page says though. It even gives pokemon as an example:

• The attack "Sheer Cold" in Pokémon was originally named "Absolute Zero" in the Japanese release and is explicitly described as, "The target is attacked with a blast of absolute-zero cold." in the latest iterations of the game.

Name can be used as statement and it then goes on to say, "Nevertheless, such statements need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as hyperbole and inconsistency is rampant in fiction."

Which is what I am getting at. If an attack is called absolute zero, the name should not be ignored, and should be listed as among the evidence with all other aspects.

 

[Bobsican]

I guess there's indeed a inconsistency there.

 

[KLOL506]

That's not what the Absolute Zero page says though. It even gives pokemon as an example:

• The attack "Sheer Cold" in Pokémon was originally named "Absolute Zero" in the Japanese release and is explicitly described as, "The target is attacked with a blast of absolute-zero cold." in the latest iterations of the game.

Name can be used as statement and it then goes on to say, "Nevertheless, such statements need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as hyperbole and inconsistency is rampant in fiction."

Which is what I am getting at. If an attack is called absolute zero, the name should not be ignored, and should be listed as among the evidence with all other aspects.

This point makes sense to me.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's more so a case by case topic; but a name alone doesn't automatically justify what an attack or technique is. Descriptions may be better than names however.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Medeus here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

While a name can be some amount of evidence, it is incredibly weak evidence and a decision ever hinging on the name of an attack is difficult to imagine.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

While a name can be some amount of evidence, it is incredibly weak evidence and a decision ever hinging on the name of an attack is difficult to imagine.

Of course names alone aren’t good enough. They should be used in context. The problem I am arriving is when people rule out the name of an attack all together, and the rest of the supporting information doesn’t make sense without it.

No one’s getting an ability on just a name alone, but when the name is relevant to all other information, it should be counted.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If the rest of the supporting information makes no sense without relying on assuming the name has a specific meaning, then the proposed reasoning doesn't sound solid to me at all.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

If the rest of the supporting information makes no sense without relying on assuming the name has a specific meaning, then the proposed reasoning doesn't sound solid to me at all.

The name is apart of all the evidence. All of it should be considered or you're just cherry picking. Authors can use the names of technique to directly convey information to the audience.

It's silly to have a requirement to have the author add someone saying, "he's crushing the opponent with gravity" after a character uses their technique called "gravity crusher" when the visuals and the technique name is enough to portray that information.

It's essentially punishing works of fiction for not being redundant.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Even the flipside is true: We can have a character that has only ever shown to use telekinesis and has only been described as a telekinetic. If they use a technique called gravity crusher, using all the information, including the name, we can infer that the character is not using gravity manipulation, but is rather using telekinesis in a way that simulates gravity. It's all apart of the package.

We don't need an informal roadblock of a rule where we ignore names to come up with that same conclusion.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like this thread has been firmly rejected now...

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It seems like this thread has been firmly rejected now...

Who rejected it?

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk, Medeus, and myself, if I do not misremember.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

DontTalk, Medeus, and myself, if I do not misremember.

I wouldn’t called Medeus statement a rejection.

My goal was that names can be used and included allong with all the information instead of ruled out automatically.

No one has said that names should be disregarded as evidence all together.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, if the name is consistent with description, it could be weak supporting evidence but in the end. I would still find that why justify something as weak evidence when demonstrations and or detailed descriptions would override it or make a name for something not very relevant.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima Should we close this thread, given the rejections?

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me at least.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That seems fine to me at least.

Okay, do it, then.

 

[KingTempest]

Done