Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190716014521

Continuation of Part 1:https://undertale.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:170064

Even when we know everything that actually happened within the game's story.. That won't tell us everything about Undertale's world. We know that Frisk traverses the Underground, encounters monsters, and frees the monsters.. Or kills them all.

But theorization hasn't even been established at this point. How will we use the evidence within Undertale to gather truths within its world? Well, this is where Logic comes into play.

You see, any good hypothesis makes a statement, and provides evidence for that statement. This can be represented as a logical argument-Premises, and conclusion(s).

For instance, let us convert the Narrator Theory into a logical argument.


 * Premise 1:There exists a narrator in Undertale
 * Premise 2:The narrator mistakes licorice for non-licorise
 * Conclusion 1:The narrator is not all-knowing
 * Premise 3:The narrator refers to themselves with the name "Chara".
 * Premise 4:The narrator mistakenly assumes that we asked an Amalgamate why it's even alive.
 * Premise 5:If the narrator gets our actions wrong, the narrator cannot be the player.
 * Conclusion 2:By P4 and P5, the narrator is not the player,
 * Premise 6:If the narrator refers to their name as "Chara", they must either be Chara, or that which we named "Chara".
 * Premise 7:The narrator refers to Frisk as "Frisk".
 * Conclusion 3:By P7, The Narrator is not Frisk.
 * Premise 8:That which we named "Chara" must either be Chara, the player, or Frisk.
 * Conclusion 4:By C2, P6, and C3, the narrator must be Chara.

If all the premises are true, then the conclusions must be true as well. In order for an argument to be valid, the conclusions must follow from the premises. In order for it to be sound, it must be valid, AND the premises must be true.

As a result, we should only use premises that have already been shown to be true (remember, if it's canon, we declare it to automatically be true-That's a starting ground)

But likewise, we need to make sure we form our arguments in such a way that the premises imply the conclusions. And it is possible to fail to do this. Take this argument, for example.


 * Premise 1:All cats are mammals.
 * Premise 2:Jil is a mammal.
 * Conclusion:Jil is a cat.

This contains what is known as a logical fallacy-In this case, it's affirming the consequent. The argument is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Remember-The argument has to be provided in such a way so that given the evidence... The conclusion simply naturally follows.

So what are the fallacies, and how do we avoid them? That will be dealt with in Part 3. 