Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20191204223402

Okay, it's time for the next part of Part 3.

It's easy to say that since intuition tells us something is true, then it must be. But that's another fallacy.

There's also illicit contraposition. Usually, a contrapositive is implied by the original statement, but there is an exception to this.

Premise:No monsters are humans Conclusion:No non-humans are non-monsters.

Looks like your classical contrapositive, right? Well, there's a problem here.

The reason why contrapositives work is because it places one category inside of another.

If all As are also Bs, then if it is not a B, then it is not an A. In essence, category A exists inside of category B.

In this case, however, we are simply stating that no As are Bs-In essence, that the two categories never touch each other. That doesn't mean there's nothing outside of the whole system. We can't prove, from this alone, that humans and monsters are the only races out there (though the intro makes it clear that there were indeed only two races.. Though depending on what the intro is in reference to canon, it might not be necessarily true. Even still, I'm not creating a third race unless there's no other way to make the whole game be consistent, that wouldn't be even worse...)

Now for another fallacy, that is specific to Undertale itself, but based upon a common fallacy!

Recall the definition of canon that I gave you in Part 1, and what Undertale should be analyzed as.

Undertale is.. a fictional world. We all know it's not an actual world. But it was made to operate as one, like all story-based games.

Canon is the actual world of Undertale itself. We see it through an imperfect medium, ie:The game itself. Not everything we observe within the game is necessarily canon-For example, Hard Mode probably isn't. Even still, we should start by trusting that what we observe is canon. I ended off with saying that we should out in about the same level of trust in the canonicity of events with the game as we put trust in the truthfulness of events we witnessed.

But the medium and world both have a creator:Toby Fox. And it is very common to say that if a mysterious event hasn't been explained, then that just means Toby goofed.

Premise 1: Asgore interacts with the HUD in Undertale. Premise 2: We don't know how the HUD could be canonically interacted with. Conclusion:So Toby Fox did it! (Just a plot hole, nothing to see here!)

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we just say Toby did it.

So, what do I call this fallacy? Well, Toby Fox has an avatar that he uses.. a dog. So, using wordplay and the original fallacy this is based off of, I call it Dog of the Gaps.

Yes, the medium has imperfections. But we should at least try to explain the phenomena. Otherwise, we might deem something noncanon when in fact it held a key to the solution to a long unsolved mystery!

And that's all the deductive fallacies that I was able to find, which applies to Undertale.