Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-26907577-20190925195548

Here is the solution to the masked man fallacy:

"I do not know [statement]" is distinct from "I know [statement] is false".

That is, if you do not know something, then it is possible for it to be either true or false.

...come to think of it, Ambassador's example shows another problem with this fallacy. Claiming to know Sans in this context might not lead to a fallacy if we say "we know Sans and all of Sans's alternate identities."

See also the fallacy fallacy, which is claiming an opponent's conclusion is false because the argument is unsound; there is a possibility it could still be true for reasons which were not part of that argument.

In essence, a false dichotomy arises when we look at a problem, and see fewer solutions than there are. This tends to happen when we make a hidden assumption which, based on the probability of the solutions we do see, is actually of similar or greater probability to be false than the initial options are to be true.

Example: Old claim that if the Hard Mode ending is canon, then Sparing is not. While there is additional evidence to back Hard Mode not being canonical, consider the reasoning behind the Sparing condition: While the truth of (1) depends on Hard Mode being canonical, the assumed (2) also depends on something: The Annoying Dog is a very direct stand-in for Toby Fox, and not a medium-level stand-in. Who says the game in the dog's room is Undertale? Just implications which are uncertain.
 * 1) The Annoying Dog expects Toriel to be dying even if spared.
 * 2) (hidden) The Annoying Dog has a complete understanding of Undertale and its mechanics, having developed the game.
 * 3) Therefore, sparing is not possible.

No comments on the other fallacies.