Is Gosho Writing Good? (Chekhov Confesses, Gosho held Prisoner in basement)

[sstimson]

What's the logical fallacy called where Person A is arguing Point A and Person B says that Person A is wrong because Point Z is a logical fallacy?

I got this funny feeling you are suggesting I am doing this, or is that you doing it?

Association fallacy (guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

(Note the name of the fallacy)

or is it this one

Appeal to accomplishment: where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

this is a nice one

Appeal to ridicule: an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

I suppose this might play a role

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence

then again maybe  this is what you are after

A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Of course, you never do this

Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of opponent's position twisting his words, or by means of [false]assumptions

and of course you way too nice to do this to me, right?

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

This one is the closest I can find

Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison

[leokiko]

Mind screw?

[kkslider5552000]

Just as planned

[mangaluva]

I think Sstimson missing my point about explaining what a fallacy is not constituting a counter-argument. I'm not even sure what zie was trying to say in the first place.

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

I think Sstimson missing my point about explaining what a fallacy is not constituting a counter-argument. I'm not even sure what zie was trying to say in the first place.

He tends to start accusing people of fallacies when he runs out of answers. Last timeI had to invoke ~tHe CaLlOuT~ just to get sort of straight answers out of him.

[M1313]

I am sorry if I intrude here, but I'd really like to say what I think about Gosho's style in creating mysteries and other thing that were discussed here *.*

First, I respect Chekhov MacGuffin: her theories are perfect, and even if something could be different from the actual solution, she still did a very great deduction job with her logical skills. But... I think there is a problem.

It was stated that her theories were wrong because "Gosho wouldn't put clues in such an obvious manner so that she could find them that easily"; in reality, I don't think Gosho exposed them carelessly: he actually hide them, but Chekhov was smart and found them. Where is the problem, then? Well... I don't think Gosho would change his writing style all of a sudden: if he writes this arc, he is writing it in the same way he wrote the previous ones, with little obvious difference (e.g. in this arc Conan already knows the "solution", when he wondered and suspected about other people's identity in other arcs, such as the Kir one). So, this arc cannot be too different from the arc we already read: and, among them, one is important... that is, the Vermouth one.
Imagine Chekhov today reading for the first time that arc, and trying to write down her theories here. If she follows a logical-based procedure, she would have found out that Jodie's surname (Santemillion) was a pun on "Sant-Emillion", an alcohol, that Jodie was referring to "someone who changed his appearance and now goes to school" when speaking about her target, and the phrase "A secret makes  woman woman", common both to Vermouth and to Jodie. She is clever, and looking at these clues, she would say: "Jodie is obviously Vermouth, and the target she is referring to is Haibara, who shrunk down and now goes to school". But then, when we read the end of the arc... HEY, Jodie was just Jodie and the quiet Dr. Araide is the BO member Vermouth, who disguised as him.

Do you notice any similarity? I think it's the same here: she sure is clever, I cannot deny it. She found out a lot of clues that Okiya is Akai, but... we all did it when searching clues during the Vermouth arc: and all of them were red herrings, since Jodie was NOT Vermouth. So, how do we know it is not the same thing here? In that arc it was too obvious Jodie was hinted to be Vermouth, and in fact she wasn't. Now it's too hinted that Okiya is Akai (well, during the case he was introduced in he was the Red Guy, and "Red" in Japanese is "Akai"... if just some files after Akai's "death" someone called the "Akai Guy" appears, speaks about black, colours he "likes, but hates because it covers things of his life he wouldn't like to discover" and we see Conan letting him stay in his house in spite of his typical mistrust about everybody... isn't is too hinted that Okiya was Akai? Yes, it happened just when we knew about Bourbon existence, so that we could have thought he was him: and the fact Haibara reacted to him may have made us think like this: but then Conan gave the keys of his house to him, how could he be a BO member, in our minds? And that's it: I think it's too obvious not because I read the theories... but because it seems like the Vermouth arc: I couldn't notice clues in that arc, and didn't notice clues in this arc either until I read the theories: but even now, I think it's not a coincidence. Even Sera, who's thought to be Akai's sister... Gosho already used this during the Kir arc, where we had siblings with identical eyes... and Gosho even said during an interview "Maybe she's the sister of a mayor character"!

I conclude saying that it's true that during the Vermouth arc there were clues that made us understand that Jodie was not Vermouth, while the Woman in Black was disguised as Dr. Araide. But it's also true that, while the red herrings were evident, obvious and manifest, this "real" clues were so hidden that it was really difficult to notice them (e.g. the fact that Jodie's photos were pictures of Vermouth's ones because of the irregulars bords). And the same here in the Bourbon arc: how do we know that Gosho didn't put very-well-hidden clues to hint that things are not like we think? It could be, and maybe Chekhov did not see them. It could happen, and not because she's stupid or else. She's very very clever, but Gosho may be even smarter.
So, the rules of the game haven't changed at all, in my opinion  Gosho played with us since the Vermouth arc, making us think things he would "destroy" during the resolution case. Red herrings were always present... before and now. For example, I perfectly agree with the theory about Akai's way of faking death: Gosho never clearly hinted that things could have be like that, the trick with the two phones is clever since the last time we saw Conan clearly using two phones in a BO case was 100 cases before during Black Impact, in the car with Jodie... and it's a real case in which hints are hidden and the clever reader find them in order to reach the truth. Scar Akai=Bourbon might be OK as well... but other things, like OKiya=Akai and Sera=Akai's sister appears to me as over-hinted by Gosho himself.

Just my opinion, obviously ^^ 

[Akonyl]

What's the logical fallacy called where Person A is arguing Point A and Person B says that Person A is wrong because Point Z is a logical fallacy?

I got this funny feeling you are suggesting I am doing this, or is that you doing it?

Association fallacy

Spoiler: snipped for size

(guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

(Note the name of the fallacy)

or is it this one

Appeal to accomplishment: where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

this is a nice one

Appeal to ridicule: an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

I suppose this might play a role

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence

then again maybe  this is what you are after

A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

Of course, you never do this

Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of opponent's position twisting his words, or by means of [false]assumptions

and of course you way too nice to do this to me, right?

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

This one is the closest I can find

Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison

oh my god this is the most perfect response I could have hoped for.

[Kor]

I am sorry if I intrude here, but I'd really like to say what I think about Gosho's style in creating mysteries and other thing that were discussed here *.*

First, I respect Chekhov MacGuffin: her theories are perfect, and even if something could be different from the actual solution, she still did a very great deduction job with her logical skills. But... I think there is a problem.

It was stated that her theories were wrong because "Gosho wouldn't put clues in such an obvious manner so that she could find them that easily"; in reality, I don't think Gosho exposed them carelessly: he actually hide them, but Chekhov was smart and found them. Where is the problem, then? Well... I don't think Gosho would change his writing style all of a sudden: if he writes this arc, he is writing it in the same way he wrote the previous ones, with little obvious difference (e.g. in this arc Conan already knows the "solution", when he wondered and suspected about other people's identity in other arcs, such as the Kir one). So, this arc cannot be too different from the arc we already read: and, among them, one is important... that is, the Vermouth one.
Imagine Chekhov today reading for the first time that arc, and trying to write down her theories here. If she follows a logical-based procedure, she would have found out that Jodie's surname (Santemillion) was a pun on "Sant-Emillion", an alcohol, that Jodie was referring to "someone who changed his appearance and now goes to school" when speaking about her target, and the phrase "A secret makes  woman woman", common both to Vermouth and to Jodie. She is clever, and looking at these clues, she would say: "Jodie is obviously Vermouth, and the target she is referring to is Haibara, who shrunk down and now goes to school". But then, when we read the end of the arc... HEY, Jodie was just Jodie and the quiet Dr. Araide is the BO member Vermouth, who disguised as him.

Do you notice any similarity? I think it's the same here: she sure is clever, I cannot deny it. She found out a lot of clues that Okiya is Akai, but... we all did it when searching clues during the Vermouth arc: and all of them were red herrings, since Jodie was NOT Vermouth. So, how do we know it is not the same thing here? In that arc it was too obvious Jodie was hinted to be Vermouth, and in fact she wasn't. Now it's too hinted that Okiya is Akai (well, during the case he was introduced in he was the Red Guy, and "Red" in Japanese is "Akai"... if just some files after Akai's "death" someone called the "Akai Guy" appears, speaks about black, colours he "likes, but hates because it covers things of his life he wouldn't like to discover" and we see Conan letting him stay in his house in spite of his typical mistrust about everybody... isn't is too hinted that Okiya was Akai? Yes, it happened just when we knew about Bourbon existence, so that we could have thought he was him: and the fact Haibara reacted to him may have made us think like this: but then Conan gave the keys of his house to him, how could he be a BO member, in our minds? And that's it: I think it's too obvious not because I read the theories... but because it seems like the Vermouth arc: I couldn't notice clues in that arc, and didn't notice clues in this arc either until I read the theories: but even now, I think it's not a coincidence. Even Sera, who's thought to be Akai's sister... Gosho already used this during the Kir arc, where we had siblings with identical eyes... and Gosho even said during an interview "Maybe she's the sister of a mayor character"!

I conclude saying that it's true that during the Vermouth arc there were clues that made us understand that Jodie was not Vermouth, while the Woman in Black was disguised as Dr. Araide. But it's also true that, while the red herrings were evident, obvious and manifest, this "real" clues were so hidden that it was really difficult to notice them (e.g. the fact that Jodie's photos were pictures of Vermouth's ones because of the irregulars bords). And the same here in the Bourbon arc: how do we know that Gosho didn't put very-well-hidden clues to hint that things are not like we think? It could be, and maybe Chekhov did not see them. It could happen, and not because she's stupid or else. She's very very clever, but Gosho may be even smarter.
So, the rules of the game haven't changed at all, in my opinion  Gosho played with us since the Vermouth arc, making us think things he would "destroy" during the resolution case. Red herrings were always present... before and now. For example, I perfectly agree with the theory about Akai's way of faking death: Gosho never clearly hinted that things could have be like that, the trick with the two phones is clever since the last time we saw Conan clearly using two phones in a BO case was 100 cases before during Black Impact, in the car with Jodie... and it's a real case in which hints are hidden and the clever reader find them in order to reach the truth. Scar Akai=Bourbon might be OK as well... but other things, like OKiya=Akai and Sera=Akai's sister appears to me as over-hinted by Gosho himself.

Just my opinion, obviously ^^ 

I think you missed something. Most people didn't really go to much length back in the Vermouth arc - Jodie was suspicious so most people thought she was Vermouth. In this case, though, the role of the suspicious character is taken by Okiya. If you recall, in his early appearances, he was drinking Bourbon, and we also have the deal that Haibara thinks he's from the B.O. So Vermouth Arc's Jodie is actually Bourbon Arc's Okiya, in case you want to compare the two.
And by the by, as far as I recall, Chekhov noted that she DID solve the Vermouth arc for most of the part.

[Abs.]

Spoiler:

I am sorry if I intrude here, but I'd really like to say what I think about Gosho's style in creating mysteries and other thing that were discussed here *.*

First, I respect Chekhov MacGuffin: her theories are perfect, and even if something could be different from the actual solution, she still did a very great deduction job with her logical skills. But... I think there is a problem.

It was stated that her theories were wrong because "Gosho wouldn't put clues in such an obvious manner so that she could find them that easily"; in reality, I don't think Gosho exposed them carelessly: he actually hide them, but Chekhov was smart and found them. Where is the problem, then? Well... I don't think Gosho would change his writing style all of a sudden: if he writes this arc, he is writing it in the same way he wrote the previous ones, with little obvious difference (e.g. in this arc Conan already knows the "solution", when he wondered and suspected about other people's identity in other arcs, such as the Kir one). So, this arc cannot be too different from the arc we already read: and, among them, one is important... that is, the Vermouth one.
Imagine Chekhov today reading for the first time that arc, and trying to write down her theories here. If she follows a logical-based procedure, she would have found out that Jodie's surname (Santemillion) was a pun on "Sant-Emillion", an alcohol, that Jodie was referring to "someone who changed his appearance and now goes to school" when speaking about her target, and the phrase "A secret makes  woman woman", common both to Vermouth and to Jodie. She is clever, and looking at these clues, she would say: "Jodie is obviously Vermouth, and the target she is referring to is Haibara, who shrunk down and now goes to school". But then, when we read the end of the arc... HEY, Jodie was just Jodie and the quiet Dr. Araide is the BO member Vermouth, who disguised as him.

Do you notice any similarity? I think it's the same here: she sure is clever, I cannot deny it. She found out a lot of clues that Okiya is Akai, but... we all did it when searching clues during the Vermouth arc: and all of them were red herrings, since Jodie was NOT Vermouth. So, how do we know it is not the same thing here? In that arc it was too obvious Jodie was hinted to be Vermouth, and in fact she wasn't. Now it's too hinted that Okiya is Akai (well, during the case he was introduced in he was the Red Guy, and "Red" in Japanese is "Akai"... if just some files after Akai's "death" someone called the "Akai Guy" appears, speaks about black, colours he "likes, but hates because it covers things of his life he wouldn't like to discover" and we see Conan letting him stay in his house in spite of his typical mistrust about everybody... isn't is too hinted that Okiya was Akai? Yes, it happened just when we knew about Bourbon existence, so that we could have thought he was him: and the fact Haibara reacted to him may have made us think like this: but then Conan gave the keys of his house to him, how could he be a BO member, in our minds? And that's it: I think it's too obvious not because I read the theories... but because it seems like the Vermouth arc: I couldn't notice clues in that arc, and didn't notice clues in this arc either until I read the theories: but even now, I think it's not a coincidence. Even Sera, who's thought to be Akai's sister... Gosho already used this during the Kir arc, where we had siblings with identical eyes... and Gosho even said during an interview "Maybe she's the sister of a mayor character"!

I conclude saying that it's true that during the Vermouth arc there were clues that made us understand that Jodie was not Vermouth, while the Woman in Black was disguised as Dr. Araide. But it's also true that, while the red herrings were evident, obvious and manifest, this "real" clues were so hidden that it was really difficult to notice them (e.g. the fact that Jodie's photos were pictures of Vermouth's ones because of the irregulars bords). And the same here in the Bourbon arc: how do we know that Gosho didn't put very-well-hidden clues to hint that things are not like we think? It could be, and maybe Chekhov did not see them. It could happen, and not because she's stupid or else. She's very very clever, but Gosho may be even smarter.
So, the rules of the game haven't changed at all, in my opinion  ;D Gosho played with us since the Vermouth arc, making us think things he would "destroy" during the resolution case. Red herrings were always present... before and now. For example, I perfectly agree with the theory about Akai's way of faking death: Gosho never clearly hinted that things could have be like that, the trick with the two phones is clever since the last time we saw Conan clearly using two phones in a BO case was 100 cases before during Black Impact, in the car with Jodie... and it's a real case in which hints are hidden and the clever reader find them in order to reach the truth. Scar Akai=Bourbon might be OK as well... but other things, like OKiya=Akai and Sera=Akai's sister appears to me as over-hinted by Gosho himself.

Just my opinion, obviously ^^  ;)

This is an excellent third post. Welcome!

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

So, this arc cannot be too different from the arc we already read: and, among them, one is important... that is, the Vermouth one.
Imagine Chekhov today reading for the first time that arc, and trying to write down her theories here. If she follows a logical-based procedure...

Actually I got the Vermouth arc correctly... Barely. I did a pretty hack job by my standards today. A lot of hunches with not so much evidence. (Vermouth=Araide=Sharon=The serial killer. Her dragging it out was to avoid getting Shinichi and Ran caught up in her plan in return for New York, possibly a nod to Yukiko too) (Jodie hunting Vermouth, probably FBI) (Akai and James FBI, probably good, but I wondered what was up with Haibara's reaction to Akai before deciding that if Akai were bad he would have done something sooner) (I didn't get the Vermouth non aging bit.) ...but I missed the most important pictures of pictures clue, which meant I lacked solid proof. (I thought the FBI raided and got copies of the pictures, but I overlooked figuring out how to tell they were copies... I also made the assumption Vermouth saw Conan and Haibara at the party, so I picked out Araide initially because he covered the elementary school too, while Jodie only did the high school. Happy accident I guess...) I don't have the full list anymore of all the hints I found (I made it quite a bit before I joined DCTP and my computer tanked sometime in the middle), but I recovered some, but not all of them, and posted them on the DCW wiki for Jodie and Vermouth's articles.

[kkslider5552000]

I would like to point out that even now, the answer to the question "Is Gosho Writing Good?" is such an obvious yes that even Okiya was wearing Char's clothes and Akai's hat and was like "dude, this is way too obvious".

[sstimson]

the question is open ended. Time will tell

[sstimson]

Sorry about waking a JOKE thread. It seems most at Least IMO were missing the point. I post this here as most are likely to not read it and those that do, I already know what to expect. The point to this was this. I know most of you are biased about Gosho and his writing, it a little like asking if cats like milk or Dogs bones. I understand most of you can likely not put your bias aside and look at the question critically. On the writer of mysteries where would Gosho fit? I would put him on at a 6 on scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being great and 1 being a 1st grade writer. And it looks to me that over all he is headed towards a fair rating as his current work has slipped.

If I have ever attacked you as a person and out and out said your ideas are crazy and there is no chance if any of them being right, please let me know. While that has come my way (Personal attacks on me), I try to never attack the writer and completely call their ideas nonsense like some again have done to me. A debate should be done without Ad hominem attacks.

I use example and logic. Others seem to not explain why 'My ideas must be wrong". Instead they just say that. Ad hoc while maybe wrong in one area could be right in another. Also a world where everyone completely agree with one idea could be dangerous and asking for a flim flam man to pay them a visit. I present my idea as a different way of think, alternative if you wish and while I have had a few lively debates it seem to come down again to that point. Since some of my thoughts involve Ad hoc ideas, they as most (IMO) seem to say are not right and can not be right because of that. They then come down to me being told that only their view is right and asking impossible questions to answer like for example " when did you stop hitting your dog". Never are my points except greatly rarely and those post I enjoy greatly saying there is a very small chance I might be right. I know and IMO most know the party line. I never said the main party was wrong, I think I said that maybe this is another way to look at it.