Book was a Companion.

POSTED BY: Kelai
UPDATED: Monday, September 3, 2007 04:17
VIEWED: 7135
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

ADAMWANKENOBI

Thursday, January 4, 2007 9:46 PM

LOL to the OP! This actually sounds like something Joss would do.

SIRI

Friday, January 5, 2007 2:27 AM

I like it! Clever and you never know where Joss is going to take you. Maybe someday we'll find out.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

Siri

KELAI

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:49 PM

Yup -- its also interesting that there's an Inara the OPerative thread and a Book the COmpanion thread :)

I find the theory completely logical in 95% of the parts. The only thing I take issue with is when Book first meets Inara.

_______________________

♥´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·' ¤~ { l o v e } is watching someone die.

> > > signature by Superfluous <33

MIMA

Saturday, January 6, 2007 11:31 PM

ROFLMAO

I know it's not very constructive to the conversation, but gollywhiz *wipes tears*, thanks for the laughs. No. in nohow way. No.

CAUSAL

Saturday, January 6, 2007 11:58 PM

Contrary to Kelai, the argument is not only not logical, it is positively illogical--the conclusion being drawn does not follow from the premises, the very definition of illogical.

I concur with Sigmanunki that's there's bad argumentation going on here, but I'm going to say that the fallacy being committed isn't question-begging, it's either affirming the consequent or undistributed middle. The several pieces of evidence go essentially as follows: "We know that companions _________, and Book _________. Therefore, Book must be a companion" (I know it's an oversimplification, but bear with me).

On the one hand, the problem could be something like this: If you're a companion, then you are well-composed; Book is well composed; therefore, Book is a companion. But this won't work. Being well-composed is a necessary condition to being a companion, but not a sufficient one. Consider the following: if you're decapitated, then you're dead; Wash is dead; therefore, Wash is decapitated. The problem? death is necessary for decapitation, but not sufficient for it. Same deal with companion and well-composed. So you've identified a bunch of traits that are necessary conditions for the state of being a companion, but none of them are sufficient.

On the other hand, the argument may be working like this: All companions are well-composed; Book is well-composed; therefore, Book is a companion. But the trouble here is that although you have made a statement about all companions, you haven't made a statement about all well-composed people. Basically, you've said that every single companion is inside the category of well-composed--but it could very well be that there are other people that are part of the category "well-composed" but who are not companions. Consider the following illustration: All mafia members are criminals; Jesse James is a criminal; therefore Jesse James is a mafia member. But that's not right, because we've only said things about all mafia members, not all criminals.

I guess you might be able to use your evidence for a probabilistic argument; but unfortunately, the inferences you're trying to draw don't seem to follow from the evidence.

That said, my real reason for not thinking Book is a companion is that it makes my skin crawl. Personally, I think he's got demons much bigger than being a companion or a secret good guy. He was a bad guy, and I think we should embrace his dark past instead of turning him into a secret Independent sympathizer.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RCAT

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:47 AM

I don't think the theory was meant as a logical argument, just an interesting possiblity. Your right, Causal, that presented as an if/then proof the logic presented is false (just like the Operative theory: operatives are trained in guerilla tactics, Book knows about guerilla tactics, therefore...). I think it was more of a if/then-it-is-possible musing. Some of the facts fit into the possibity that, at some point, Book may have been a companion (or a crime-lord, or an alliance general).

I love the idea because it's unexpected and no one's brought it up before (and we all know Joss is all about unexpected). As I mentioned before, I think it's hightly unlikely but great for a discussion topic.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

CAUSAL

Sunday, January 7, 2007 1:42 PM

Right, as I said, they facts presented could be used in a probabilistic argument quite well, but not in an inferential one.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NBZ

Sunday, September 2, 2007 1:01 AM

Bumping this topic for those who may be interested.

Exhibit A - Companion Book:

I rest my case.

VETERAN

Sunday, September 2, 2007 1:23 AM

That there looks like an NYPD Detective circa 1977-1982.

FLORALBUNNY

Sunday, September 2, 2007 2:25 AM

Was that man not exquisite when he was "NYPD" all those years ago?

On topic: It would take a heckuvalot of patching to make Book a former Companion and have it feel right to me. Joss could surely come up with a past for Book which, at revelation, would give us all an AHA moment, rather than prompting quibble-fits.

bun
Frisky Browncoat
Capt. Mal's birthday is Sept. 20
I planted a cake...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Save the fireflies! Minimize outdoor lighting so the boys can find the girls!!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE