If you’ve never heard of breakpoints, you can still reason about anything, including continuums, using conjectures and refutations. And you can still evaluate specific ideas as refuted or non-refuted for particular goals in particular contexts and use decisive arguments and have paths forward.
Do you mean without using breakpoints implicitly? Like people can create knowledge without having heard of evolution, but it would be correct to say evolution is necessary for knowledge creation.
So breakpoints wouldn’t be necessary like evolution is necessary because you can reason without even using it implicitly.
I hadn’t realized that you had already answered, I missed your reply somehow.
I don’t really understand what your explanations after “cuz” are for. Are you saying that you’re dying 5 times and 20 times to some bosses? Are they like difficulty points? Is there something else that is 5 and 20 or happened that many times? Like what exactly are those amounts? Maybe you had an intuition that those would be the correct amounts for some bosses?
Yeah I kind of dont know either I thought I could find the breakpoint from dying to a boss a lot and not beating them
Yeah, like it depends on what souls game and how hard the boss is.
I dont know what a difficulty point is. Is that like the more points a boss has the more difficult it is? Sorry i dont know how to answer the question
I think yeah like that’s how many times a person missed a certain boss combo attacks and that’s what killed them.
Yeah i did i think but now i think it probably depends on everyone’s skill level so the amount of times someone dies to a boss may vary.
Edit: When I say, “I think yeah like that’s how many times a person missed a certain boss combo attacks” I mean like when the player doesn’t avoid or dodge a boss’ attack combo. Bosses in those game tend to do a string of attacks the player has to avoid
I was just guessing at something you may have thought. Difficulty points would be giving bosses a score based on how difficult they are. People do that sometimes but I just thought up the terminology “difficulty points”. I think such could only be approximate and would be flawed according to CF. This isn’t the topic we are discussing though.
So my answer is that it’s not a breakpoint. It’s actually a binary goal.
The reason is that in order to progress you have to not die against the boss. You don’t get close to beating the boss by dying more. You do get closer to beating the boss by increasing in skill level. And it’s true that you increase in skill level by attempting and dying a lot, but if you merely restarted the fight without trying to improve or beat the boss then dying more won’t help. So “dying a lot” isn’t the issue, it’s about increasing in skill level.
you could have breakpoints for skill level. although using quantities for skill level is probably just an approximation. like you can be so good that you take no hits, but it’s fine to take some hits (I assume), so the breakpoint for skill level wouldn’t be so high that you need to take no hits. Amount of hits taken could be a breakpoint for beating a boss, like you can take 5 hits, but if you take 6 hits you’re dead.
I think you could also think of there being breakpoints for percentages of times not getting hit by certain attack patterns. You don’t need a 99% no hit rate, but maybe you need to be at the skill level where you have 80% no hit rate for a certain attack pattern. That would also be a breakpoint for beating a boss, not the entire game.
Oh ok I thought that’s what you meant
Oh actually? I think I saw something about binary goals in the CF article in this thread. How they’re different from breakpoints. I gotta go back n look in the article for this.
Yeah I agree. Maybe by dying to the boss the player might pick up an intuition or two about its attacks, but dying a lot does not itself get the player closer to beating the boss. What gets them closer is if they learn.
Yeah the player can usually take some hits to beat a boss. They don’t gotta be a pro who doesnt get damaged at all.
oh ok i think i see how breakpoints work in a scenario like this. I keep trying to relate the concept about how breakpoints show a qualitative difference on an analog spectrum, but it’s hard. It’s ok tho ill learn at some point.
yeah there is an amount of getting hit that makes the difference between you dying(n retrying) and you living and beating the boss. I know players can get just avoid attacks and not attack the boss at all but im assuming the player is damaging the boss.
Yeah I knew about this edge case but it’s reasonable to assume the player will damage the boss consistently and not totally stop midway through or anything.
1 Like
For practicing Dark Souls bosses, the quantity you increase is skill. The standard breakpoint is having enough skill to beat the boss once.
Skill is hard to measure, so we often measure a proxy such as damage done to the boss. In that case, the breakpoint is the amount needed to win: 100% of the boss’ health.
Winning is a breakpoint because it lets you get the boss’ loot and advance to new areas past the boss.
It’s also possible to have a different goal and therefore a different breakpoint. For example, you might want to do a no hit run of the game, so you’d need a higher skill level for that, so the breakpoint would be a higher amount of skill than before.
Is skill exactly a continuum?
Can I deal with this breakpoint in a binary way? Like one side is having enough skill to beat the boss once. On the other side, it’s less than enough skill and I won’t beat the boss once.
I’m trying to use this quote:
One side of the breakpoint is 100% of the boss’ health needed to win. The other side is less than 100%. The other side is not enough to win.
Can I deal with this breakpoint in a binary way as well? Winning the boss fight is one side and let’s you get boss items and explore new areas after the boss. The other side of the breakpoint is losing to the boss and it won’t let you get boss items and explore new areas.
Is the breakpoint for the no hit run to beat a boss: 100 % of the boss’ health and 0 damage taken?
Just an application of breakpoints: Typically in games you can deal more than 100% of the boss’ health. If the boss has 5 health left any attack that does 5 or more damage crosses the breakpoint. Dealing more than 5 damage is unnecessary but works just as well.
1 Like
Oh so what issue to focus on is something to judge as well? Like, if we’re trying to consider a problem, lots of parts of the problem will get a quick pass/fail evaluation for if we should focus on them.
To get good at finding major and minor problems can you try to predict what is and isn’t a major problem? And when you do solve the whole problem you check to see if you were right.
Oh ok i dont have any immediate examples in mind, but I think i see
Toy examples can make ideas more explicit for me. I asked ChatGPT to explain Decisive Arguments and give toy examples and I think it did pretty well. What do you think? Here’s what it said:
“Critical Fallibilism says:
Don’t ask “How good is this idea?” on a scale.
Ask “Does this idea have a known problem for this goal, or not?”
So each idea gets a pass/fail check relative to a specific goal.
-
Non-refuted = no known decisive problem for that goal
-
Refuted = there is a known decisive problem for that goal
A decisive argument is an argument that shows an idea fails at the goal. Not just “it’s not ideal,” but “this won’t work for what we need.”
Why this matters
CF rejects ranking ideas with things like:
-
“I’m 80% confident”
-
“This seems more plausible”
-
“That’s somewhat justified”
Instead, it says:
-
Pick the goal.
-
Test each idea against that goal.
-
Look for a decisive error.
-
Prefer the idea that survives criticism.
So the question is not “Which idea feels stronger?”
It is: “Which idea gets refuted for this goal, and which one doesn’t?”
How one idea can be better than another
If two ideas both seem “good,” CF says you distinguish them by checking more than one goal.
An idea is better than another when you can say something like:
-
“Idea A passes goal X.”
-
“Idea B fails goal X.”
That is enough to make A better for that purpose.
So “better” does not mean “has a higher score.”
It means survives an important criticism that the rival does not.
Real-world example
Suppose your goal is:
Get to work on time tomorrow morning.
You have two rival ideas:
-
Idea A: Drive your car
-
Idea B: Ride your bike
Now test them against the goal.
Check Idea A: drive
Possible criticism:
- “There is major road construction on your route tomorrow, and traffic will make you late.”
If that is true, then for the goal get to work on time, Idea A is refuted.
Check Idea B: bike
Possible criticism:
- “The bike path is open, and the ride takes 25 minutes, which still gets you there on time.”
No decisive problem found, so Idea B is non-refuted.
Conclusion
Bike is better than drive for that goal because:
-
Drive fails the goal
-
Bike does not fail the goal
That is a decisive comparison.
Not:
-
“Bike is 73% better”
-
“Driving is somewhat plausible”
-
“Bike has more support”
Just:
-
Driving is refuted for this goal
-
Biking is not
Another example with two goals
Say your goal is not just “arrive on time,” but also:
-
Goal 1: arrive on time
-
Goal 2: don’t arrive sweaty because you have a presentation
Now compare again.
Idea A: drive
-
Goal 1: maybe passes
-
Goal 2: passes
Idea B: bike
-
Goal 1: passes
-
Goal 2: might fail if it’s hot and you’ll arrive sweaty
Now biking may be refuted for Goal 2.
So CF would say: don’t collapse everything into one fuzzy overall rating.
Instead, evaluate multiple idea-goal pairs.
That gives nuance without using vague “degrees of goodness.”
The hammer example in plain English
“Use a hammer” is not just good or bad by itself.
It depends on the goal:
-
Goal: hammer a nail into wood → passes
-
Goal: eat soup → fails
So CF says ideas should not be judged in isolation.
They should be judged as:
idea + goal
and sometimes also
idea + goal + context
What “decisive argument” means in everyday language
A decisive argument says:
“Here is the concrete reason this idea won’t do the job.”
Examples:
-
“This restaurant is closed, so it fails the goal of getting dinner there tonight.”
-
“This study method takes 10 hours, so it fails the goal of being ready by tomorrow morning.”
-
“This ladder is too short, so it fails the goal of reaching the roof safely.”
That is stronger than saying:
-
“I’m less confident in it”
-
“It seems weaker”
-
“It’s not the best”
CF wants actual failure reasons.”
So did I. Here’s one that I liked (pasted below with light editing by me). It’s a mock debate about whether Shakespeare really authored his plays or not.
Shakespeare Authorship Debate: Weighty vs Decisive
Weighty Thought Process:
“Well, there are several points supporting Shakespeare’s authorship:
“His name is on the plays (this strongly supports the idea he’s the author, +20 points)
“Contemporary references mention him as a playwright (this adds some extra support to the idea he’s the author, +15 points)
“The First Folio attributes the works to him (this very strong evidence strengthens his case even further, +25 points)
“Adding these up, we can conclude that overall the argument in favor of his authorship is very strong (60 points total).
“But there are also concerns:
“Limited documented education (this weakens his case a little, -10 points)
“Few personal manuscripts survived (this further undermines his case—but not too much, -8 points)
“Some vocabulary seems above his station (this is yet another piece of evidence against him—but it’s not too strong, -12 points)
“To conclude, the evidence in favor of Shakespeare’s authorship is very strong (60 points) and although there’s some evidence against him (-30 points), it’s not overwhelming. Overall, the weight of the evidence is on Shakespeare’s side (= net +30 points).”
Decisive Thought Process:
“Are there any decisive refutations of the idea that Shakespeare wrote his plays?
“‘Limited education’ - does that refute the idea he wrote them? No, people learn without formal schooling.
“‘Few manuscripts survived’ - does that refute the idea he wrote them? No, hardly any Elizabethan playwright manuscripts survived.
“‘Vocabulary above his station’ - does that refute the idea he wrote them? No, writers research and learn.
"None of these criticisms are decisive. They’re all compatible with Shakespeare being the author. So Shakespeare’s authorship is non-refuted. We accept it unless someone can point to an actual refutation.”
That said, in IRL debates I don’t think anybody actually uses the weighing/scoring epistemology explicitly. It’s interesting that people debate such things but seemingly don’t have an explicit epistemology or explicit idea of what would count as conclusive or decisive. So it seems impossible to decisively “win” such debates because nobody knows what counts as success or a decisive conclusion. It’s like playing soccer without knowing exactly where the (invisible) goal is (and where the rules of the game are unknown or not clearly defined besides! lol)
1 Like