Preface: once again, the following post is also on my website at
in-line screenshots. I have been forced to break it up into two pieces
because of the rapidly expanding length.
DARKSTAR DEBATE ROUND 2, PART 1A: EU INCLUSION
> In spite of the pre-debate concession, term violations, and tardiness
Ad hominem fallacy: attacking my personal behaviour before even
mentioning any of my arguments. I thought you said you wanted this
debate to focus on the argument, not the man. Concession accepted.
> > [Quoted] I will focus on your so-called "Death Star chain-reaction
> > theory".
> "Superlaser Effect" is the accepted term.
Accepted by whom? By the way, that's a red-herring nitpick. I thought
you said you wanted a rational debate, rather than the usual
free-for-all. Did you realize what you were asking for?
STAR WARS CONTINUITY: EU INCLUSION
> (Note: I refer to statements defining the Canon, Continuity, and
> relationships between them as being part of the Canon Policy. In other
> words, "Canon Policy" is a blanket term for official dictates of what
> is and is not fact. You disagree with this definition here
> (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html), but such terminology
> is accepted, and I shall continue to use it.)
Accepted by whom?
> > [Quoted] You conclude (in your preface) that "the Expanded Universe
> > is NOT part of the official story of Star Wars".
> Emphasis yours. Please be more careful.
Red-herring nitpick. I thought you said you wanted a rational debate.
> <snip Cerasi's quote about how only the films are "absolute canon",
> with the novels coming in second>
> With Cerasi's comment that the novels should be regarded as very
> accurate, I see no problem in placing them and their
> Insider-stated-brethren in a sub-film Canon status, lesser than the
> Absolute Canon.
Red herring fallacy. Of COURSE the movie novelizations are secondary
canon. How does this address my point that something NEED NOT BE CANON
in order to be included in the "overall continuity," which is larger
than the canon?
> However, I see no way for the non-canon Expanded Universe to squeeze
> in under the gun. Cerasi makes the following comments regarding the
> "The further one branches away from the movies, the more
> interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works
> diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive
> and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation."
> "The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a
> window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit
> foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a
> nugget of truth to them."
> Some have argued that Cerasi's analogy allows for the acceptance of
> non-canon material in a manner consistent with the current accepted
> doctrine, a "logical extrapolation by us" (*), wherein the data from
> the Expanded Universe is considered 'canon unless contradicted'. (*
> Source: Dalton, ASVS -
Red herring fallacy. We are currently debating the question of whether
the EU material is valid, not how you think it should be analyzed.
Moreover, I am not responsible for arguments made by OTHER persons.
While it is tempting to defend my colleagues from your gratuitous
red-herring attacks, it is not relevant to this debate.
All you've accomplished with this Cerasi quote is to provide yet more
evidence that the EU material is valid, albeit "foggy". And since the
same could be said of all historical documents in real life, you have
helped support my website's longstanding position that the EU material
should be treated as "historical literature and narrative" (as written
on my Canon page) rather than observation. Thank you for supporting my
longstanding conclusion so clearly, albeit inadvertently.
> I consider such an argument improper, on the following grounds:
> First, "the real story of Star Wars" is the Absolute Canon of the
> films, and *only* the films.
Circular logic fallacy. Stating your conclusion as a premise, and then
using it to justify your conclusion.
> Second, acceptance of the non-canon EU must lead to error. A foggy or
> abstract window will, like a fun-house mirror, produce distortions. If
> we wish to look at any particular EU data point and ask "is this true
> or false . . . right or wrong?", there is no answer.
Black and white fallacy. Forcing us to choose between "gospel truth" and
"totally useless". By this "reasoning", all of real-life science and
history are ALSO useless, since you can't look at any particular data
point in science and have guaranteed assurance that it is absolutely
accurate and correct; there could be measurement errors, researcher
error, outright incompetence, dishonesty, etc. It is only through
looking at larger patterns, consistency, independent repeatability, etc.
that we gain some measure of reliability. The situation is similar with
historical documents, albeit with even greater potential inaccuracies.
Moreover, on a fundamental philosophical level, the lack of absolute
certainty does NOT preclude investigation or analysis.
> The maneuver commonly performed under the logical extrapolation
> rule-set is to determine whether or not there are other EU examples
> and attempt to rationalize them if possible, or discard the peculiar
> data point if necessary. The highest EU example is generally
> considered a minimum upper limit, and all data points which suggest
> themselves as the maximum but fail to meet this minimum upper limit
> are rationalized or discarded.
Red herring fallacy. Not only have you tried to drag the issue of
preferred EU analysis methods into this debate about whether the EU
material is part of the overall continuity, but you are also attempting
to introduce the issue of how upper and lower limits are addressed, in
OTHER debates, regarding OTHER subjects, by OTHER debaters.
> The problems with that maneuver are manifold. First, rationalization
> efforts can lead to absurdities. Second, it includes as an assumption
> the notion that the majority of the non-canon (or simply the EU with
> the uppermost limits) will be more correct than some specific example.
> Further, the fact that the non-canon is self-referential (and
> therefore that the distorting windows stack as EU data continues to
> expand in new EU works) is ignored.
> Nowhere is the concept of EU "majority rule" stated or implied in the
> Canon Policy. The vast majority of the non-canon could mislead, and we
> would be none the wiser. Similarly, nowhere is the concept of EU
> "biggest is best" stated or implied in the Canon Policy. EU materials
> with the largest tech figures could mislead, and we would be none the
> wiser. All we are told is that there are "windows", some foggy, some
> abstract, but each containing a nugget of truth.
Once again, this "reasoning" could be equally applied to real-life
scientific and historical documents, many of which are
"self-referential", to use your term. Once again, you have used your
bizarre "reasoning" to show that in your opinion, all of real-life
science and history should be ignored.
> With the films constituting the "real story of Star Wars", I argue
> that the nuggets of truth contained in the EU can only be what is
> borrowed straight from the Canon. Why? We're trying to arrive at a
> method to determine the accuracy of data points in a data set where
> inaccuracies, some grotesque, are known to exist and have been stated
> as existing. Unlike uncertainties in science, where, for example, a
> carbon-14 dating effort might have an uncertainty (+/- X-thousand
> years) attached, there is absolutely no way to determine the level of
> possible error of a non-canon statement, except by referencing the
Non sequitur. If one determines the accuracy of an EU statement by
"referencing" the canon, it does NOT follow that everything in the EU is
invalid except for that which is "borrowed straight from the canon". If
canon is "observation" and EU is "history" as I have long maintained,
then any EU material which is in direct contradiction with canon is
obviously wrong, just as any historical document which describes events
that are scientifically impossible is obviously wrong. However, it does
NOT follow that everything in every historical document which is not
drawn directly from scientific observation is useless.
> Meanwhile, we have a separate data set, the Canon, which is, by
> definition, virtually free from error. Thus, to include the EU
> according to current common doctrine is not only to flagrantly ignore
> Cerasi's caveat that *only* the films are the real story of Star Wars,
> but it is also to allow "interpretation and speculation" and
> distortions of the Canon to enter into one's thinking. To allow such
> distortions to guide one's efforts unless those distortions are
> contradicted by Canon is of questionable intellectual honesty.
Quasi-religious mentality. You seem to think it is possible to analyze
something without "interpretation and speculation", hence their use
invalidates any analysis. This is simply absurd; it is IMPOSSIBLE to
analyze ANYTHING without a certain amount of "interpretation and
speculation". Did it occur to you that ALL of science is an interpretive
and speculative exercise? We take observations, interpret them into
numbers and units, construct hypotheses (ie- speculate), etc. We can
then verify those hypotheses via more interpretation of new
observations. For the THIRD time, I must point out that you have
effectively denied the validity of all science and history.
> (Rather like those who maintain that everything is legal, so long as
> you don't get caught.) Though playing fast and loose with data in such
> a manner may be be acceptable in some circles, I do not consider it
> appropriate. I certainly find it highly inappropriate for our
> purposes, where ostensibly we wish to choose the safest, most
> reasonable course to determine fact.
"Appeal to prejudice" fallacy. You are attempting to link those who
would analyze the EU to shifty lawbreakers, in an obvious attempt to
generate prejudicial feeling against them. This might be somewhat
excusable if you could actually show that A leads to B, but you don't
even TRY; how on Earth does "interpretation and speculation" lead to
"everything is legal, so long as you don't get caught?" Instead of
explaining this HIGHLY dubious connection, you merely present some
> Further (now returning to the Insider quote), I do not consider a
> statement prefaced with the phrase "between us" and including the term
> "much" to constitute sufficient evidence for the claim that the entire
> EU is formally considered official Star Wars fact according to the
> Canon Policy. This is especially the case when it contradicts the fact
> that the real story of Star Wars is the films, and only the films.
Circular-logic fallacy. Yet again, you cite your conclusion as a premise
(the "fact" that the story of Star Wars is limited to the films), which
is then used to support the conclusion.
> Finally, there is definite uncertainty in regards to the single-use
> term upon which your argument is based. "Overall continuity" appears
> in no other statement of Canon Policy, nor in any statement relating
> to it that I am aware of. Cerasi, via Sansweet, makes several
> references to "continuity", but his use makes it apparent that he
> refers to a judgement or dictate of LucasBooks personnel:
> "Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to
> know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity.
> Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the
> comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are
> referenced in newer material whenever possible."
> "In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities
> label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This
> means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars
> timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity ... <snip>
You are projecting your own behaviour onto me. Unlike you, I do NOT base
my argument upon sentence fragments, the way you have analyzed Lucas'
choice of the words "parallel universe". The term "overall continuity"
is not important for my argument; a continuity of some sort must exist,
and it would still exist by any other name; we are debating the question
of what is included in that continuity, and you have failed to present a
shred of evidence that the EU is NOT included.
Indeed, you have provided several more pieces of evidence that go
directly AGAINST your case, such as the Cerasi "foggy window" quote and
now this: "LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity".
Case closed. The fact that the "Infinities" label specifically marks a
particular anthology outside continuity HARDLY implies or proves that
the ENTIRE EU is outside continuity (in fact, the existence of a special
label for non-continuity material implies the opposite; that everything
not specifically marked as non-continuity is probably in the continuity).
> <snip many quotes used to show that LucasBooks has an internal
> continuity which includes the EU with the exception of material with
> the "Infinities logo" and "Star Wars Tales", which they sometimes
> erroneously refer to as the "canon" but which is obviously the
> "overall continuity" mentioned in SWI>
> So, while we have no idea what the "overall continuity" referred to by
> the unspecified Insider #23 personnel refers to, it would seem to bear
> a striking resemblance to the in-house continuity of LucasBooks,
> insofar as non-canon EU material is taken into account.
Red herring fallacy. The fact that the "overall continuity" is the
"in-house continuity of LucasBooks" has nothing to do with the fact that
this continuity DOES exist, and that EU material (with a few clearly
marked exceptions) is included in that continuity.
> <snip defense of quote taken out of context in your canon page by
> pointing out that you have the full quote on a separate, unrelated
> At no point have I done anything less than offer full disclosure on
> the matter, your insinuations notwithstanding.
I am not insinuating; I am stating fact. You chose to analyze a SENTENCE
FRAGMENT on your canon page rather than the full quote. The fact that
the full quote is buried somewhere else on your website does not excuse
this fallacious method. You employed the "quote taken out of context"
fallacy and ignored Lucas' statement that the EU intrudes on his
continuity despite its obvious relevance.
> <snip Lucas quote, which is already on previous message>
> Lucas here refers to the EU as being another world, a parallel
> universe separate from his own Absolute Canon of the films.
You are ignoring the point. I already explained that the EU can be
separate without necessarily being excluded from the continuity. It does
you no good to repeat an argument which proves nothing.
> Some have argued that Lucas was not referring to the EU's *content* as
> being part of another world and a parallel universe, but was instead
> only referring to the various departments and divisions in his company
> operating outside his movie-making universe. In other words, some say
> Lucas was using very flowerly language to refer to real-world issues.
> However, that makes little sense, given that his "world", a.k.a.
> "select period of time", a.k.a. "the movies" would therefore have to
> be a space of time back in the late 70's/early 80's and a space of
> time in the modern era. To argue that the licensing companies go
> inactive or stop consulting him when he's making a movie is peculiar
> to say the least. The first is definitely contrary to the knowledge of
> anyone who goes to a toystore, bookstore, and so on around the time a
> movie comes out. The second is contrary to statements of people such
> as Saxton, recent writer of some EU materials.
Red herring fallacy (or possibly strawman fallacy, depending on how one
wishes to interpret your intent). I don't know who these anonymous
people are whose arguments you wish to refute in our debate, but they
are not ME, so drop it. If you had bothered reading my original post
instead of ignoring it and attacking these mysterious, anonymous people,
you would have seen that I obviously think when Lucas says his movies
occupy a "select period of time", he's referring to the fictional
timeline of the Star Wars universe, not the real-life 1970's and 1980's
in which he made the original trilogy.
> Others argue that the "intrude on my world" comment overrides his
> reference to other worlds and parallel universes. In other words, the
> fact that they intrude is supposed to make us think that they are part
> of the same universe. However, this argument also makes no sense,
> especially in light of such recent licensing efforts as the Episode I
> "Battle for Naboo" game, prior efforts such as the Marvel comic
> adaptations of ANH, et cetera, et cetera. Those most assuredly
> "intrude" on his world, his select period of time of the movies, and
> the Marvel monthly comics are most assuredly considered part of the EU
> continuity, as per Cerasi.
Strawman. No one is saying that one comment "overrides" another. George
Lucas is a human being, not a set of legal documents with varying
precedence. The act of analyzing any SENTENCE FRAGMENT is inherently
fallacious, to say nothing of a sentence fragment from a verbal
interview, in which he could not have chosen his words so carefully as
to permit such semantic analysis. One can only derive very general
statements from such interviews, such as his clear statement that the EU
and canon are separate, and that they cover different points in the same
timeline. Rather than trying to analyze PRECISELY what he means by
"parallel universe" or "intrude", you should recognize that in a general
sense, he obviously made it clear that the EU definitely has SOME
validity, which is more than enough to disprove your assertion that it
should be completely ignored. If you are going to wrangle over its
precise boundaries, then you are already implicitly accepting that it
does have validity. Concession accepted.
> <snip> Further, this is not the first time Lucas has referred to the
> EU in such a manner:
> "TVGuide: Yet novelists have written "Star Wars" sequels using the
> same characters and extending their stories.
> George Lucas: Oh, sure. They're done outside my little universe. "Star
> Wars" has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a
> lot of different people. It works without me."- TV Guide Interview
> with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01
> Again, we have Lucas placing EU content outside his "little universe",
> which in spite of his modest phrasing is, in fact, the Absolute Canon
> . . . the real story of Star Wars, which is *only* the films.
Again, you analyze a SENTENCE FRAGMENT rather than the full quote.
Again, you make a daring leap in logic from "EU is outside canon" to
"there is no continuity outside canon". George does NOT say that his
"little universe" (ie- canon) is the TOTALITY of Star Wars continuity;
that is an inference which you derive by analyzing the semantics of
SENTENCE FRAGMENTS. When any one of his quotes is viewed in full, it is
obvious that he's saying precisely the OPPOSITE of what you're saying;
he's saying that Star Wars is larger than his "little universe" of the
> No, I'm afraid that cannot be seen at all. According to LucasBooks' EU
> continuity, even that which intrudes on his select period of time is
> acceptable as reference. That, in concert with the fact that Lucas is
> not at all bound by the "continuous and unified" "official Star Wars
> history", demonstrates rather clearly that Lucas's EU parallel
> universe comments are the law of the land, and rightly so.
Non sequitur. So Lucas is not "bound" by the EU; how does it follow that
the EU is worthless? Star Trek's writers routinely ignored precedent set
by previous episodes or series; does that make previous series
worthless? He and his licensing firm have publicly stated that the EU is
included in the continuity. How we analyze it is a separate question,
but its inclusion is indisputable.
You argue on your website that the EU and canon are separate. I agree
that they are separate, but I argue that they are BOTH included in the
overall continuity, which is larger than the canon, and I point out that
you are relying upon a Lucas sentence fragment rather than the full
quote. You retort that they are separate, and provide many quotes to
support this claim, totally ignoring the fact that I've already agreed
that they are separate. Then, you attempt to analyze another Lucas
sentence FRAGMENT in order to support your standing non sequitur. Are
you capable of recognizing how you utterly failed to address the point?
Worse yet, you contradict yourself by inadvertently providing quotes
such as Cerasi's "foggy windows" quote which show that the EU is valid,
albeit imperfect, and then you pile logical fallacies on top of that
mistake by employing "black and white" fallacies to argue that "valid
but imperfect" is the same as being totally excluded! By admitting that
the EU represents a window onto the Star Wars universe according to
LucasBooks (and failing to provide anything more subtantive than a Lucas
sentence FRAGMENT to contradict them), you have admitted that you were
wrong about the EU not being a part of the story at all. You are
attempting to cover for this concession by making the utterly outlandish
argument that imperfection makes useful analysis impossible, but that
does not change the fact that you quietly conceded the point. Are you
capable of admitting this?
Part 2 to follow shortly
Back to The Wong Debate
Back to STvSW