Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7444265" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>Here's the problem with objectivity: anything that can reasonably be considered an "objective fact of the matter" is can be more accurately described as "what we believe we can confirm". Because our capacity for knowledge is never capable of reaching true perfection we can never be truly <em>sure</em> of anything, just what we can appear to confirm with our limited human senses and the aid of whatever limited technology we have available at the time. And that's taught us a lot so far, but we've also discovered many times after the fact where we've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Even in the hard sciences. There's a reason we aren't all watching the sun circle around the earth while we make sure to keep our four bodily humours in good balance. </p><p></p><p>The only way to progress; the only way to advance knowledge, is to upset the status quo, to reject what is "objectively known". The best way to do this is obviously with evidence. In a lot of cases concerning the humanities (linguistics, history) and social sciences (sociology, many forms of psychology), you're as likely to end up with more qualitative evidence than quantitative as you are to end up with more quantitative evidence than qualitative. </p><p></p><p>There was a point, not too long ago mind you, that one particular "fact of the matter" is that "there are two genders", and attempting to argue otherwise is an example of bias. There are still those who take this stance. And yet, any folx speaking truth to their identity (and those voicing their support in believing them) have been treated as totally being subjective and biased and or "advancing an agenda" while those who support the status quo are able to argue from their own biases and agendas while getting to pretend to cloak themselves in a veneer of "objectivity" (again, more likely than not believing the lie). If you want really obvious examples of this phenomenon in action, look at any trial jury selection process ("Will a black juror be able to judge this hate crime objectively?") Or hell, the entire judicial system, for that matter. People still make demands that openly gay judges recuse themselves from cases that involve gay rights (because, when it comes to civil rights and constitutional law, only straight people can be <em>truly</em> objective <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />). </p><p></p><p>"Objectivity", <strong><em>true</em></strong> objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda". </p><p></p><p>Everyone always forgets that the status quo is an agenda too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7444265, member: 57112"] Here's the problem with objectivity: anything that can reasonably be considered an "objective fact of the matter" is can be more accurately described as "what we believe we can confirm". Because our capacity for knowledge is never capable of reaching true perfection we can never be truly [I]sure[/I] of anything, just what we can appear to confirm with our limited human senses and the aid of whatever limited technology we have available at the time. And that's taught us a lot so far, but we've also discovered many times after the fact where we've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Even in the hard sciences. There's a reason we aren't all watching the sun circle around the earth while we make sure to keep our four bodily humours in good balance. The only way to progress; the only way to advance knowledge, is to upset the status quo, to reject what is "objectively known". The best way to do this is obviously with evidence. In a lot of cases concerning the humanities (linguistics, history) and social sciences (sociology, many forms of psychology), you're as likely to end up with more qualitative evidence than quantitative as you are to end up with more quantitative evidence than qualitative. There was a point, not too long ago mind you, that one particular "fact of the matter" is that "there are two genders", and attempting to argue otherwise is an example of bias. There are still those who take this stance. And yet, any folx speaking truth to their identity (and those voicing their support in believing them) have been treated as totally being subjective and biased and or "advancing an agenda" while those who support the status quo are able to argue from their own biases and agendas while getting to pretend to cloak themselves in a veneer of "objectivity" (again, more likely than not believing the lie). If you want really obvious examples of this phenomenon in action, look at any trial jury selection process ("Will a black juror be able to judge this hate crime objectively?") Or hell, the entire judicial system, for that matter. People still make demands that openly gay judges recuse themselves from cases that involve gay rights (because, when it comes to civil rights and constitutional law, only straight people can be [I]truly[/I] objective :hmm:). "Objectivity", [B][I]true[/I][/B] objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda". Everyone always forgets that the status quo is an agenda too. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?
Top