WotC Would you buy WotC products produced or enhanced with AI?

[Umbran]

But if the textual-analysis thing doesn't tickle your fancy, how about law? Law is among the humanities. It very clearly has methods for ascertaining the truth...

Eh. Our justice systems are pretty clear that they only provide the truth to within some degree of error. "Reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" and the like are not "the truth".

 

[Umbran]

You're mixing up two claims. The first is "the scientific method works perfectly 100% of the time". This is true.

The second is "everything that scientists say is therefore accurate". This is false.

I think it would be better to note that nothing is instantaneous. The scientific method is a process, and that process is not "one scientist does one experiment". The scientific method is akin to a process of erosion. It is a process that takes years and centuries to grind away that which is inaccurate.

After all, Newton was flatly wrong. His laws are lies. And yet we still call them laws?

Oh, no. Newton's Laws are not lies. Not flatly wrong. And to say they are is to express a fundamental misunderstanding of physical science.

What it really is, is that Newton's laws are incomplete.

They cover a specific range of the universe - from grams to tons, millimeters to miles, tenths of seconds to years - basically, within the distances, weights, and time scales of most normal human existence. Within this range, they are accurate to within one's ability to measure.

Indeed, any other model of how the universe works must reduce to Newton's laws if you apply them within this scope.

And this same is true for every set of scientific truths or laws you care to consider - they all have scopes in which they apply.

 

[Jharet]

I'd say "No," because WotC adventures are already pretty mediocre and one generated by AI can only aspire to their baseline at best.

 

[briggart]

There are truths that cannot even in principle be reached purely by measuring and counting. But that is all science can do; that's literally what empirical study is. Hence, there is also more. Admitting this is not a slight against science. It is the frank admission that science is an essential part of our search for truth, but not the one and only thing allowed to produce truth.

[...]

Within a reasonable degree of doubt, sure.

Is it possible to prove to you that quarks exist? I know the science on this specific subject. You can't observe bare quarks in the current universe; the weirdness of the strong force prevents it. It isn't hot enough anymore. Yet I assume you accept that they do exist, even though theory says you literally can't observe them, and no observation of quarks themselves has ever been made.

How does one assess "a reasonable degree of doubt" without counting and measuring? To me, this ultimately involves assigning a probability to an event and evaluating whether it passes a given threshold. That this may be done subconsciously and based on very imprecise "measurements" doesn't change the basic nature of the process.

 

[Sulicius]

I'd say "No," because WotC adventures are already pretty mediocre and one generated by AI can only aspire to their baseline at best.

Then you should answer “I do not buy WotC products regardless”.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yes, science never proves anything, it can only be falsified, but at least it agrees with the empiric data. You have nothing to verify your theories against for the other disciplines.

Science has nothing to verify either!

The criterion of verification is the key problem of logical positivism--which is as dead as a theory can possibly be. It is dead by its own merits--it disproves itself. Yet here you are, positing it (as almost all science advocates do!) as though it were trivially true. It isn't, and that, too, is a critical part of why scientism is such a grave concern.

You have staked out the position that science is the one and only valid path to truth. How do you aim to prove this claim? You can't use science to prove that only science can prove things true!

gravity still exists, and except in extreme cases it does not matter much whether you use Newton or Einstein

I wager that if he had been completely off we would not call them laws any more, much like we generally do not take spontaneous generation serious any more

He was completely wrong though. He said his equations described existence. They don't. They are only an acceptable approximation, and that only in a narrow slice of reality. Most things don't actually work the way he thought they did--that's why we need to account for time dilation even with just ordinary satellites orbiting the Earth, and why we can use gravitational lensing to look behind stars, and a bunch of other things.

His theories are, objectively, wrong. We should have jettisoned them the moment we had the chance--that's what Popper's theory of falsification says. But we didn't. It took mountains of evidence, objective and unequivocal repeated proof that Newton's laws were wrong, before we finally accepted that there were alternatives.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How does one assess "a reasonable degree of doubt" without counting and measuring? To me, this ultimately involves assigning a probability to an event and evaluating whether it passes a given threshold. That this may be done subconsciously and based on very imprecise "measurements" doesn't change the basic nature of the process.

The assessment of the doubt may involve probability theory--but that isn't science, it's mathematics, which is built on logic, not on empiricism. Empiricism has so thoroughly internalized mathematics that some forget that that isn't where probability theory came from. It's not experiment which proves statistics are useful--it is statistics which prove experiments useful. Where does statistics derive its truth from? You can't use statistical modeling to explain why statistical modeling explains things!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're mixing up two claims. The first is "the scientific method works perfectly 100% of the time". This is true.

No. It isn't. Science absolutely does not work perfectly 100% of the time. This is objectively and provably false. Again: Lysenkoism in Russia. Or, as mentioned above, the fact that we DID NOT instantly and completely reject Newtonian mechanics the moment we found evidence that conflicted with it. We kept it, challenged the conflicting evidence.

Falsificationism flatly does not describe how scientists actually DO science. And verificationism is a sword so sharp it cuts itself first.

The second is "everything that scientists say is therefore accurate". This is false.

The scientific method does work, when it is applied correctly and when there is sufficient data. Hence, Newton's laws are out, high-atmosphere lightning is in. When this is not the case, the scientific method is not actually being followed.

Can you define that method for me in a way that correctly captures how any scientific experiment is done? Otherwise, you're just invoking magic words without meaning.

You've, uh, aroused my suspicion and interrogation because you made a false claim about science. Nowhere have I stated that science is the only thing that can produce truth. Indeed, I explicitly stated the opposite.

I think the humanities are very important; more important than the sciences, if you're interested in living a good life. I think we can recognize that without disparaging the scientific method.

I haven't disparaged it at all. I have--repeatedly--said that it is extremely good, important, and useful. I am a lover of science.

And as a result I understand that it isn't nearly this perfect paragon of absolute truth, nor the sole arbiter thereof. Because that belief is literally scientism. Which has been expressed, in this thread, exactly as I knew it would.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Science is your home? And you are calling Newton's Laws "lies"?

Okay.

I mean, you're arguing with folks who are essentially saying science is imperfect, but it's one of the best tools we have to understand our environment and ourselves. A lot of what you are saying is, of course, correct . . . but your tone is oddly hostile.

No. I am arguing with people who have--repeatedly, now--asserted that science is the one and only way one can ascertain truths. Scientism, pure and simple. Scientism is, itself, a hostile view!

Newton's Laws are "lies"?

I was being dramatic in response to others being dramatic.

I'm not a physicist, but Newton's Laws are not lies. They have been accepted consensus science for so long because his theories fit the data as we understand it. If physicists have improved our understandings in recent decades, disproving Newton's Laws . . . I'll believe you (if you're a physicist) on that, but that doesn't make Newton a liar. It just means we've improved our knowledge. That's how science works.

No. They are not accepted consensus. They are objectively false. Reality doesn't work that way. We have seen this, proven time and time and time again, because Einsteinian mechanics makes better predictions than Newtonian ones.

We still use these false "laws" because they are a very good approximation, so long as: you aren't moving very fast, you aren't working with large masses, and you aren't travelling sufficiently long distances. Which, here on the Earth's surface, is sometimes okay. Sometimes it isn't. You can't use Newtonian mechanics if you want correct GPS coordinates, for example--Newton's laws, because they are objectively wrong, will give you false readings. You have to account for time dilation, which has no place in Newtonian mechanics.

I teach Earth Science to middle-schoolers . . . hardly a scientist although I have the degree and training . . . our ideas of the Earth's structure are constantly changing and evolving, not because earlier scientists "lied" but simply because our technology and understandings are constantly improving. What I learned in middle school is different than what I teach my students, and will likely be different than what the next generation gets taught.

Science reporting by the mainstream media sucks. Your average citizen doesn't always have a good understanding of how the scientific process works. Sure. But condescension from scientists towards layman doesn't help any.

....

I am specifically complaining about scientists condescending toward other disciplines!

Why are we arguing if that's your position?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh. Our justice systems are pretty clear that they only provide the truth to within some degree of error. "Reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" and the like are not "the truth".

But scientific understanding also contains that. It is necessarily full of abductive reasoning--reasoning to the best explanation. It contains reasonable doubt, such as significance values. (A key part of the replication crisis, which has not yet been entirely resolved and has affected everything from psychology to physics, is the outright and flagrant abuse of significance values, aka p-hacking.) A good friend of mine is a professor of sociology, focusing on statistical methods within sociology and the sociology of technology generally and computers specifically, and one of her greatest struggles is always to drill into her students' heads just how vital it is to do your stats correctly, to avoid any form of dodgy analytic practice whether accidental or intentional.