A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Ovinomancer]

History doesn’t have a great track record with non-scientifically evidenced truth claims, so when you write:


I tend to disagree.

You’ve occupied a moving position between caricaturing “science” on one hand, and representing it as a toolkit – with which I largely agree – on the other.

If a mode of inquiry which seeks replicable, predictable results is not the best means to determine truth, then what is? Other methods are moveable; subjective; particular rather than generic: this is not to say that they should not be valued – just that they’re not best deployed in the search for truth.

But you seem to be using a very expansive definition of “truth,” and a very narrow definition of “science.” Perhaps the reverse is true for me.

I define science as the scientific method, how do you define it?

Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there. Yet, we often speak of hoping to find truth in these areas. I'm pointing out the limitations of science in doing so.

I also think that there's plenty of non-science bright spots in history: mathematics, language, philosophy, heck, the golden rule. Maybe these haven't reached a truth, maybe there isn't a truth to find, but these can at least address the issues in a way science cannot.

As I've said, I'm an engineer from a family of scientists. I love science; it's a fantastic tool. However, I think there's also a lot of 'having a hammer so only seeing nails' with science these days. This even goes to assuming scientists are somehow morally superior bt dint of being purveyors of Science!, which is also clearly non-scientific.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The assertion that moral truth is a thing in the universe is contentious. "Thing in the universe" is not really a technical term, but if some form of meta-ethical expressivism of some form is correct, then it seems reasonable to deny that moral truth is a thing in the universe.

The best argument I'm aware of that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] (and other minds in general) exist is a version of that developed by the late nineteeenth and twentieth century empiricists, and that takes the form of argument to best explanation - which is a mode of scientific argument, though not based on the sort of regimentation of observation that is characteristic of scientific enquiry. Similar structures of argument explain why inference to best explanation grounded in careful and regimented observation is the best path to knowledge.

The soundness of these empiricist modes of argument is of course contested. But for the purposes of friendly conversation on a RPG message board, it can't be treated as obvious that scientific modes of explanation can't be used to explain the power of science, nor the existence of other minds.

Then, by all means, explain the power of science with science. Or the existence of other minds.

The device you're speaking (sometimes referred to as Occam's Razor) of isn't part of the scientific method, but rather a rule of thumb or decision aide to help limit questions investigated through scientific inquiry. The mere fact you acknowledge the contested nature of the argument disqualifies it as a scientific maxim.

 

[pemerton]

Argument to best explanation is not Occam' Razor (though Occam's Razor may be an element in such reasoning). For a good treatment, which include discussion of the external world and other minds, see AJ Ayer's The Origins of Pragmatism - drawing especially on the work of the American philospher CS Peirce (who used the term "abduction").

 

[Lanefan]

You guys are making my brain hurt.

Wake me up when we're back to talking about killing Orcs and taking their pies....

 

[Ratskinner]

"Science, when is it okay to kill someone?"
"Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"

I would just point out here that there are in fact those that think that science can address these questions. Personally, I don't think these questions can be adequately answered without these the application of science. I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far. Its not as if we have to pretend to be ignorant of our own moral sensibilities when asking moral questions.

Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."

I'm not sure what other methods there are. AFAICT, science in the only method of "truth discovery" which is distinguishable from "I made this up." ....which is kinda what the whole scientific method was designed for, honestly.

Now, I'm pretty sure they'll be handwaiving about the questions or that Science will on day figure all this out, but that's invalid because these are things in the universe, and you can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science. That's self-defeating for the question - you're using not science to claim science is (will be?) right.

Are you saying that science can't be used to examine science? If so,why not?

 

[Ratskinner]

Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there.

I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.

I also think that there's plenty of non-science bright spots in history: mathematics, language, philosophy, heck, the golden rule. Maybe these haven't reached a truth, maybe there isn't a truth to find, but these can at least address the issues in a way science cannot.

The way I see it, science makes all these other human endeavors better and more effective.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.

They aren't defunding research because they think science can answer social, ethical or political issues. They are defunding it because it goes against their moral issues. Science running contrary to a moral belief doesn't mean that science is answering that belief in a moral way. Science is useless for establishing morality or political issues.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would just point out here that there are in fact those that think that science can address these questions. Personally, I don't think these questions can be adequately answered without these the application of science. I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far. Its not as if we have to pretend to be ignorant of our own moral sensibilities when asking moral questions.

Scientifically define "good." You'll find it's a subjective preference.

I'm not sure what other methods there are. AFAICT, science in the only method of "truth discovery" which is distinguishable from "I made this up." ....which is kinda what the whole scientific method was designed for, honestly.

Inductive reasoning (although science might be considered a form of inductive reasoning). Deductive reasoning. Consensus building (for moral, social, and political issues, frex). Philosophy. And, no, the scientific method was designed to do hypothesis testing. There's nothing that prevents rather wild hypothesis.

Are you saying that science can't be used to examine science? If so,why not?

What would your hypothesis be? "Science is the best tool to discover all truth?" What's the experiment? What's the conclusion? I'm saying it can't, all you have to do is prove it once and I'm wrong. Conversely, I cannot prove a negative. The burden here is on the side claiming it can define itself.

I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.

You're confusing subjective policy decisions with science, or are you trying to claim political parties are using science to determine which science research areas to defund? I'm certainly not at all claiming that politics cannot impact the priorities on where to spend money, I'm explicitly saying science cannot provide those priorities. Your statement above tends to agree with me.

The way I see it, science makes all these other human endeavors better and more effective.

Mathematics is the language of science so it's hard to go from science improving mathematics. This is like saying Shakespeare made the English language better rather than just using it really damn well. Science hasn't weighed in, ever, on the golden rule. What would that experiment look like? Science avoids philosophy like the plague -- nothing to measure so how could you experiment?

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of pseudo-belief structure in science as the one true way to understanding I'm cautioning against. You've got your hammer and are looking for nails.

ETA: Again, I'm a freaking engineer (electronic, not trains). I love science. I use it every day. I read papers for fun. None of this is meant to attack science; it's a fantastic tool in the box for helping us understand our physical universe.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far.

Scientifically define "good." You'll find it's a subjective preference.

At this point the moral philosopher in me just wants to crack both your heads together.

Ratskinner: "The greatest good to the greatest number" can't even tell you unambiguously how to slice a birthday cake.

Ovinomancer: Psychologists, marketers, and pollsters scientifically define and quantify subjective preferences every day.

 

[Kobold Boots]

At this point the moral philosopher in me just wants to crack both your heads together.

Ratskinner: "The greatest good to the greatest number" can't even tell you unambiguously how to slice a birthday cake.

Ovinomancer: Psychologists, marketers, and pollsters scientifically define and quantify subjective preferences every day.

On the first point: Agreed.

On the second point: Definition of and quantification of subjective preferences is math/probability, not science. There's a reason why Psych is considered a liberal art and neuroscience isn't. (Self-report) Granted, there are many research labs dedicated to cognition that are staffed by those with psych degrees but they're led by folks with O.D, Engineering and Neuroscience qualifications.