A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Maxperson]

I think we see the same things, but are interpreting them differently. How can science run afoul of them, if it is not addressing moral positions? The thing is, "moral" (as in "moral question") in this case, is not a stable target, and just because a scientifically minded person wouldn't consider something a moral issue doesn't mean it isn't one. Is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection a completely amoral statement about reality or is it the most evil satanic immoral thing you can ever teach a child? The answer depends on who is asked, not some inherent property of scientific results, AFAICT. I don't think we can excuse something from being a "moral issue", just because it was not intended as such. Nor can we exclude something from scientific examination merely because we view it as a moral issue. We may, in deference to our proclivities, decide not to pursue certain courses of inquiry for what we deem "moral" reasons, but that is a separate question from whether science can address moral questions or morality as a whole.

There are two very different things you are talking about. The first is the science. Science is stem cell research, or studying evolution, or cloning. Those things make no moral judgments whatsoever. The second thing is the people observing the science. Those people can make moral judgments ABOUT the science, and usually do. Cloning is cloning. The science involved in creating a clone is neither moral, nor immoral. A Christian might view cloning as man playing god and be morally offended. A woman wanting to replace a beloved dog might not view it as morally wrong at all. The science doesn't have an opinion, so it is not addressing morality in any way.

 

[Maxperson]

You're dismissing, not discussing. When someone like Nate Silver can statistically model political preferences well enough to accurately predict the results of all fifty states in a US presidential election, that sure looks like science to me.

Tell that to President Hillary who won 90%+ of the Electoral Votes, or so the "science" you are referring to you said would happen. Polls and such are not accurate. They broadly hit the general area they aim at most of the time, but precision and accuracy is not a strong suit.

The fact that so many get so many things wrong with that sort of modeling proves that it's not a science. In science experiments and conclusions are repeatable. Everyone has access to the same information to draw their conclusions and create their political models. Were it a science, they would all come to the same conclusion when using the same information.

 

[Shasarak]

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

What happens if there is a scientific definition of "Good" and we (humans) dont agree with it?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Tell that to President Hillary who won 90%+ of the Electoral Votes, or so the "science" you are referring to you said would happen.

That is not an accurate description of the predictions Silver's model made prior to the 2016 election. Yes, it assigned a higher probability of winning to the Democrat. No, it did not predict a landslide. And as somebody who rolls dice as a hobby, you ought to know well that a 75% chance is not a sure thing. Furthermore, it predicted the most likely scenario for an upset - the Rust Belt flipping red - which is in fact what happened.

The fact that so many get so many things wrong with that sort of modeling proves that it's not a science. In science experiments and conclusions are repeatable. Everyone has access to the same information to draw their conclusions and create their political models. Were it a science, they would all come to the same conclusion when using the same information.

Is meteorology a science? Is medicine?

In sciences of chaotic systems, experiments are often not directly repeatable, and hypotheses are probabilistic.

 

[Maxperson]

That is not an accurate description of the predictions Silver's model made prior to the 2016 election. Yes, it assigned a higher probability of winning to the Democrat. No, it did not predict a landslide. And as somebody who rolls dice as a hobby, you ought to know well that a 75% chance is not a sure thing. Furthermore, it predicted the most likely scenario for an upset - the Rust Belt flipping red - which is in fact what happened.

He got lucky. Many others with the same information didn't.

Is meteorology a science?

The study of cloud formation and other measurable things? Sure. The actual predictions? Not so much. They are using science to try and make a stab at letting us know what the weather will be like, and are very often wrong. And yes, I know, it's possible to scrounge up from one of the dictionaries where it talks about weather predictions. Most don't. Most just talk about studying the weather and related phenomena.

Is medicine?

Illnesses have specific symptoms. Medicine(unless you're watching House) isn't just a bunch of guess and hope you are right. Doctors can diagnose many different illnesses and diseases because of repeatability. Curing is more difficult due to genetic variations in patients and our science isn't good enough to tailor treatments genetically.........yet. When we reach that point, cures will be far more repeatable.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

He got lucky.

You could say "They got lucky" to dismiss any correct scientific prediction. But fortunately, we can use math to quantify luck. We can calculate the probability that a correct prediction would have occurred under the null hypothesis; the lower this "p-value", the higher the "statistical significance" of the result. (You may have seen these terms before. In this thread, if nowhere else.)

So... just how "lucky" was Nate Silver, correctly calling 99 of 100 state races over two consecutive elections?

Many others with the same information didn't.

It's not just the information that's important; it's the model a scientist builds with that information. Everybody in the 17th Century had the same information about planetary motion, but only this one guy named Kepler built a model of the Solar System that included elliptical orbits allowing him to make much more accurate predictions (and postdictions) of the motion.

The study of cloud formation and other measurable things? Sure. The actual predictions? Not so much.

Saying of any field that "it's science except for the predictive part" is like saying of a person that "they're a doctor except for the medical-professional part". Predictions, and the commitment to assessing their accuracy, are what separate science from mere pontification.

Curing is more difficult due to genetic variations in patients and our science isn't good enough to tailor treatments genetically.........yet.

Take this insight and apply it to meteorology, or political science. The presence of variation makes repeatable, accurate prediction much more difficult. It does not make it impossible, or make the attempt not science.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] - are you a philosopher, or trained in philsophy of science or some similar field?

(I have non-scientifically but also non-arbitrarily formed such a conjecture on the basis of your posts in this thread.)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] - are you a philosopher, or trained in philsophy of science or some similar field?

(I have non-scientifically but also non-arbitrarily formed such a conjecture on the basis of your posts in this thread.)

I've dabbled in the field.

 

[Shasarak]

Is meteorology a science? Is medicine?

Are we talking about regular medicine or homeopathy?

Because one of those is a science and the other is homeopathy.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Are we talking about regular medicine or homeopathy?

Because one of those is a science and the other is homeopathy.

I said "medicine". Alternative medicine isn't.