D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[DND_Reborn]

I suspect the majority of people using this site have little idea what it represents, never mind what it actually stands for. DON'T USE IT. Or, if you must use it, explain what it means.

STEM? You think most people on this site don't know what STEM represents, or even stands for? Interesting.

Even if they didn't, it wouldn't take them more than a moment to find out.

How about CRESMET? You ever hear of them?

 

[Stoutstien]

If most people have no idea what it stands for it's jargon.

I suspect the majority of people using this site have little idea what it represents, never mind what it actually stands for. DON'T USE IT. Or, if you must use it, explain what it means.

I would say 1 out of maybe 1000 people know the laser acronym but 990 of that same group could tell you what a laser is on some level. Should we never use the word just because they can't define the acronym even if the meaning was accurately stated in a concise manner?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would say 1 out of maybe 1000 people know the laser acronym but 990 of that same group could tell you what a laser is on some level. Should we never use the word just because they can't define the acronym even if the meaning was accurately stated in a concise manner?

Oh, that's an old one! Let me think, Light-Amplified-(Something)-Emission of-Radiation. Crap! Something like that...

Do I get credit for most of it, LOL?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

STEM? You think most people on this site don't know what STEM represents, or even stands for? Interesting. /

Yes, I know from experience that the vast majority of people who use the term have no idea what it stands for. Obviously people who don't work in education don't know. Everyone on this forum knows AC stand for Armour Class, but if you went to an architects forum it would stand for Air Conditioning, and on an electricians forum, Alternating Current.

Even if they didn't, it wouldn't take them more than a moment to find out.

But human nature is to pretend to understand, just like the emperor, so as not to look like a fool. That's what makes jargon so insidious. People pretend to understand, creating a false impression that it is something "everyone knows". This eventually leads to the situation where you get a bunch of people all pretending they know what something means when none of them do. I've seen it often enough in staff meetings.

How about CRESMET? You ever hear of them?

No, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh, that's an old one! Let me think, Light-Amplified-(Something)-Emission of-Radiation. Crap! Something like that...

Do I get credit for most of it, LOL?

[Amplification by the] Stimulated. That's about the only one where knowing what it stands for isn't enough on its own to explain what it is. Probably why it wasn't written in ALL CAPS.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would say 1 out of maybe 1000 people know the laser acronym but 990 of that same group could tell you what a laser is on some level. Should we never use the word just because they can't define the acronym even if the meaning was accurately stated in a concise manner?

"Intense beam of light" would better convey the meaning to someone unfamiliar with phase and coherence.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, I know from experience that the vast majority of people who use the term have no idea what it stands for. Obviously people who don't work in education don't know. Everyone on this forum knows AC stand for Armour Class, but if you went to an architects forum it would stand for Air Conditioning, and on an electricians forum, Alternating Current.

Experience differs then, I suppose, because most people I know understand STEM has to do with education in math and science (for lack of complete understanding) and it is pretty close IMO. The important point, is unlike AC, STEM (all caps) doesn't really stand for much else (there might be one or two things out there, like a stock or something, but that's about it).

But human nature is to pretend to understand, just like the emperor, so as not to look like a fool. That's what makes jargon so insidious. People pretend to understand, creating a false impression that it is something "everyone knows". This eventually leads to the situation where you get a bunch of people all pretending they know what something means when none of them do. I've seen it often enough in staff meetings.

It isn't hard to figure it out. It sounds more like your problem is with people having a cursory understanding compared to a more in-depth knowledge-base. shrug

No, I have no idea what you are talking about.

No worries, I was just curious. CRESMET is the Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology at Arizona State University--where I worked about 15 years ago--probably why you never heard of it. It has become part of other research centers now, however.

 

[Stoutstien]

"Intense beam of light" would better convey the meaning to someone unfamiliar with phase and coherence.

There's always a better wa but pop culture power. Most acronyms that become solidified in language tend to have some.

[Amplification by the] Stimulated. That's about the only one where knowing what it stands for isn't enough on its own to explain what it is. Probably why it wasn't written in ALL CAPS.

I left the caps of to show the transition from jargon to colloquialism. STEM is fairly new but it's heading that way. I see it in grade school handbooks.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

That would be jargon.

Putting aside the diversion of debating the semantics and utility of acronyms that you dragged us into, what say you to the accusation that you believe that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are the only academic disciplines worth studying?

Because this:

That's your explanation then. You pay too much attention to people who earn money by spouting pretentious nonsense.

In response to Clearstream here:

What a strange conclusion to reach about my motives. My lense on rules is informed by game theorists such as Suits, Reiland, Kreider, Royce, Juul, and Aarseth, among others. On meaning in this specific regard, probably most by Wittgenstein, but also Quine. And on legal theory a little by Dworkin.

Just comes off as you slagging off the humanities, which was just uncalled for. I don't know who the other names in the list are, but Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the most important philosophers of the Analytic lineage of philosophy, and probably 20th century philosophy as a whole. His work focused on logic, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of language, his book the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is hugely influential even today, etc. Dismissing him of all people as some self-masturbatory buffoon isn't doing any favours for your argument or your image.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Putting aside the diversion of debating the semantics and utility of acronyms that you dragged us into, what say you to the accusation that you believe that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are the only academic disciplines worth studying?

You can't study something you can't test.

Because this:

In response to Clearstream here:

Just comes off as you slagging off the humanities, which was just uncalled for.

If you can't test it, you can say anything at all, and no one can prove it's wrong.

But there is plenty of solid, evidence based research done in the humanities, and plenty of bad science.

I don't know who the other names in the list are, but Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the most important philosophers of the Analytic lineage of philosophy, and probably 20th century philosophy as a whole. His work focused on logic, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of language, his book the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is hugely influential even today, etc. Dismissing him of all people as some self-masturbatory buffoon isn't doing any favours for your argument or your image.

Who decides if a philosopher is important? Other philosophers. Then they tell the lesser mortals what is true and what is false, without a jot of evidence to back it up.

I don't know, maybe this Wittgenstein did have some sensible things to say, but I have never studied philosophy, so I have no idea. But I have found that people who name-drop philosophers do so in order to try an make themselves look clever, not because they know anything. So since you mention "image", I am automatically inclined to think that someone who name-drops philosophers in a way that assumes you know what they are talking about is a pretentious prat, not someone worth listening to.