Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs

[ggroy]

No reference to suggesting reading material for those who are interested, I note. Although, perhaps the posters thought they were doing so. The specific claims are complication, math, and theory. That sounds like "Thought = Elitist!" to me, but it could just be my reader bias.

The Bourbaki school.

Nicolas Bourbaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDIT: An article on how Bourbaki invaded economics.

http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/eche07/PaperDuppe.pdf

 

[ggroy]

The specific claims are complication, math, and theory.

"Complication" probably has more to do with the mentality of people who are in academia and/or "genius" types. I don't have a reference offhand, but I've known this from first hand experience in such environments. Academics seem to be really enamored of their "Rube Goldberg" machines masquerading as research.

Rube Goldberg

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that anyone posting via computer on the InterWeb would have a hard time carrying out a convincing argument that modern science is irrelevant. There is, IMHO, a very large difference between "irrelevant" and "objective".

As far as the "Rube Goldberg" reference goes, AFAICT building a mud hut is less complicated that building a modern home. One could even argue that any complication beyond a mud hut is needless, but for some reason I like running water.

As I said upthread, needlessly complicating your "map" of the world (or universe) is counter-productive. Failing to recognize that the actual world (or universe) is potentially far more complicated than your "map", OTOH, leads directly to One True Wayism.


RC

 

[ggroy]

As far as the "Rube Goldberg" reference goes, AFAICT building a mud hut is less complicated that building a modern home. One could even argue that any complication beyond a mud hut is needless, but for some reason I like running water.

There's many examples of complicated "Rube Goldberg" style theories that only academics are interested in, which have come and went over the decades or are even still around today.

Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bootstrap model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's many examples of complicated "Rube Goldberg" style theories that only academics are interested in, which have come and went over the decades or are even still around today.

Sure. And there are many more examples of things that might have appeared to be, or have been accused of being, complicated "Rube Goldberg" style theories that only academics are interested in (obviously, not in those words), but which are still around today because they have value.

Or, do you have some means of determining, a priori, which is which? Because I do not. I don't know the One True Way.

Please share.

 

[ggroy]

Sure. And there are many more examples of things that might have appeared to be, or have been accused of being, complicated "Rube Goldberg" style theories that only academics are interested in (obviously, not in those words), but which are still around today because they have value.

Or, do you have some means of determining, a priori, which is which? Because I do not. I don't know the One True Way.

There is no a priori way of determining which physical theories are correct or not, in the absence of precise experimental data.

For physical theories, what keeps them around is how precise their agreement is with accumulated experimental data. If a theory's predictions do not agree with experimental data, it is eventually thrown away when a better theory comes along with better experimental agreement.

For example, the theories underlying elementary particles are considered a huge set of messy equations.

Yang–Mills theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But nevertheless, it's kept around for the reason that nobody has found a better theory to replace it. It has some of the most precise agreements between theory and experiment.

Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no a priori way of determining which physical theories are correct or not, in the absence of precise experimental data.

Nor is there any a priori way of determining what is objective or not.


RC

 

[ggroy]

Nor is there any a priori way of determining what is objective or not.

The most anyone can figure out is whether a falsifiable theory is inconsistent with precise experimental data.

Non-falsifiable theories and/or theories which are too "vague", are the bane of empirical verification.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The most anyone can figure out is whether a falsifiable theory is inconsistent with precise experimental data.

That's one theory, but it is not the only theory consistent with the philosophy of knowledge. The scientific method is a good tool; that doesn't necessarily make it the only tool.

Non-falsifiable theories and/or theories which are too "vague", are the bane of empirical verification.

The impossibility of empirical verification is an even bigger bane. Anecdotes have no evidenciary value, and no matter how many anecdotes you have, Z x 0 is still 0. All observations are anecdotal by nature. "Empirical" observation is mythological, like unicorns and virgins.



RC

 

[ggroy]

What I had in mind is whether a theory can be made precise, such that predictions can be checked for inconsistencies with empirical data.

Examples of non-falsifiable theories are ones where there's so many free parameters, that it can be "shoehorned" or fudged around to "agree" with just about any empirical data.