Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5082513" data-attributes="member: 8835">I thought my post pretty much admitted that by referring to &quot;functional truth&quot; the idea that humans may not be privvy to absolute truth (possibly also defined as objective truth), but the truth they have is good enough.For me, I think the usage of objective and subjective, in relation to truth are misleading.Traditionally, an objective statement refers to a fact. As in, &quot;D&amp;D 3rd edition was released in 2000.&quot;A subjective statement refers to an opinion.&nbsp; Such as &quot;D&amp;D 3rd edition is the best edition.&quot;The complication arises because it is possible to make a statement that sounds like a fact, but is really an opinion.&nbsp; For instance, &quot;D&amp;D 3rd edition has more refined multi-classing rules than prior editions.&quot;&nbsp; It is a fact that the rules are different, and that some thought went into them.&nbsp; However, the word refined may imply an opinion on quality.I am most likely interpreting the term &quot;objective truth&quot; to mean objective statement, i.e. a fact.&nbsp; Which I accept as being reasonably verifiable.Subjective and truth are apples and oranges, unless you prefix each subjective statement with &quot;This is the opinion of the person who said this&quot;I think this thead is better served by considering a truth to be something easily verifiable as a fact in the physicla world in which we operate.&nbsp; Getting deeper just muddies the water.Now getting back to the original topic, on OneTrueWayism...From a process management standpoint, there is value in getting everyone on the same process.&nbsp; It minimizes deviation, standardizes results, and sets expectations (if you followed the process, then I can expect to find things in order when I get there).Thus, it is useful to label alternatives as bad.&nbsp; Not bad as in awful, just stuff to be avoided.Obviously, in doing so, you run the risk of&nbsp; being blind to new ideas and process improvements.&nbsp; But that's a risk, that some can manage (and may even do recon to incorporate new ideas).But on the flip-side, I see a trend of extreme anti-OneTrueWayism, where all ways are excepted as good and valid ways to play the game.Honestly, I can think of some really horrible ways to play the game that are wrong.&nbsp; Surely each of us can find some scenarios of being truly awful.&nbsp; Many of which would offend Eric's grandma.Thus, while there may not be a true one way to do something, it is NOT true that there are no wrong ways to do something.The onetruewayists have a tendencie to have blocked out everything else, with a partial intent to eliminate the wrong ways.In being too open, the allwayists do not explicitly declare the wrongways as wrong, which bugs the heck out of some folks.&nbsp; Granted, doing so would be tedious.&nbsp; But that is what I see is the conflict of onewayism and allwayism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5082513, member: 8835"] I thought my post pretty much admitted that by referring to "functional truth" the idea that humans may not be privvy to absolute truth (possibly also defined as objective truth), but the truth they have is good enough. For me, I think the usage of objective and subjective, in relation to truth are misleading. Traditionally, an objective statement refers to a fact. As in, "D&D 3rd edition was released in 2000." A subjective statement refers to an opinion. Such as "D&D 3rd edition is the best edition." The complication arises because it is possible to make a statement that sounds like a fact, but is really an opinion. For instance, "D&D 3rd edition has more refined multi-classing rules than prior editions." It is a fact that the rules are different, and that some thought went into them. However, the word refined may imply an opinion on quality. I am most likely interpreting the term "objective truth" to mean objective statement, i.e. a fact. Which I accept as being reasonably verifiable. Subjective and truth are apples and oranges, unless you prefix each subjective statement with "This is the opinion of the person who said this" I think this thead is better served by considering a truth to be something easily verifiable as a fact in the physicla world in which we operate. Getting deeper just muddies the water. Now getting back to the original topic, on OneTrueWayism... From a process management standpoint, there is value in getting everyone on the same process. It minimizes deviation, standardizes results, and sets expectations (if you followed the process, then I can expect to find things in order when I get there). Thus, it is useful to label alternatives as bad. Not bad as in awful, just stuff to be avoided. Obviously, in doing so, you run the risk of being blind to new ideas and process improvements. But that's a risk, that some can manage (and may even do recon to incorporate new ideas). But on the flip-side, I see a trend of extreme anti-OneTrueWayism, where all ways are excepted as good and valid ways to play the game. Honestly, I can think of some really horrible ways to play the game that are wrong. Surely each of us can find some scenarios of being truly awful. Many of which would offend Eric's grandma. Thus, while there may not be a true one way to do something, it is NOT true that there are no wrong ways to do something. The onetruewayists have a tendencie to have blocked out everything else, with a partial intent to eliminate the wrong ways. In being too open, the allwayists do not explicitly declare the wrongways as wrong, which bugs the heck out of some folks. Granted, doing so would be tedious. But that is what I see is the conflict of onewayism and allwayism. [/QUOTE]

Verification