The Implications of Biology in D&D

[Garthanos]

And I'm saying this as a former scientist

Anyone who values and uses the scientific method should consider themselves a scientist ... period.
but other than nit picking ... yes, yes, yes.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I'm pretty sure now that we're 100% on the same page here. I detect in your words a lot of the same frustrations I've felt, as well. This...

Finally came up with the right summation of this. Claiming that we understand a world we demonstrably do not is comforting, but it's an illusion. Comforting illusions lead to complacency. Questions lead to thought and action. I would rather encourage thought and action.

... really does sum it up nicely. We live in a world today in which too many people are so incurious that they aren't interested in asking questions. (And imho, this applies even more generally than science.) There's this sad conceit that we know it all, or know enough, or can't know anything, or even shouldn't know anything-- and all too often that's based on the misinformed rants of unqualified people who happen to have easy access to a tv camera, radio mic or popular blog.

Sadly, I think that in many respects the public's opinion of science, education and even knowledge in general more closely resembles those medieval peasants I was talking about in my previous posts.

We'll be back to blaming Thor for hurricanes in no time!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

We're getting REALLY far outside the mandate of this thread, but this is the core of how I think, and the core of how science works.

All science begins with one statement: "I don't know."

To be an unbiased "true scientist" you have to be comfortable with that statement. You're going to spend a lot of time with it. The maddening and exhilarating thing about science is that when you get to the end point of a question, you always have more questions that are answered by saying, "I don't know."

People aren't comfortable with not knowing. This is actually why I think non-scientists fail to understand us so often. I think they think we're driven to find certainty, when we're actually driven by uncertainty. That might be a subtle distinction, but it's an important one.

 

[Gentlegamer]

All science begins with one statement: "I don't know."

Nescio

*Nods* This is the origin of philosophy . "Natural science" (biology, physics, astronomy, geology, etc) falls under the category of "physical philosophy" (Latin and Greek root words, respectively).

 

[Umbran]

EDIT:
Finally came up with the right summation of this. Claiming that we understand a world we demonstrably do not is comforting, but it's an illusion. Comforting illusions lead to complacency. Questions lead to thought and action. I would rather encourage thought and action.

Hm, yes. But denying we have some understanding of the world is simply untrue. I'm a physicist. For the overwhelming majority of the life of human beings, Newton's Laws are sufficient. Are they the fullest, deepest understanding of how the world works? No. But they'll do.

Questions lead to thought. But they also lead to navel-gazing. As some point you actually have to stop worrying about what you don't know, and act.

I have seen any number of students crushed by the "never-ending complexity" aspect of science. The best way I've ever seen to discourage a student is to make it perfectly clear that the stuff they are currently struggling with isn't the most complex.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I have seen any number of students crushed by the "never-ending complexity" aspect of science. The best way I've ever seen to discourage a student is to make it perfectly clear that the stuff they are currently struggling with isn't the most complex.

I did overdo it once or twice and had to drag a couple kids back from the edge. I try to strike a balance. I also try to start off with how freaking cool these things are. If I pull that off it gets me some good will I can spend for patience. I tend to teach evo/devo and behavior, sometimes some biomechanics, so cool is usually not a hard sell, especially when I'm whipping out sexual behavior and/or cute baby animals. And people expect a certain amount of complexity. I've been known to throw out casual allusions to fluid dynamics in the blood stream, for example, to point out that there's another entire field touching on this and a level of analysis that is beyond the scope of the course. There are two kinds of kids. The first kind looks relieved when they hear "beyond the scope of this course." That's 98% of them. The 2% who start scribbling questions about it to bring to office hours are my peeps. Alas, I cannot aim the course that way or there would be a lynching and we'd never cover the actual requirements in the allotted time.

I like tangents. I'm good at them. Did you notice? I thought I noticed you noticing.

Certainly I would have to develop different techniques to teach biology for non-majors or anything for a more casual crowd of kids. Never had to think about it yet, I've been lucky to teach lots of 300 level classes. I've done my intro classes in behavior and statistics so far. Stats is such a different ballgame.

 

[DMH]

I would like monsters to be less National Geographic and more Pliney.

Is there any 3rd party supplements for 3.X along these lines? Looking at my creature book collection (print and pdf) I couldn't find anything remotely using mythology as the basis of creature design. Even Betabunny's books were more science than fantasy.

 

[Aeolius]

All science begins with one statement: "I don't know."

"Definition of a scientist; a man who understands nothing, until there is nothing left to understand." - Matthias, "The Omega Man"

 

[Hussar]

Is there any 3rd party supplements for 3.X along these lines? Looking at my creature book collection (print and pdf) I couldn't find anything remotely using mythology as the basis of creature design. Even Betabunny's books were more science than fantasy.

Not that I can think of. Thus my initial ranty bit. Pretty much all the monster books that I've seen over the years take a more National Geographic approach to monsters.

Bit of a shame I think. Certainly an area that could use some exploration IMO.

 

[vagabundo]

But your point is made I suppose. Where do you draw the line? And that's going to be different for everyone. I would like monsters to be less National Geographic and more Pliney. I've always wanted elves to be more magical and less "Humans that can see in the dark" which is often how I've seen them played.
.

Never having read Pliney I found this translation. The entries on Elephants are very interesting:

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.)

It is more a collection of anecdotes and I could see a MM in this style being very useful.