Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7266900" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Now, those I have a lot of patience with.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are quite right. I should have been more precise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An entirely reasonable suggestion, but in this case the preponderance of evidence is that the misunderstanding on that point is not my fault. There may be, and probably are, plenty of other areas however where I'm not being clear. But on that point, barring the possibility you can actually show me where the misunderstanding came from, I don't think I'm at fault - since among other things I've plainly stated the opposite multiple times. Rather I think the more likely explanation is you are conflating what I'm saying with what someone else said in some other conversation, and you are responding to me as if I was that other person.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, good. Because I was assuming that your desire to not see science and textual criticism compared, was coming from something of the opposite place, that science was 'Science' and that textual criticism was something that could just be dismissed because it was not 'Science'. That you are an expert in textual criticism only makes this conversation easier.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quite. But my point was rather the opposite of what you think it is. Rather than arguing that textual criticism was as easy as science and therefore we could state as much with confidence about a text as we might over a very simple piece of data like a genetic sequence that in fact science shared with textual criticism many of the same ambiguities that textual criticism has, and that therefore it was not insulting science to draw the comparison. On the contrary, I would tend to argue that scientists underestimate the difficulties in dealing with the data (and in some cases do this deliberately, which is a big problem in science right now), and therefore tend to overestimate the strength of their conclusions. Or to put it another way, if you believe science is about complete objectivity and perfectly firm conclusions and absolute rigor, then you probably don't do science.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, as far as Wittgenstein goes, yes - though I've not read Gusdorf. But again, while textual criticism is not science, not being science does not mean it is not knowledge or that it completely lacking in rigor. And fundamentally, we both seem to believe that there is some evidence that can be uncovered and that reasonable people can be convinced by the strength of the argument that this explanation best fits the evidence - which is all that science is, so whether it is science or not isn't really relevant. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't assume that I'm going to be in anyway threatened by your expertise. Quite the contrary, knowing who you are helps me understand the context of your statements and makes them clearer rather than less clear. And for that matter, I don't believe that either of us has made an argument ad vercundiam, since neither is asking the other to believe what we say based on our expertise alone. You can validly put forth your expertise in the subject as contributing evidence that you ought to be believed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7266900, member: 4937"] Now, those I have a lot of patience with. You are quite right. I should have been more precise. An entirely reasonable suggestion, but in this case the preponderance of evidence is that the misunderstanding on that point is not my fault. There may be, and probably are, plenty of other areas however where I'm not being clear. But on that point, barring the possibility you can actually show me where the misunderstanding came from, I don't think I'm at fault - since among other things I've plainly stated the opposite multiple times. Rather I think the more likely explanation is you are conflating what I'm saying with what someone else said in some other conversation, and you are responding to me as if I was that other person. Oh, good. Because I was assuming that your desire to not see science and textual criticism compared, was coming from something of the opposite place, that science was 'Science' and that textual criticism was something that could just be dismissed because it was not 'Science'. That you are an expert in textual criticism only makes this conversation easier. Quite. But my point was rather the opposite of what you think it is. Rather than arguing that textual criticism was as easy as science and therefore we could state as much with confidence about a text as we might over a very simple piece of data like a genetic sequence that in fact science shared with textual criticism many of the same ambiguities that textual criticism has, and that therefore it was not insulting science to draw the comparison. On the contrary, I would tend to argue that scientists underestimate the difficulties in dealing with the data (and in some cases do this deliberately, which is a big problem in science right now), and therefore tend to overestimate the strength of their conclusions. Or to put it another way, if you believe science is about complete objectivity and perfectly firm conclusions and absolute rigor, then you probably don't do science. Actually, as far as Wittgenstein goes, yes - though I've not read Gusdorf. But again, while textual criticism is not science, not being science does not mean it is not knowledge or that it completely lacking in rigor. And fundamentally, we both seem to believe that there is some evidence that can be uncovered and that reasonable people can be convinced by the strength of the argument that this explanation best fits the evidence - which is all that science is, so whether it is science or not isn't really relevant. Don't assume that I'm going to be in anyway threatened by your expertise. Quite the contrary, knowing who you are helps me understand the context of your statements and makes them clearer rather than less clear. And for that matter, I don't believe that either of us has made an argument ad vercundiam, since neither is asking the other to believe what we say based on our expertise alone. You can validly put forth your expertise in the subject as contributing evidence that you ought to be believed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?
Top