A question...

All topics including role playing games, board games, etc., etc.
serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by serleran »

The times have changed.

If I can participate in a thread and it be civil still.

Oh my.

All that pandering to the hypocrites has finally paid off.

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by seskis281 »

serleran wrote:The times have changed.

If I can participate in a thread and it be civil still.

Oh my.

All that pandering to the hypocrites has finally paid off.
Bacon sucks!!!!! :o :twisted: ;)

Now discuss Serl :D
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: A question...

Post by Fiffergrund »

serleran wrote:The times have changed.

If I can participate in a thread and it be civil still.

Oh my.

All that pandering to the hypocrites has finally paid off.

Reminds me of something Doc Holliday might have said in Tombstone.

12 years ago on Dragonsfoot, I had a hard time finding a civil thread at all :)
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
concobar
Ulthal
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by concobar »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Acacius wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Fiffergrund wrote:
People wear their rubber wristbands to project the right image and the right "causes." For most of these people, the cause is less important than the ability to look "concerned" to their social group and to pat themselves on the back for a superficial gesture.

I see WOTC's approach in exactly the same light.
I evaluate a company's (or person's) action in this type of arena based on noise vs. EFFECTIVE action.

A bright band on the wrist (Fight against illiteracy for example) is noise. Spending every other Saturday teaching inner city kids to read is ACTION.

WotC has not taken ANY effective action against bigotry but only, noise. Ipso facto pandering.
The fact is that some people are never going to change their beliefs as it concerns some things nor should they be forced or manipulated into doing so. WotC made a statement in their free rules, doubled down by going on Marysue and saying that anyone who disagrees is a bigot and they are ok with offending bigots and then added it into the PHB.

I will never believe that a person should be referred to as a male or female based solely on the fact that they demand it be so. I do not understand how a person can look at their own genitals, declare themselves to be the opposite gender and not be diagnosed with some form of delusion or mental illness. I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that gender rolls are, as some would claim, a social construct and not the outcome of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is no one was ever excluded from playing D&D by the rules.

Yeah. I'm done with this. Enjoy your vacation.
LOL you ban someone for that and then post to gloat? really? How is that statement more offensive than half of the other posts on this thread if at all?
What part of that opinion do you not agree with exactly or did it offend you that the guy would dare talk back to you?

If the thread is a problem it should be locked. This is similar to starting a thread about taco bell and then banning someone for disliking the chalupa.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

seskis281 wrote: And I do agree most of us are keeping civil, even when Arduin and I disagree on "science." :ugeek:
God, don't get me started on magic vs. science. :lol:

But, yes. It could have been well intentioned but REALLY bad implementation on WotC's part. Maybe I'm old and moldy but I think that the bigot vs. non-bigot ratio has improved, a LOT, since I started in this hobby. To the point where I haven't seen it in public (at a physical gaming venue) in over 30 years. So, that also made it seem weird when I read it in the book.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by serleran »

seskis281 wrote:
serleran wrote:The times have changed.

If I can participate in a thread and it be civil still.

Oh my.

All that pandering to the hypocrites has finally paid off.
Bacon sucks!!!!! :o :twisted: ;)

Now discuss Serl :D
You sir, are egging me on. I eat things like that for breakfast. Preferably with the bacon. And the eggs. Maybe some cheese and milk, too.

I will not bow to the mooing. Even a dolt can volt.

User avatar
dachda
Lore Drake
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:00 am
Location: Topsham, Maine

Re: A question...

Post by dachda »

Julian Grimm wrote:You have both hit on something I want to comment on. For those of us that are skeptical of science, (the scientific establishment, mainstream science, whatever you want to call it) it is the very above thing that makes us skeptical. For example, you get studies saying that X is bad for you, then you see years of don't do X or don't eat X. Then all of a sudden X wasn't as bad as we thought so X is ok but now Y is bad. When you see enough of this you begin to wonder is you are getting the solid truth or if there are just some guys in lab coats making things up as they go along. Then you also have commercially or politically motivated junk science that has happened before (results decided before research is done).

So Seskis saying that there is differing opinions reflects a certain point of view of those of us who have become skeptical based on the above. Now, I am not saying that the scientists are wrong or that science is worthless. I am just saying that science may have to change it's approach when dealing with the muggles so that it is easier for us to understand at this time.

Hope you understand what I am trying to say.
I suggest that a large part of the problem you are experiencing here is not a problem with science or scientists, but rather with the media reporting on the various studies which we all end up reading about. Our journalists for the most part do not have science degrees and are barely more qualified (if at all) to understand proper scientific data and papers, then most of the rest of us. So a complex study say on a type of food (to use your example), with multiple exceptions and qualifications, ends up dumbed down into a sentence headline "X is bad, don't eat X anymore." When if you actually do a proper interview with the study's author you will never get such a simplified interpretation.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Julian Grimm wrote:You have both hit on something I want to comment on. For those of us that are skeptical of science, (the scientific establishment, mainstream science, whatever you want to call it) it is the very above thing that makes us skeptical. For example, you get studies saying that X is bad for you, then you see years of don't do X or don't eat X.
Yep.. BUT most of what you are talking about is the result of NOT following the scientific method. And many times, not even applying basic logic.

For instance, for YEARS "doctors" have been screeching that animal fat is bad for you and will make you fat and so you should slash fat from your diet. Well, there isn't any proper studies that back that up. In fact, since homo sapiens EVOLVED having animal fat a major dietary component you can see that the assertion isn't even remotely logical. The PRIMARY suspects when looking at nutrition caused ill health would be on what we are eating that we DIDN'T eat while evolving (>99% of our time on Earth). Grass seed would be the primary suspect. Followed closely by abundant sugar (not found in nature in large quantities, etc.)

So, before rejecting scientific data, make SURE that you are actually looking at scientific data. Not "junk science".
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: A question...

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, plus there are "studies" released by, and funded by, special interest food producers, that don't have any real scientific data, but only "surveys", and the like. So have the appearance of legitimacy, but actually have none, much like Arduin brings out above.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Treebore wrote:Yeah, plus there are "studies" released by, and funded by, special interest food producers, that don't have any real scientific data, but only "surveys", and the like. So have the appearance of legitimacy, but actually have none, much like Arduin brings out above.
Good point. Vested interest "science".
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Lurker
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: A question...

Post by Lurker »

Ohhhhh so many rabbits to chase in this thread ... so many points to debate

To bad I'm mentally smoked from teaching for 9 hours straight today to answer any points fully

So I'll focus on the most critical statement made thus far

seskis281 wrote:

Bacon sucks!!!!! :o :twisted: ;)

Now discuss Serl :D
That is a lie from the pits of Hell!!! Take it back !!!! , or are you sadly delusional and in your own way seeking help ? ;)


As a retired meteorologist I could add specific points about 'science' being incorrect, used as a political tool and misrepresented by media. Plus as a current teacher that has finished degrees in sociology and education, I also have seen the same effect in action in the 'social sciences' but even more so.

Part of me is actually saddened by the fact that science of any type is used specifically to support a political view while abusing the underlying data. And then we as a society fail to use logic and common since to call BS on it when it is attempted. But, I guess that is the age and time we are in ...

Now to WOTC, I won't buy any of 5e ... (assuming I wasn't underpaid and had extra money) not because of any LGBT or what ever statement. Because I do not like the path they have taken the game in and have no interest in supporting them.

As for the statement, it offends me, and not because it is counter to my political & religious views, because is pandering and exploitive. I would never by a game rule book that said "made specifically for a good conservative, Christian, educated, country boy" ... The second I would read that would make my blood boil and insure I put the book down and never bought a book from that company again. I would assume that most (not all by any means) people regardless of their race, religion, creed and every other descriptive would react the same.

That said, I am far from being a marketing expert so will make way for the 'why' of it to those here that do have experience on the subject.

Ok, mentally exhausted ... time to sleep. I hope I did add a little positive to the conversation ...
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

Arduin wrote:
Yep.. BUT most of what you are talking about is the result of NOT following the scientific method. And many times, not even applying basic logic.

For instance, for YEARS "doctors" have been screeching that animal fat is bad for you and will make you fat and so you should slash fat from your diet. Well, there isn't any proper studies that back that up. In fact, since homo sapiens EVOLVED having animal fat a major dietary component you can see that the assertion isn't even remotely logical. The PRIMARY suspects when looking at nutrition caused ill health would be on what we are eating that we DIDN'T eat while evolving (>99% of our time on Earth). Grass seed would be the primary suspect. Followed closely by abundant sugar (not found in nature in large quantities, etc.)

So, before rejecting scientific data, make SURE that you are actually looking at scientific data. Not "junk science".
I agree but, some of it has been 'hard' science that was later changed. For example, Pluto's downgrading from planet to whatever it is now. Many people sat scratching their heads at how suddenly it was changed which made people wonder if astronomers really knew what they were doing. Now, thanks to Tyson, I understand the change but also wonder if in a few years we'll hears something like, "nevermind it was a planet, sorry."

Another issue that a few have is that the data is usually written in terms the average person cannot understand. Thus there is a lot of confusion on any data that is presented. I am not saying that the material needs to be dumbed down but put into layman's terms so that the average person can understand it.

One last thing on this, is that it seems medical science is the worst offender at changing it's mind and standards. Which has personally lead me to distrust it on many things. I have watched what are basically health fads come out of respected hospitals as well as from dubious sources. It makes it hard to know just what to believe.
dachda wrote:
I suggest that a large part of the problem you are experiencing here is not a problem with science or scientists, but rather with the media reporting on the various studies which we all end up reading about. Our journalists for the most part do not have science degrees and are barely more qualified (if at all) to understand proper scientific data and papers, then most of the rest of us. So a complex study say on a type of food (to use your example), with multiple exceptions and qualifications, ends up dumbed down into a sentence headline "X is bad, don't eat X anymore." When if you actually do a proper interview with the study's author you will never get such a simplified interpretation.

Another good point. The media can't get a regular news story right half the time let alone a scientific one. Plus you have network news being all about ratings and causing a stir always gets them. You then have talking head experts come on the news and throw the occasional technical term to back up whatever they report but there is never any real substance. While you can educate yourself on any matter it seems we would rather look at pictures of cats than actually learn something. :lol:

I will end this post with a disclaimer that I am not a scientist and was never trained as one. My interests lay more in spirituality and philosophy (with a small dash of metaphysics, sorry) than in hard science. However, I do appreciate science as it has actually helped strengthen my faith and you will see me watch documentaries on quantum physics, astronomy, archeology and such at least once a week.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Julian Grimm wrote:
I agree but, some of it has been 'hard' science that was later changed. For example, Pluto's downgrading from planet to whatever it is now.
That is NOT science much less "hard". It was so decreed by a vote of an organization as to an arbitrary definition of what a designation would be. It was a change in catalog.

So, EXACTLY like I admonished earlier. Make SURE you are looking at ACTUAL science.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:
I agree but, some of it has been 'hard' science that was later changed. For example, Pluto's downgrading from planet to whatever it is now.
That is NOT science much less "hard". It was so decreed by a vote of an organization as to an arbitrary definition of what a designation would be. It was a change in catalog.

So, EXACTLY like I admonished earlier. Make SURE you are looking at ACTUAL science.
I see how confusing this can get. :? I think I'll just go back to trusting no one. :lol:
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by seskis281 »

Returning to the broader question of inclusivity and steering aware from larger political frame just to the practical merits of discussing gender in RPGs - specifically the call I made to have more female characters in artwork dressed in armor in future C&C releases:

In my broad Facebook world and amongst friends and younger players I teach and am connected to through theatre, I have quite a lot of female rpgers as friends. Several are in my group, and have been playing C&C for years now (two are authors of Winds of Fate, now available on kindle from TLG, the other is my wife). While they are happy with C&C, they certainly have noted that female characters are almost always very under-dressed. Now, amongst others, I've tried in the past to get them interested in C&C, especially a good number (over half a dozen) who love D&D in general but were turned off by both 4e and PF. They were VERY interested in what I was describing, but almost all of them, when they had a chance to look at C&C books, said they lost interest because they felt the game was still treating female characters only as "eye candy." In the past week, a number of these friends are on FB responding very positively to 5e because they a.) like its move away from the rules gloat of PF and computer-gameiness of 4e, and b. ) its art (regardless of what one thinks of the quality) is, and I am quoting a FB post here "is the 1st RPG that makes me feel really welcome as a female player equally, and not aimed at the teenage boy market."

This is not political, it's not some agenda, it's just real reactions and impressions. Those players would have been prime converts to C&C based on their gaming wants. It wasn't any "statement" from WotC (none have even mentioned that), it was just how the new PHB appealed to them as women gamers. This goes back to something mentioned earlier - that statements can be "marketing," meaningless, that actions are what matters. Forget the whole statement thing, and you do see WotC applying that to its production design. It's been argued that there's no need to talk about "inclusivity" since it already exists, but if we are promoting a game where there is some aspect that turns off a segment of potential players, it's not "pandering" or giving in to anything to ask "how can we make C&C even more appealing to whole groups of potential players?" TLG does have to consider "marketing" - they are trying to grow and sell more product.

Again, I will reiterate - I LOVE Peter Bradley as an artist, Jason Walton and others, too. I am not arguing to "censor" or pull any one piece of art, to worry about "oh we can't show this because we might offend someone," but rather to expand the representations, add more variety along with the current. New color art for the CKG reprint offers a great opportunity for this - how about a nice full color image of a female paladin in the class expansion section in banded mail?
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

seskis281 wrote:Returning to the broader question of inclusivity and steering aware from larger political frame just to the practical merits of discussing gender in RPGs - specifically the call I made to have more female characters in artwork dressed in armor in future C&C releases:

...
I'm glad you brought in real world feedback on this. I've heard these same complaints for decades. In my experience it DOES put a damper on liking the game (D&D type) for many women. I REALLY don't understand why publishers continue to contract for that kind of artwork in a product market that has been feeling the squeeze of a shrinking consumer base for over a decade. It is mind boggling from a business perspective.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
dachda
Lore Drake
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:00 am
Location: Topsham, Maine

Re: A question...

Post by dachda »

seskis281 wrote:Returning to the broader question of inclusivity and steering aware from larger political frame just to the practical merits of discussing gender in RPGs - specifically the call I made to have more female characters in artwork dressed in armor in future C&C releases:

In my broad Facebook world and amongst friends and younger players I teach and am connected to through theatre, I have quite a lot of female rpgers as friends. Several are in my group, and have been playing C&C for years now (two are authors of Winds of Fate, now available on kindle from TLG, the other is my wife). While they are happy with C&C, they certainly have noted that female characters are almost always very under-dressed. Now, amongst others, I've tried in the past to get them interested in C&C, especially a good number (over half a dozen) who love D&D in general but were turned off by both 4e and PF. They were VERY interested in what I was describing, but almost all of them, when they had a chance to look at C&C books, said they lost interest because they felt the game was still treating female characters only as "eye candy." In the past week, a number of these friends are on FB responding very positively to 5e because they a.) like its move away from the rules gloat of PF and computer-gameiness of 4e, and b. ) its art (regardless of what one thinks of the quality) is, and I am quoting a FB post here "is the 1st RPG that makes me feel really welcome as a female player equally, and not aimed at the teenage boy market."

This is not political, it's not some agenda, it's just real reactions and impressions. Those players would have been prime converts to C&C based on their gaming wants. It wasn't any "statement" from WotC (none have even mentioned that), it was just how the new PHB appealed to them as women gamers. This goes back to something mentioned earlier - that statements can be "marketing," meaningless, that actions are what matters. Forget the whole statement thing, and you do see WotC applying that to its production design. It's been argued that there's no need to talk about "inclusivity" since it already exists, but if we are promoting a game where there is some aspect that turns off a segment of potential players, it's not "pandering" or giving in to anything to ask "how can we make C&C even more appealing to whole groups of potential players?" TLG does have to consider "marketing" - they are trying to grow and sell more product.

Again, I will reiterate - I LOVE Peter Bradley as an artist, Jason Walton and others, too. I am not arguing to "censor" or pull any one piece of art, to worry about "oh we can't show this because we might offend someone," but rather to expand the representations, add more variety along with the current. New color art for the CKG reprint offers a great opportunity for this - how about a nice full color image of a female paladin in the class expansion section in banded mail?

I've had the same experience with women players and fully agree with your statement here.

User avatar
Litzen Tallister
Red Cap
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:20 pm

Re: A question...

Post by Litzen Tallister »

While many of us grew up with the scantily clad women of artists such as Frank Frazetta, I think it's important to represent gender with more parity and even-handedness, especially if we want more people playing role-playing games (though after the crowds of Gen Con, I'm not so sure of that :D ).

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: A question...

Post by Treebore »

I think the game companies should spend the next 5 years putting only men clad in Chan Mail bikini tights on their covers, until it draws in enough woman to have them out number us, then we can complain about how they "objectify" us.

Because, while I understand the points women have, I also pay attention to them, and I know darn well they objectify us men every bit as much as we do them. So there is a good bit of hypocrisy to their complaints, but I am not saying there isn't a whole lot of truth to them either. My daughter and I joined a new group of on line players a few years ago. They were all young men, and during the second session or so, they started talking about girls and their girl friends. With my daughter there, who was under 18 at the time.

I later asked her if she took good notes, because that is what far too many guys actually have going on in their heads, while playing up to women as if they are all nice. She did. Not to mention, we never played with them again.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by Fizz »

Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote: I agree but, some of it has been 'hard' science that was later changed. For example, Pluto's downgrading from planet to whatever it is now.
That is NOT science much less "hard". It was so decreed by a vote of an organization as to an arbitrary definition of what a designation would be. It was a change in catalog.
So, EXACTLY like I admonished earlier. Make SURE you are looking at ACTUAL science.
Yes, the "downgrade" of Pluto is merely a classification. Nothing about Pluto itself changed. But in the light of the huge number of trans-Neptunian objects being found, the astronomical societies decided to better formulate the exact definition of planet.

Also, everything in science is up for debate given sufficient evidence. Scientists do not really deal in absolutes, only grades of confidence. Newton's formulation of classical mechanics, as elegant as it is, is technically wrong. It has been superceded by Einstein's Relativity. But for most day-to-day purposes Newton is still fine- a close-enough approximation of reality that only breaks down for super-massive or super-fast objects. In turn, Relativity may one day be superceded by String Theory.

And one of the biggest points of confusion between scientists and the general public is the word "theory". To the general public, "theory" means little more than "idea". But in the scientific community, a theory is only developed after huge amounts of evidence to support it. And every theory is subject to further evidence to further refine it. To a scientist, "hypothesis" is the word to use if you don't have data to support it. Once you experiment and gather evidence, then you can develop your hypothesis into a theory.

-Fizz

User avatar
mgtremaine
Ulthal
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:00 am
Location: San Diego, Ca
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by mgtremaine »

Fizz wrote:
And one of the biggest points of confusion between scientists and the general public is the word "theory".
-Fizz
I was going to mention this specific point but I generally steer clear of these types of threads. Thanks for posting it... I would add that Theory in the scientific contact also requires "testable". That is you have to be able to test it, something a lot of people fail to understand when throwning the word theory around.

-Mike

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: A question...

Post by Treebore »

Yep, when I was a High School Science Teacher I often got irritated with how quickly my students forgot the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory. They would think a Theory was pretty much a Law, and talk about Hypothesis as a Theory.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

mgtremaine wrote:I would add that Theory in the scientific contact also requires "testable". That is you have to be able to test it, something a lot of people fail to understand when throwning the word theory around.

-Mike
Yep. I sometimes see even scientists forgetting that part and see them calling untestable ideas "theories". Many ideas in the area of the origin of this universe are untestable yet, often get referred to as theories.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by Fizz »

Arduin wrote:Yep. I sometimes see even scientists forgetting that part and see them calling untestable ideas "theories". Many ideas in the area of the origin of this universe are untestable yet, often get referred to as theories.
"Testable" isn't required in the sense that you're using it here. Astronomy and astrophysics rely more on observation than testing, and yet they use "theory" correctly. The "test" is usually a model based on the known laws of physics. If the model agrees with the observations, you've got a valid theory.

So for example, even though we can't create another sun to "test", we have a very good sense of what's going on inside it. Our knowledge of physics tells us what should happen, and that matches what we actually see happening. The origin of the universe (Big Bang Theory) is the same way. We can't create a universe (yet), but the observable evidence and physics supports it.

As for modern physics, the usage of "theory" is actually debated when it comes to String Theory. At the moment, string theory offers no testable predictions. Notice the word "currently". It doesn't forever rule out testable predictions in the future. But when you have a framework that ties many other theories together so elegantly, it's very seductive.

-Fizz

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Fizz wrote: "Testable" isn't required in the sense that you're using it here. ... The origin of the universe (Big Bang Theory) is the same way.

-Fizz
I'm using it is in the "scientific method" sense. So, YES it is required. When a "theory" is forwarded that postulates a physical happening that cannot be actually observed, testing IS required. Observation is part of "testing" of course. If at that point it cannot be observed nor "tested" it FAILS the requirements of becoming scientific theory. There are NO exemptions for different branches of science. NONE. If someone tells you otherwise you can rest assured that despite any title or training, they are NOT a scientist.

Also, the "Big Bang" idea has holes large enough to drive a planet through. It isn't a scientific theory. It is a messy semi-hypothesis. It violates known physical laws and cannot survive testing. In fact it can't really be tested nor the parts where physical laws are violated, observed. That is a cold FACT. One can hand wave but that of course is fantasy.

If you can show me a recent change in the Scientific method, I'm all ears...

p.s. Lest my stance be confused with a scientific statist attitude. I am ALL for floating all kinds of far out scientific ideas in an attempt to figure out our universe. I simply object to destroying the scientific method by promoting those ideas as now accepted scientific theory without first CORRECTLY undergoing the required scientific methodology. That way leads to a DECLINE in actual science.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: A question...

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, "The Big Bang Hypothesis" still has a long ways to go to become a "Theory". Lots of HUGE questions still need to be answered.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by Fizz »

Arduin wrote:Also, the "Big Bang" idea has holes large enough to drive a planet through. It isn't a scientific theory. It is a messy semi-hypothesis. It violates known physical laws and cannot survive testing. In fact it can't really be tested nor the parts where physical laws are violated, observed. That is a cold FACT. One can hand wave but that of course is fantasy.
Rubbish. What holes? What physical laws does it break?

It may be incomplete, there is still stuff to learn, and lots of details to iron out. But you don't have to know everything to have a working theory. If you think Big Bang is not a theory, then you haven't studied it sufficiently.
If at that point it cannot be observed nor "tested" it FAILS the requirements of becoming scientific theory.
Then by your own comment it is a valid theory, because observations DO tell us what happened. There is overwhelming evidence for it (cosmic background radiation fluctuations, large scale structure, Tolman tests, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, etc). All of these observations and more completely support Big Bang. That's why it's a theory.

Spend two seconds on a google search of Big Bang evidence and you'll find plenty more.


-Fizz

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Fizz wrote: Rubbish. What holes? What physical laws does it break?
First law of thermodynamics. The monopole problem. The flatness problem, Horizon problem, etc. Why go on. Those alone show that it doesn't qual as a theory.

Your turn. Explain the above and you have a theory possibly.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: A question...

Post by Treebore »

Its not even that it "breaks" any laws, and even with everything that is observable, there are many big, HUGE questions that will need to be answered. Like, for example, why do we have the "laws" that we have? How did they come out of complete randomness? Within a second of the "Big Bang"? Because everything we know at this point, says our Scientific Laws have been in place since the beginning. How? Why? Kind of critically important to figure out.

Plus, remember, the "Big Bang" is not a law, because of everything it doesn't answer.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Treebore wrote:Its not even that it "breaks" any laws, and even with everything that is observable, there are many big, HUGE questions that will need to be answered. Like, for example, why do we have the "laws" that we have? How did they come out of complete randomness? Within a second of the "Big Bang"? Because everything we know at this point, says our Scientific Laws have been in place since the beginning. How? Why? Kind of critically important to figure out.

Plus, remember, the "Big Bang" is not a law, because of everything it doesn't answer.

A huge part of what you are talking about is the monopole problem. With that alone left "untested" the whole shebang collapses.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Post Reply