Forums
A Theory for Each Faction
Quick find code: 341-342-10-65849844
AttilaSquare
said
:
Science often claims to be objective, but science also rarely speaks clearly on ultimate things. The Big Bang is pretty mysterious. The theory of evolution doesn't give meaning to life. Science presupposes a certain account of being; it doesn't provide one.
Looking to find the second best explanation eh?
Knowing your love of Plato it doesn't really surprise me your ran into this problem. Personally, as a nihlist I prefer objective accounts with no meaning
but I would also love to see how you develop your theories in respect to each factions cultural goals and values to give it meaning. (Especially Zamorak)
Roland Lyons said :
You mean like a creation story for each religion or something?
I think Attila means that he wants to develop an account for "how things are" using the universally true knowledge that has been revealed to us (ie elder gods) but not strictly that. I think he wants an element of "Why things are" (as in why 1 plus 1 equals 2, rather than what happens when its 1 plus 1)
Of course each culture values different things. A good real world example is that during the 20th century Western science and Eastern science were developing parallel ideas about the family structures of certain primates. While both accounts were objective and both sides did "good" science, the empirical data that each side came up with differed immensely. The Eastern side characterized the family power structures as much more lateral, while the Westerners characterized them as hierarchical and way more vertical.
Its interesting to note that their data reflected how each culture creates their own society, leading some to wonder if science tells us more about ourselves then it tells us about truth.
For the record, neither account of the primates in necessarily true, we still don't know which one is more true and it has everything to do with "why" things happen
Science often claims to be objective, but science also rarely speaks clearly on ultimate things. The Big Bang is pretty mysterious. The theory of evolution doesn't give meaning to life. Science presupposes a certain account of being; it doesn't provide one.
Looking to find the second best explanation eh?
Knowing your love of Plato it doesn't really surprise me your ran into this problem. Personally, as a nihlist I prefer objective accounts with no meaning
but I would also love to see how you develop your theories in respect to each factions cultural goals and values to give it meaning. (Especially Zamorak)
Roland Lyons said :
You mean like a creation story for each religion or something?
I think Attila means that he wants to develop an account for "how things are" using the universally true knowledge that has been revealed to us (ie elder gods) but not strictly that. I think he wants an element of "Why things are" (as in why 1 plus 1 equals 2, rather than what happens when its 1 plus 1)
Of course each culture values different things. A good real world example is that during the 20th century Western science and Eastern science were developing parallel ideas about the family structures of certain primates. While both accounts were objective and both sides did "good" science, the empirical data that each side came up with differed immensely. The Eastern side characterized the family power structures as much more lateral, while the Westerners characterized them as hierarchical and way more vertical.
Its interesting to note that their data reflected how each culture creates their own society, leading some to wonder if science tells us more about ourselves then it tells us about truth.
For the record, neither account of the primates in necessarily true, we still don't know which one is more true and it has everything to do with "why" things happen
10-Nov-2016 21:12:32
Cthris
said
:
Both assumptions would lead to very empirical data. Yet both would be based on cultural assumptions and not truly be objective. But they are the tools we have and all we have to frame the world with. The trick is to keep an open mind and not close off ideas of what may be purely due to it violating your own personal world view of how the universe works.
Take Einstein's theory of Gravity. People hold that as true, it matches what is observed...except when it rams up against quantum mechanics where it falls apart. That is why people search for a theory of everything that would combine the 2. Yet the more we find out, the weirder the universe seems to become. Wrinkles that potentialy allow for warp drives, teleporters and light sabres, where as not so long ago those researching such things were driven from the scientific community like there were heretics. A definite lack of objectivity there.
Though things seem to be a little calmer now. At l;east some are now wiling to wait for full theories and equations before ripping them apart. Dark matter/energy comes from a lack of gravity and the quantum realm theories being able to meld...at least these days some may be willing to see if revered titans of their field were wrong. It doesn't detract anything from their achievement as it still allowed people the tools to reach further and discover new wrinkles in how things work. That there is objectivity, to seek to learn and to keep an open mind about what you think you know, to it's a strange world we live in and embrace it when it surprises us.
The first part of any objective study is to acknowledge that we all have a bias and to work to avoid it shading the study. You only have to look at gender bias and attempts at equality to see that it set back parts of neurological and medical research back about 70 years. Dogma is objectivity's greatest enemy.
The purpose of adventure is to shine light into dark places,
Poke monsters with a sharp stick, Then steal anything that isn't nailed down!
To the Manor Born QFC 185-186-367-65788716
Both assumptions would lead to very empirical data. Yet both would be based on cultural assumptions and not truly be objective. But they are the tools we have and all we have to frame the world with. The trick is to keep an open mind and not close off ideas of what may be purely due to it violating your own personal world view of how the universe works.
Take Einstein's theory of Gravity. People hold that as true, it matches what is observed...except when it rams up against quantum mechanics where it falls apart. That is why people search for a theory of everything that would combine the 2. Yet the more we find out, the weirder the universe seems to become. Wrinkles that potentialy allow for warp drives, teleporters and light sabres, where as not so long ago those researching such things were driven from the scientific community like there were heretics. A definite lack of objectivity there.
Though things seem to be a little calmer now. At l;east some are now wiling to wait for full theories and equations before ripping them apart. Dark matter/energy comes from a lack of gravity and the quantum realm theories being able to meld...at least these days some may be willing to see if revered titans of their field were wrong. It doesn't detract anything from their achievement as it still allowed people the tools to reach further and discover new wrinkles in how things work. That there is objectivity, to seek to learn and to keep an open mind about what you think you know, to it's a strange world we live in and embrace it when it surprises us.
The first part of any objective study is to acknowledge that we all have a bias and to work to avoid it shading the study. You only have to look at gender bias and attempts at equality to see that it set back parts of neurological and medical research back about 70 years. Dogma is objectivity's greatest enemy.
The purpose of adventure is to shine light into dark places,
Poke monsters with a sharp stick, Then steal anything that isn't nailed down!
To the Manor Born QFC 185-186-367-65788716
11-Nov-2016 06:10:43
Hey, Solanumtinkr, I think magic theory and anima theory have to be developed together - I posted on Last Prophet's On Chaos Druids a draft of a headcannon history of magic that examines several different versions of those concepts intertwined. I've tied spirits and the spiritual into the definitions of anima too. So I hope it will amount to a historically developing unified theory, set somewhat within an intellectual/cultural Armadylean tradition.
Socrateaus, yes, that's the right track. I'm skeptical of speaking of pure objectivity.
I also think that this is perhaps overstated: Solanumtinkr said :
Dogma is objectivity's greatest enemy.
Without some dogma, or at least shared presumptions, science doesn't get off the ground. Instead we need a balance between open inquiry and established assumptions, geared toward a systematic appreciation of all the ways and conditions under which various phenomena can appear.
Socrateaus, yes, that's the right track. I'm skeptical of speaking of pure objectivity.
I also think that this is perhaps overstated: Solanumtinkr said :
Dogma is objectivity's greatest enemy.
Without some dogma, or at least shared presumptions, science doesn't get off the ground. Instead we need a balance between open inquiry and established assumptions, geared toward a systematic appreciation of all the ways and conditions under which various phenomena can appear.
13-Nov-2016 15:00:09
Quick find code: 341-342-10-65849844 Back to Top