Diablo 3 - More Coverage

DoctorNarrative said:

It's pretty clear at this point there is no reason to drag this on. I disagree with pretty much everything you say.

Click to expand...

Thank the heavens for that

coyote said:

I am glad you did not leave on my account, Dart. It's not my wish to start another quote debate here, so I will just quickly comment: First, I had no idea you had personal experiences with drugs. If you ever discuss this, I hope I catch the thread, because it sounds interesting. As you say, though, this one is not the right one. I also agree with you regarding Blizzard in that it's their game and hence their business what they do with it. However, people should be allowed to be engaged into the debate on a more personal level as well. At least I would assume that many who frequent an RPG website have some feelings for the genre, and want to voice their disapproval if they do not like a business decision by one of the most prominent developers of RPG games. This, I believe, is part of the reason these forums exist, and OK as long as it stays civil, which it did. Also, there are plenty of reasons why people might not be satisfied with Blizzard's decision.

Click to expand...

I agree fully. I don't have a problem with people taking it personally. Honestly, I don't have much liking for Blizzard at all. I also despise how "business" is driving the industry.

But I have to separate how I feel about it from what's "right or wrong". Those concepts are dangerous - which is why I try to avoid using them beyond the "correct/incorrect" meanings.

Anyway, I really did not take our little debate personally, Dart. It was just me growling back when you barked at me, to keep things balanced

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I appear to be barking, but it's not my intention to ever get to that point. For whatever reason, my "style" is often taken as overly negative or aggressive - where all I'm doing is trying to get to the point without any kind of sugar OR vinegar. I guess sugar is just what people are used to

How do you know they are not?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't be surprised

Then I noticed the whole racism thing (yay for extreme examples!) and thought that maybe we DO have a basic semantic problem. So here goes nothing (from Merriam Webster):

Click to expand...

Well, that was my original theory - after so many people seemed "upset" that I commented on the backlash as "almost religious". I mean, I was ready to consider my reaction as an overreaction and that I might have "read it wrong". But it turns out that I was actually right - given DN's insistence on Blizzard being objectively wrong.

I think none of the initial posters ever spoke of "objectively wrong" (the definition of that might be better left to another discussion), so unless you say the dictionary is wrong, you will agree that the definition of "wrong" is remarkably blurry. I think (4) and (5) in particular are in common usage.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but we went into that ourselves. I'm exhausted with these trivial semantic debates, so I'm hoping you will just humor me. As I recall, I said to you that people "tend" to use the word in the wrong way. As in, they tend to say "wrong" without, say, "I think it's wrong" - but rather just "it's wrong". That's an objective position, because there really IS no standard for what's wrong.

Now, this isn't about people HAVING to say "I think" before each opinion stated, but a collection of statements made from certain people that made it pretty clear, to me, that they REALLY felt Blizzard was "objectively wrong" in their approach. That's an obscenely arrogant statement, really, but obviously it's just an emotional and understandable reaction. I guess I just wanted people to see that though they might have good reasons for feeling that way, others might have equally good reasons for supporting it. Might seem a bit "Captain Obvious" - but you'd be surprised at how many people seem to forget that in their passion.

Racism, which I think we can all agree is both harmful and "wrong" in terms of our own perception - is NOT "objectively wrong". I don't want to go back to that discussion again, so I just hope you agree

Obviously, in most cases - "objectively wrong" is, to use DTE speak, an "Ivory Tower" concept that's not particularly useful in everyday debate. But sometimes it helps to use as a measuring stick.

YES, there are things that are as good as "objectively wrong" - in terms of the human condition. Today, things like "2+2 = 5" and "the sky is green" is pretty close. But strictly, it's NOT necessarily true.

Most certainly, Blizzard's behaviour is nowhere near "objectively wrong" - and it doesn't get there just by people saying it over and over. Even in terms of "everyday life" - it's not "wrong". You have to make a case for it, and no one - so far - has made a case that's anywhere near that level. We can all agree that there are significant downsides to online-only paradigms - but we have to see the end-result before we can possibly make a determination on game-by-game basis.

It's my opinion that the upsides will make up for it, and I don't necessarily see "online-only" as a 100% negative aspect. We have to argue our case for that, which I will gladly do. But as long as people are spouting statements like "Blizzard are objectively wrong" - the discussion can't work.

It will turn into a shouting match - and we won't get anything beneficial out of it.

Thomas Reid; "Common Sense Realism"

"If there are certain principles, as I think there are, which the constitution of our nature leads us to believe, and which we are under a necessity to take for granted in the common concerns of life, without being able to give a reason for them—these are what we call the principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, is what we call absurd.".

Radical-skepticism overemphasize the limits of human insight and argues for agnosticism in every situation. Without being allowed to begin with assumptions it impossible to get anywhere at all. "We cannot know" becomes a thought-terminating cliché, blocking all attempts to establish coherent knowledge. It's an impractical and dysfunctional position.

If you read philosophy you are likely to begin with Socrates skeptical challenge and if you do not drop out early you will engage in the question about how the challenge can be solved.

Epistemology is about how to build reliable knowledge. It begins with insight about the limits of human insight and tries to solve the problem. It may thus distinguish between reliable well-supported positions and unreliable poorly-supported positions, without saying "we know".

coyote said:

That sounds interesting. I read a bit about Karl Popper, and he seemed to have some good ideas, but truth be told, I am incredible ignorant about these branches of philosophy ("The Problems of Philosophy" by B. Russell has been on my bedside cabinet for a while, but I never got around to read through it, embarrassingly. Maybe I will correct that when I have a bit more time again).

Anyway, if I can give you any advice: if you get the chance to visit a lecture in "Theoretical Logic" in the mathematics department, and the professor is competent, I would visit it and do all the exercises. Since it stands on itself, you do not need a heavy background in mathematics at all, although you will need to get comfortable with the mathematical way of thinking. At least where I studied, lectures of logic in the philosophy department were gravely lacking and missed out on all the exiting results, e.g. the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They just read a lot of loosely related literature, while the lecture in the mathematics department was one of the most interesting I had during my studies.

Click to expand...

Well, I know Jemy is very fond of pointing out that he's read many books and few others can match him page for page - and he seems to think that having read a lot is very important. I won't take that away from him, and I respect his theoretical knowledge quite a bit.

Personally, I haven't been interested in reading books on subjects like this in a long while. As an educated adult, I generally prefer to look at the world and just perceive. I don't really care what the detailed philosophical background is for the concepts I'm talking about.

That's because I use these words based on their semantic and logical meaning. You don't need more than that. When I was younger, I did take an interest in philosophy - and took a few years worth of courses at what amounts to "college" level.

My own personal experience with "reading and reading" - is that you don't actually understand much based on that. You get a theoretical knowledge about arbitrary subjects. There are too many subjects in the world for even the most read person to ever get through. You also tend to rely on the writer way too much, as you have to trust that he knows what he's talking about. Since you're not the one establishing the concepts or the history - you need to be able to trust the writer and his sources - and the combined correct interpretation of all the knowledge dealt with in the book you're reading, as well as the books it relates to. No one who's genuinely interested in understanding or truth will make do with theoretical opinionated "knowledge" as found in books.

You might want to rely on such things, if you consider it very important to be well-read - and you'll be able to impress people who also consider it important. But beyond that, I don't think the effort is worthwhile for a pursuer of truth.

I prefer to "understand" high-level concepts. Most importantly, I deal with the human mind and the human condition. That's my own personal passion, and though I don't have much in the way of books read to lean on - I have an understanding that I'm quite pleased with.

To try and read books about every subject out there, will result in a ton of wasted resources. The human mind doesn't have the capacity to both store AND comprehend so much. You basically have to choose between storing the knowledge, or comprehending a subset of what it deals with. You can't have both. People like Jemy probably think they can, and they will take a position of someone who can. But they can't, and that's a promise

Like, say, war. If you read about war, you will get a theoretical knowledge about it - and you can have an opinion about a lot of things related to it. But you don't actually understand war until you've been a part of one.

The same thing about drugs. Yeah, I've got personal experience with that - and my sister was an addict, and she died from an overdose. I've grown up in a small town where drugs were relatively common-place. So I understand the environment and I understand the psychology - in general - of drug addicts. I've only taken "light drugs" myself - and I don't intend to change that. But I'd need to take "hard drugs" to TRULY understand what it means.

To me, the emotional context of an experience is absolutely vital for understanding. You just can't read about it. To rephrase in a simplistic fashion: knowledge is not experience, and you need context for experience. Knowledge without experience is only partially useful.

My own "field of expertise" beyond boring stuff like IT is the human mind. But I don't have any official "courses" to lean on. I know "academics" won't take something seriously unless there's some kind of source to point at. But I don't really mind not being taken seriously. I "test my position" almost minute-by-minute. I spend at least a few minutes of every hour of every day thinking about how we operate, and I test and retest for every thing I see and conclude from. That's not an exaggeration. It means I can't go around believing something I read in a book. I have to see it and I have to test it, and then I have to retest it over and over every day - because I need to be sure that it's actually "true" as far as we can ever determine truth.

That's why I have to focus on fewer things, and the human mind/condition is what I've chosen to understand - if at all possible. You'd be surprised what such a high-level concept can bring in terms of further understanding. Understanding. Not knowledge.

That's the theory, anyway

The "I do not need X" position tries to protect the individuals self-esteem through downgrading the value of what the individual do not have (X).
This is known as cognitive-dissonance and captured in the fable about The Fox and the Grapes.

Doing this to knowledge is like playing volleyball without a net. It allows complete freedom of thought, without facts that makes things hard and complicated. This makes the theories of the indivual seem wise to that individual because the individual lacks the knowledge that allow the individual to see that their theories do not work. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect or Illusion of Superiority. DK explains why people who know little are so sure about their competence.

Consistent denial of knowledge through rationalization (I do not need knowledge, I do not need to learn, I do not need facts, facts are unknowable anyway etc) is unfortunally a selfcrippling behavior. Facts do not go away just because you deny them, they are there and cause constant cognitive-dissonance, often with pain and anguish as a result.

coyote said:

Exactly that!

Also, while I am (perhaps arrogantly so) confident that I know more about actual logic than most studied philosophers, having studied among other things mathematical logic and theoretical informatics, both of which deal with the limits of complex axiomatic systems, applying mathematical terms indiscriminately to natural language is just an insult to common sense, since natural language never aspired to be precise in a mathematical sense.

P.S.: The downside being that getting a complex idea across using only words is not always trivial and in science usually involves a mathematical description in formulae.

Click to expand...

Well, no not exactly that.

The concepts themselves, and here specifically "objective" is not complex at all, really. The complexity is based on semantics. That's because our language is far from perfect, and in many cases illogical. So, to accurately articulate our minds becomes incredibly complex. I probably mess up myself sometimes, even though I try to be quite precise.

That's why I hate these multiquote debates, because I don't think they're necessary. We can nitpick semantics indefinitely - but I think it would be helpful to WANT to understand the opposing side, rather than rip it apart to win a semantic argument.

It might seem paradoxical to say "that's not objectively wrong" - because the concept suggests it to be an unknowable quantity. Basically, we can't know what's objectively wrong - as it's unprovable given our capacity for communication and perception.

As a weak agnostic, that's my whole starting position - that we "can't know that we can't know" Circular and really messy from a semantic point of view.

So, when I'm saying Blizzard aren't "objectively wrong" - I'm actually saying we can't KNOW that they are. I'm not saying they're, strictly, NOT objectively wrong. Afterall, they might be.

I'm just going by the bold and daring assumption that DN and people who claim similar things, haven't managed to actually establish the first objective truth known to man. Brave, isn't it

But the basic gist is that even in everyday human condition talk, there's nothing said - so far - to "prove" that Blizzard are wrong. We just have people claiming that, because they don't like the implications of online-only games as a service.

Please note that I've never claimed them to be "right" - because I don't use those concepts. I use "harmful" or "beneficial" - because they're easier to establish given our day-to-day lives.

I'm just saying Blizzard are doing D3 in a way that makes sense to me, and they're putting out arguments that I can personally understand and get behind for this particular game. That's because online-only makes perfect sense for Diablo 3 and its apparent focus on an online environment. I can't claim it to be impossible to establish an offline-mode for people who really want it - but I DO NOT see why Blizzard should do it as an ethical requirement. The whole idea is somewhat ludicruous to me. So, the whole they're "wrong" or "objectively wrong" - is hard to take seriously

Diablo 2 is not a standard for "right" behavior - and it's just a single example of how things could be done with such a design for the time it was released.

First, apologies to everyone who is expecting a comment on Diablo 3 herein. My thoughts on the subject are well reflected in earlier posts by myself and others already, and I hope the off topic discussion will be tolerated for a time.

Pertaining the debate on Diablo 3, I do not believe "absolute wrong" is a correct adjective to describe Blizzard's action. As Chien Aboyeur wrote already, the decision is beneficial for some people, and detrimental for others, where many on these forums, myself included, are probably others. As such, calling it "wrong" is justified, but only in the narrow sense of Blizzard not fulfilling some expectations for Diablo 3.

Regarding the wider debate on knowledge, I think both Jemy and Dart brought up valid points. As a professional astrophysicist, I am unfortunately familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, though I did not know it by name, from e-mails my colleagues and I receive from interested laymen claiming to have made a fundamental advance in theoretical science. Some simply desire feedback, while some assume outright that science must be limited because it supposedly proceeds in narrow paths laid out by its scholarly tradition. Hence, their way of finding truth by independent thinking alone allowed them to find an alternative, true theoretical description of the universe, sometimes strangely enough with inspiration from telepathic aliens or profound reading of the bible. Unfortunately, they are without exception mathematically incorrect, self-contradictory or not consistent with observations. It is also apparent that the writers are not stupid: sometimes they are retired engineers, sometimes web designers or programmers, and they can be quite eloquent as well. Many self-publish complete books with surprisingly artistic illustrations and it is disheartening to see that these people wasted their time on such a massive scale.

As Jemy wrote, observational knowledge is necessary to discriminate truth from fiction, and theoretical knowledge often provides the tools for advancement. For example, Albert Einstein would not have developed his theory of general relativity had he not studied Riemannian geometry. Since the established theory usually provides an approximate description of reality, it is also helpful to compare a new theory with the established one in the limits where both must be valid.

That said, constant skepticism is the main ingredient of the scientific method. A scientific theory has to hold up to constant scrutiny, and a single contradictory experiment leads to modification or replacement by alternative theories, all while scientists try to keep things simple and make as few assumptions as possible. Science thrives on researching creative, alternative approaches. A good example is the current debate on dark matter and dark energy, which is approached both by adaption of the established theory, General Relativity, and by new concepts, namely MOdified Newtonian Dynamics and its relativistic generalizations.

Dart also made some valid points. To come back to my previous example: the laymen contacting us often have extensive knowledge from popular science books and, well, let's call it fringe literature claiming to be scientific. It did not help them draw any conclusions, as their literature was either not rigorous enough or misleading. Another example is informatics, where Dart will have extensive experience. At least up to my generation, people who followed the "learning by doing" approach tend to be more effective programmers than those who followed lectures and read books on the topic, simply because the field is comparatively new. This seems to have changed a little by now, and good students of informatics now tend to write more structured, cleaner and better documented code than those who neglected the literature a bit too much. Still, practical experience appears to be essential when it comes to programming. I also agree with Dart that reading is not the same as understanding. Contrary to him, though, I still think that Jemy does a pretty good job at both from the posts I read.

To come back to my earlier comparison of lectures on the subject of logic both by the mathematics and the philosophy department: students of philosophy gained extensive knowledge of the philosophical literature, much more than any mathematician, but frighteningly little understanding of the theory of logic, since the books they read where not written in the language of mathematics and therefore gave room to semantic interpretation where the conclusions instead required mathematical rigor. This is why I hope that every student of philosophy gives the mathematical approach a chance. Not because I believe in rationalism or a general superiority of math over philosophy, which seems nonsensical, but because I sincerely believe in taking the best from all possible points of view, and because in the case of logic, mathematicians made advances that went beyond the pure description of rational thought and into the spheres of philosophy again. Studying mathematical logic will certainly provide new insights for philosophers, but it might well be that among all possible topics, it is too far from Jemy's personal interests.

When it comes to the human nature, I would assume that literature actually can help simply because Neuroscience has made significant advances in recent years. Regarding literature on Psychology, I assume that Jemy knows much more than I do about it, but at this point, I also have my doubts about its worth, about the validity of many theories and studies in this field, as they are often not statistically sound.

coyote said:

Pertaining the debate on Diablo 3, I do not believe "absolute wrong" is a correct adjective to describe Blizzard's action. As Chien Aboyeur wrote already, the decision is beneficial for some people, and detrimental for others, where many on these forums, myself included, are probably others. As such, calling it "wrong" is justified, but only in the narrow sense of Blizzard not fulfilling some expectations for Diablo 3.

Click to expand...

It's not beneficial to anyone. All of the online features could still exist with a separate offline character mode just like Diablo 2 had.

@Coyote

Thanks for your very long and thorough response

I just wanted to point out that I don't mean to speak against "reading books" - and I think it's especially vital to do so in your early years. As we grow up, we need a lot more guidance and inspiration - and it's only later when we've developed our set of values and formed our personality to a large degree that I - personally - think books should be read with more scepticism.

Also, I didn't mean to say that if you read a thousand books - you can't possibly understand them. I just meant that the more you read, the less depth you can attain for each subject and its history. That's because I firmly believe that the human mind has natural limitations - and I actually don't believe our capacities are all that different, from individual to individual. Meaning, someone like Einstein didn't necessarily have more capacity than you or I, but rather I tend to believe he found an outlet that matched his interests and his mental priorities in a way that few people get to experience. I don't think his "brain was bigger" in an overall sense, to put it in the simplest terms.

About Jemy, I find myself feeling silly speaking about him in the third person. He's on ignore, and we can't seem to communicate without a lot of time wasted and a bunch of misunderstandings. So, there's a limit to how appropriate I think it is to discuss him like this. It's not really fair, I suppose you might say.

At this point it might be ok for me to call myself a scientist considering the level of my education and experience with doing actual research with the scientific method. I know the rigid system behind the process, from hypothesis, the choice of method, the pittraps during operationalization, limitations when gathering data, the potential to screw up your data, the problems of interpreting your data and the peer-review process. The art of trying to build solid knowledge while being fully aware that you might be wrong and getting ripped to pieces by your collegues for making blunders.

My experience with militant agnostics is that they simply confuse the scientists dichotomy "well supported"/"poorly supported" with the commoners dichotomy "true"/"false". They believe scientists relationship with a "well supported position" is like a religious persons relationship with "religious truths". They believe we just go "OMG IT'S SCIENCE SO IT'S TRUE".

Science is not "truth" or "results". Science is a tool that attempts to solve the problems with human thought to create reliable knowledge. If you do not understand your potential to make false conclusions you will also not see why proper science is important. You believe you do fine with intellectual freestyling.

A poorly educated smartass thinks they are so smart they do not need tools of thinking. They argue against those who use the tools but still behave like they got something to say. They argue against science (results) with arguments that to the scientist promotes science (tool). No one is more aware about the limitations of a scientific discipline than those experienced with that discipline. We spent most of our time being educated on the limits of research in psychology/sociology and the attemps to deal with those limits. Limits average Joe on-the-street aren't aware of. But there are still some very solid and repeatable experiments that challenge common-sense that due to the bulk of data that supports them can be presented as "well-supported".

Another phenomenon is the "you think you are so smart" when you present well-established facts from within your field that in that field is common knowledge without trying to "win". I believe this is a result of cognitive dissonance in the individual. They know they do not know and feel hurt and inferior when facing someone who know something they do not even when that information is presented as is, without boasting, without a smirk. They confuse the academic who are generally interested in knowledge and spreading knowledge (educate so others may grow) with the competitor who put forth information to "win". When I present something I do so with the idéa "here's what I gathered on the subject, what do you think?", not "you are wrong and I own you!"

Very interesting stuff you have there Jemy. Makes me want to study philosophy. Actually I just called the uni and they said Im still okayed to continue studies so if Im lucky I might find some interesting courses which to study while working.

Regarding the wider debate on knowledge, I think both Jemy and Dart brought up valid points. As a professional astrophysicist, I am unfortunately familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, though I did not know it by name, from e-mails my colleagues and I receive from interested laymen claiming to have made a fundamental advance in theoretical science. Some simply desire feedback, while some assume outright that science must be limited because it supposedly proceeds in narrow paths laid out by its scholarly tradition. Hence, their way of finding truth by independent thinking alone allowed them to find an alternative, true theoretical description of the universe, sometimes strangely enough with inspiration from telepathic aliens or profound reading of the bible. Unfortunately, they are without exception mathematically incorrect, self-contradictory or not consistent with observations. It is also apparent that the writers are not stupid: sometimes they are retired engineers, sometimes web designers or programmers, and they can be quite eloquent as well. Many self-publish complete books with surprisingly artistic illustrations and it is disheartening to see that these people wasted their time on such a massive scale.

Click to expand...

I felt I needed to comment on this as well. Normally, I'd probably disregard something like that directed at my own person - as it seems rather desperate to consider me as one who is suffering from it. But, since it very much pertains to my interests - why not take it seriously.

I think it's interesting if what I say makes it appear as if might be suffering from this DK effect.

AFAIK, this effect generally affects people who're somewhat incompetent or who suffer from a more profound lack of insight than even the average human being. Well, unless it's on a smaller scale - and in that case, I actually believe we ALL consistently suffer from a very similar effect. Every human being in the world makes claims now and again, that they don't feel entirely certain of - or before they actually should make it. Especially "online".

Now, I can't exactly prove I'm not suffering from this effect - and who knows, maybe I am - as we all have to be prepared for something like that. But, somehow, I doubt most of you here really think I'm particularly "under-skilled" or have a profound lack of insight. I'd certainly be a bit disappointed if that was the case.

If we assume the theory of multiple intelligences is correct, I'm pretty sure introspection would be one of my highest scores - with things like musical and spatial intelligence being shockingly low

But the entire notion of responding to the DK "accusation" is a bit of a joke. It's like a witch-hunt - isn't it. If we say yeah, we're suffering from it - we are. If we say no, we're deluding ourselves and that's a sure sign of DK.

Frankly, I think the whole suggestion is somewhat juvenile, and rather telling of the one suggesting it. I mean, if the one you can't convince of your "truth" is suffering from it - what should that tell you about yourself?

As for believing myself "superior" - my entire take on "value" and truth is that it's unknowable. I don't feel "superior" in any way, though I do recognise I have strengths in my character that others might not have - and they, in turn, have strengths that I don't have.

The one thing that might set me apart from the "norm" is that I have genuine self-confidence, which is often mistaken as arrogance or perhaps even narcissism - when I'm debating "online". But I'm hardly alone here. My self-confidence is based, very simply, on my very firm belief that every human being is equal, at least as a starting point (and we can't evaluate ourselves anyway) - and every single human being is completely and utterly flawed. That very much goes for myself as well. But, unlike what appears to be the norm - I've come to accept that and be peaceful about it. I don't think there's anything arrogant about having an opinion that you can back up - even if it goes against the common perception, or the "respected" opinion. What matters is that you can make yourself clear and argue your case WITHOUT constantly referencing experts or linking to a wiki-site.

Many of these "academics" who meet people who challenge their theories, will respond - very much like Jemy - by linking to Wiki or referencing some book they might have read. You know? As if that represented an argument. You can say "this is how it is, and if you don't believe me - read this theory about it". Even if the theory is good, it's not necessarily dealing with what the point is all about. You can then delude yourself into thinking that everything needed for understanding is in that link or in that book. It's kinda pathetic, really.

Seeing as how I have so very little respect for our capacity for truth, and that's on our whole race - it should be easy to understand how I can be sceptical of science and the scientific community. But it's important to remember that because I say "we can't know that" - I'm not saying scientists aren't A LOT more knowledgable than I am - in their fields. I'm not disregarding their knowledge or their expertise - I'm simply disregarding the ENTIRE concept of what expertise is often mistaken for - which is certainty. As simplistic as it may seem, that's my point when I argue with "heavily bookish" people - that their knowledge isn't certain knowledge.

I don't mind saying that my personal experience in my pursuit of truth, is that people who're very concerned with pointing out their academic merits - are generally the people with the least to contribute. I'd rather have a conversation with an open-minded person who may or may not be well-read - but has something of his own to contribute with. Some sign that he's processed ideas and considered things without taking the words of experts and pointing them out as solid arguments..

Referencing and quoting isn't too interesting to me. The most amusing part of these academics, is that one day they're dead certain of one theory - and then the next day when the community has discovered something new - or maybe they just read a new book, they can be dead certain of the opposite of the day before.

My own approach, which is indeed primarily about observation and personal experience, is not to tell people how the universe works. That's how I set myself apart from this sort of academic - in that I don't believe I have that right - or that I have any basis for such claims. I can have theories and I can point to theories - but I must always remember them as such, before I disregard the person I'm talking to.

I do have a few areas where I feel very competent, and where I can appear extremely confident and certain - even without being able to point out sources. These areas include the human mind, and the history of gaming. So, if you have any respect for my knowledge of games - you should know that it's nothing compared to my knowledge of the human mind. So, when I speak from a position of knowledge - it's not a collection of books read or theoretical knowledge. It's knowledge from deeply personal experience.

That's why I have great respect for Jemy's knowledge of games, for instance. Because he's very obviously got a lot of personal experience with them. It may even exceed my own experience - based on the amount of games he seems to be playing. He's probably got a different angle of approach to games, but I most certainly acknowledge some REAL and PRACTICAL knowledge there.

But his knowledge of over-arching truths and his opinion of me suffering from the DK effect to a significant degree, is somewhat harder to take seriously.

*EDIT* Removed personal comments in previous post

Argh… what a long post - and most of it rambling.

I have to make an official promise. No more personal stuff about Jemy or anyone else. It's pointless and gets us nowhere.

It's just that people interest me everywhere I go - but it's not fitting for a site like this.

Sorry.

zakhal said:

Very interesting stuff you have there Jemy. Makes me want to study philosophy. Actually I just called the uni and they said Im still okayed to continue studies so if Im lucky I might find some interesting courses which to study while working.

Click to expand...

If you pick philosophy as a primary subject you will bend your skull inside out. My teacher in a highschool course I took said "this is the only thing you can study that makes you dumber, because you begin to ask questions no normal person would".

Philosophy is divided in fields that often deal with thought (epistemology = what is knowledge? Ontology = what is a thing? Existentialism, morality, ethics etc). Much of it sounds like self-evident at first, then you break down and spend the rest of your life trying to put your thoughts together again. You realise that nothing is so self evident as you believed.

If you have any in depth experience with a university-level discipline, chances are you have had some experience with philosophy, tailored into a need-to-know basis for that discipline. But I come from a different angle. My university course in intellectual history went in deep, covering ideas in chronological order, including political and religious philosophy, but intellectual history is not strictly speaking a course in philosophy.

I also study cognitive psychology that study thought from an empirical perspective. I do not think it's healthy to reason only from within conscience, but to accept that there are reasons to not be cocksure about your chrystal-clear ideas. Sometimes all you need to crush a long-lasting, logically ordered rational construct is to see a single thing that do not fit in.

JemyM said:

If you pick philosophy as a primary subject you will bend your skull inside out. My teacher in a highschool course I took said "this is the only thing you can study that makes you dumber, because you begin to ask questions no normal person would".

Click to expand...

I very much agree. Like Sokrates. "I know that I know nothing, basically", put with my (modern) words.

I regard myself as an Philosopher (well, sort of ), even although I haven't studied Philosophy properly - simply because I believe that "Philosophy" is nothing but a way of thinking anyone can learn. Like baking bread, for example. Or fix a bike.

And I firmly believe that the computer industry just *needs* Philosophers.
Because right now, every kind of development & evolution goes just on without any brakes and/or ethics at all.

And in my opinion it is simply the *task* of Philosophers to develop Ethics and such stuff.

JemyM said:

My experience with militant agnostics is that they simply confuse the scientists dichotomy "well supported"/"poorly supported" with the commoners dichotomy "true"/"false". They believe scientists relationship with a "well supported position" is like a religious persons relationship with "religious truths". They believe we just go "OMG IT'S SCIENCE SO IT'S TRUE".

Click to expand...

Very well formulated, imho.

That's why I developed my "theory" of seeing/perceiving "Science" as a new kind of "religion".

Edit : I'm reading the Wikipedia article on "intellectual history".

There is a single thing that disturbs me from the beginning on :

It is treated as if "no letters = no intellectual history".

I don't see it is right to connect both this strictly, because it very much leaves out any "oral traditions", or even does as if any oral tradition = "no history in the sense of development or/and evolution of thought".
I don't think this point of view is racist, but it could lead to such, because especially "lesser educated cultures", as one racist would put it, also have no letters, only "oral traditions". It's as if someone says that - as long as people keep telling knowledge to one another without using any form of text, it isn't "intellectual history".

To me, this point of view, as far as I understand it, is just too narrow.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

It is treated as if "no letters = no intellectual history".

Click to expand...

Just a quick note, it's actually History of Ideas I studied. It's a distinct university subject in Sweden which partially match Intellectual History which is why I tend to use that expression in an international discussion. I realize now how misleading that might have been.

A better expression might be "History of Philosophy" but it's not entirely true, because History of Ideas incorporate both pre-written history, religion and religious syncretism, political philosophy (including irrational ideas such as nationalism or fascism) and political branches as well as the history of Science.

Have to be understood though that it's a 5 month course. There is no time for world-philosophy, but I have actually been listening to a college-level course on that subject made by The Teaching Company that deals with primarily asian, african, indian, american-native and south american ideas. Also I have actually taken a course in Social Anthropology that put focus on oral traditions, folklore and non-western culture.

That's why I developed my "theory" of seeing/perceiving "Science" as a new kind of "religion".

Click to expand...

Good point

But here's my take on it:

It's only a religion to some people, though. There are scientists with, from my point of view, a healthy approach to the discoveries we make - and who use theories only to "theorise" which is what makes sense to me. These people understand their own lack of capacity - and they recognise the need to be very careful when speaking out on issues they don't fully comprehend.

The problem is when scientists - or specifically people who think they're being scientific but lack the knowledge or complete understanding - use theories to represent certainties - or forget that the assumption of certainty is just that. I like to call them "academics" - but that's not fair, as there are many academics with a respect for truth before their own superiority.

For these people, and here it's often about people with a strong need to feel enlightened - so they speak as if they were educating the recipient - science is a kind of religion. That's the kind I'm particularly sceptical towards. The danger is that even partial knowledge can convince the weak-minded - so the ignorance is spread.

Anyway, that's the kind of danger I see when "science" becomes religion. It's one kind of ignorance replaced by another.

@Doctor Narrative: you seem to be a nice person. If you were a bully, you would see the benefit in having all children play in a common sandpit instead of each having its own toys

Concerning all the less diabolical topics:

@Dart: I hear you. Especially today, critical reading is one of the most important skills to have. More people should be aware of that! While paper is patient, online content is completely apathetic. In principle, I would think that the ability to critically evaluate what you read would even benefit little children, but meaningful evaluation is only possible given knowledge that must be attained. Before that, the preselection of information processed by the juvenile brain will have an unavoidable influence on its formation.

Regarding the human intellect, this might be controversial, but given my own experiences I do not believe in an equality of human capabilities of each individual. I am not an expert on neuroscience, so treat the following with some caution. In my view, just as some grow larger, are more flexible, or have a predisposition towards diabetes, human intellect is influenced by a great many genetic as well as environmental factors. That said, it is obvious that with training it can be improved, and with neglect or maltreatment, it will diminish, the end result being a large spread in mental capabilities. As you write, intellect is not well described by a single number, but if you somehow were to make a weighted average of all human strenghts, I would be surprised if there is any non-trivial weighing that takes intellect into account where all people are equal. In the case of Einstein, just as you say he was fortunate to have studied the right tools at the right time. I think in addition he was a rather curious and clever individual. But I also do not think his intellectual capacity was beyond that of other competent humans. When you study the subject and it looses its mystic quality, you see that his contribution to science is, while revolutionary, also a consequent development of ideas that were put forth by a great many people.

My comments on the Dunning-Kruger effect were in reply to Jemy, who was commenting on the danger of neglecting literature knowledge, and I did not target that at you. Actually, I do not really want to get involved in your disagreement with Jemy.

Regarding your reply to Alrik's post, I think academics are rarely in the limelight. Usually, people outside the specific field of research spout the dumbest ideas with the most confidence. That said, there certainly are black sheep in academia as well.

@Jemy: You bring up the interesting point of communicating science. To have some kind of 'public outreach' appears to be essential especially for the basic sciences, where we rely on public interest for financing as well as for students: though I am personally convinced that basic research has been essential for our long term cultural advancement and even on the short term unlocks a human potential of critical, creative thinkers that can be helpful in all branches of public life, we are obviously not supported by these services.

When trained as a scientist, you spend a great deal of time learning the tools and pertinent knowledge necessary to fully grasp its more complex concepts. It might sound arrogant, but the same level of understanding cannot be expected from laymen regardless of their mental capacities, so how do you communicate an idea without the necessary foundation? For example, it would not be prudent to try and explain all the details of differential geometry to someone completely unfamiliar with it who just wants to know about current ideas in cosmology; getting a handle of this takes a few weeks of intense study even for someone comfortable with mathematics.

I do not know the answer, but when results of an established theory are simply reproduced as is, it is obviously very easy to appear as arrogant and foolish despite best intentions, especially when you just assume that everyone will have implicit trust in your expert knowledge.

To provide an honest foundation of trust, as you say, sometimes it cannot be stressed often enough that science is not concerned with peddling absolute truths. We build theories capable of predicting the outcome of experiments in the limit of our capabilities to observe, and sometimes it even takes many years of hard work before we find an elegant theoretical description compatible with all of our current observations. To make complex theories more palpable, often the best solution is to simplify and use metaphors, but these workarounds usually break down at some point and ideally, these limitations should be mentioned. It is good to know where simple models must be replaced by more complex theories to avoid false conclusions, and at this point it is good to provide secondary literature.

Dart explicitly mentioned the Wikipedia, and I know it does not have a stellar reputation. However, in many fields outside of popular controversy, scientists heavily contribute and it really is a good source. In my opinion, it often provides a good starting point and sometimes even detailed information.

Regarding your quote on philosophy making you dumber at first, you had a wise high-school teacher! There are other ways as well: when I was in school, there was a time when I tried tracing my every thought to find out how I arrive at a conclusion. I guess I was always interested in the way our mind works. Obviously, it took me quite a bit longer before I accepted most thoughts as valid. At this time, I additionally was not satisfied until I had found at least two ways to prove a mathematical theorem. Fortunately, I got over it before entering university

And since you mentioned it in the beginning, I do not really know the proper definition, but I think it is appropriate to call yourself a scientist when you start advancing your field of research by contributing scientific results.

@Alrik: It is unfortunate that some people perceive science as akin to religion, because as detailed in previous posts, it follows a very different approach. Contrary to science, religious ideas are a matter of believe, set in stone instead of eligible for scrutiny, adaption or elimination. (P.S.: ) Although I agree that sometimes the arrogant manner of preaching it can be quite the same