Source
Thursday Random
11 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Where Religion, Philosophy and Demographics Meet
Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.
Contact
Our Other Sites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(298)
-
▼
April
(32)
- X is Good != You Must Do X
- Contraceptive Mentality: 19th Century Style
- The Californians
- Has Rome Overreacted to the LCRW?
- Not Many Like Us
- A Living Example
- Greatest Hits
- Surfing with Mel
- Welcome, First Things Readers
- Something Completely Different
- NFP: Not Just Natural Birth Control
- Who Survived The Titanic: A Story of Chivalry Not ...
- Further reflections on home and work
- Nearer My God To Thee
- There Are 2,227 Stories on the Big Ship
- Your Friday Fix: Existential Edition
- Real Jobs
- The Quintessential Pie Fight
- In Search of the 'Strong Female Character'
- There's Something To This DarwinCatholic Thing
- Game Over
- Philosophies of Reproduction
- Whether “you could bear the idea of marrying me”
- On Living In A Sub Culture
- Happy Easter, Chums
- He Is Risen!
- Good Friday
- Holy Thursday
- I Can't Not Post This Picture
- Arthur C. Clarke on How To Destroy Marriage
- Escaping the Gravity Which Diminishes
- How To Marry a Nice Girl
-
▼
April
(32)
Blogroll
-
-
Green Book13 hours ago
-
THE SPONGE.22 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
State of the Ape XXX1 week ago
-
Academic Honesty and Vainglory3 weeks ago
-
Flooding and Farewells4 weeks ago
-
Now on Substack3 months ago
-
Hand in hand in hand.2 years ago
-
-
Zymurgia House is Moving3 years ago
Contributors
Reading
Darwin's Recent Reading
With the Catholic News sites discussing the Vatican's move to reform the LCWR, I pulled this slim volume written back in 1986 off the shelf to re-read. It's a quick and amusing read: a satirical view of the breakdown and renewal of reli...
by Henry James
I'd never read any Henry James before, though I did see the Nicole Kidman movie adaptation of Portrait of a Lady some years ago because... well, because it was a costume drama with Nicole Kidman in it.
This was one of those novels I ...
by Evelyn Waugh
If you, like me, have been reared on tales of the second World War as the just and virtuous struggle of the "greatest generation", Evelyn Waugh's arch novels (based loosely on his own war experiences) are an important and darkly enjoyabl...
by Jane Austen
This was the first time in some years that I've re-read this Austen novel, one of the quieter and shorter ones, but one which has ranked among my favorites. It was striking me, on this pass, that it rather shows the effects of having be...
29 comments:
I just don't see it. "Don't use "game", because you may run into a Mary Sue character who will figure out what you're doing and have a catastrophic put-down you have no reply to"?
I think a vastly better lesson - but one which would be a gut-check for the xkcd author - would be this:
"Game is what you get when you use science with regards to dating and relationships."
"Game is what you get when you use science with regards to dating and relationships."
Science is all about predictable results: If I do X, Y will happen.
It strikes me that game, while it is based on a overly simplified idea of "what women find attractive" is probably moderately successful in that regard for its original purpose: If a PUA is approaching large numbers of women, certain tactics are going to work with those sorts of women more often than others.
However, as a key to understanding women and relations between the sexes, it strikes me as being significantly weakened by its simplicity -- though as the comic points out it appeals to the desire to find one simple schema that finally explains how everything works. (My contention would be that this is wishful thinking: there is no such grand unified theory for human relations.)
I think we can divide men into two categories: the ones who read this comic and think, "Bitch!", and the ones who think, "Yeah, I'd date her."
I'd agree that there's no grand unified theory. I'd even agree that game is only going to get one so far in understanding women and relationships. People are complicated, to put it mildly.
My problem with the comic is A) the Mary Sue character (I dislike these even when I agree with them) and B) the fact that xkcd popularized the phrase "Science. It works, bitches.", but the lesson in that comic is "Don't use science here, I wouldn't like that." Actually, worse than that, since he doesn't even note that it's using science. He just writes it off as "being a creep".
"Science. It's for creeps, bitches!"
Hmmm. I dunno. There are some pretty perceptive women I still wouldn't date. But then, I'm highly selective.
I think we can divide men into two categories: the ones who read this comic and think, "Bitch!", and the ones who think, "Yeah, I'd date her."
I don't even think "Bitch!" I just think, "Wow, that is a totally unrealistic fantasy-character." It's like reading a comic book, where the person against abortion is some wild-eyed troglodyte who has no arguments, and the author throws in a self-insert with the Awesome Put Down that crushes them.
Even when I agree with the author, those things bug me.
I guess I hadn't even thought of it as being a real enough situation to take it as an actual conversational put down, more a case of sock puppets talking through a concept.
On the "Science. It works, bitches." -- actually, I don't follow xkcd closely enough to know that. I see it around occasionally (and saw this on Facebook) but mostly I recall it because I identify with the "Someone is wrong on the internet!" one. (Which, again, is conception rather than realistic.)
(NOTE: Hadn't run into the term "Mary Sue" for 'a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfilment fantasy for the author or reader'. I'll have to keep that in mind. Thanks.)
So: when men insult women, they're only acting in a rational, scientific manner, but when women respond in kind, they're indulging in unrealistic, wish-fulfilling behavior.
Why MrsDarwin, I think you have figured it out! :)
Actually, I regret that last, not because I agree with Crude's arguments, but because even in jest I dislike the generalization of men and women in large amorphous groups for the purpose of making stupid pronouncements.
There's a guy in my group of friends who has always been like this--insulting all the girls constantly, nitpicking, making personal comments. We all just figured he was crazy. Nobody wanted to date him because of it. Then I learned about negging and put two and two together.
HA HA HA
Negging is not 'using science'. Most of the concepts in Game were in wide circulation long before the fad that has become common in the past few years of pointing to dubious interpretations of doubtful evolutionary psychology studies as confirmation, or the increasing misuse of scientific terms like 'hypergamy' to cover things that are only loosely analogous to their original scientific meaning.
Part of the humor of the comic is that any woman insane enough to hang around with Mr. Hat -- who is apparently in one of his less sociopathic moods here -- is not going to have a self-confidence that could be cracked by clumsy insults about diets, and will think any such insults merely funny. (That's the point of both the "Oh no" panel and the rollover text.)
Darwin,
Re: the 'science' bit, here, from a while ago.
mrsdarwin,
So: when men insult women, they're only acting in a rational, scientific manner, but when women respond in kind, they're indulging in unrealistic, wish-fulfilling behavior.
What? No. Why are you trying to turn my view into a "women" versus "men" thing? Even the examples I gave had nothing to do with gender specifically, and everything to do with an author turning a character - even if only for a particular situation - into a piece of put-down perfection.
Make the character giving that speech a man, and it's still going to bug me. Maybe you were thrown by the fact that 'Mary Sue' is a woman's name, but if you look it up you'll see it's not a concept at all restricted to women.
Brandon,
Negging is not 'using science'.
'Game' and 'Pickup artist' crap, in my reading, has a major component largely formed from guys who go out, use various approaches and techniques (or watch others who do), attempt to figure out what works and what doesn't, then share this information with others who try the same. Over time, some methods have been reported to be more successful than others.
I know we can have a nice long argument about what does or doesn't qualify as science. But what I described above is either science, or so close to being science that I think most people would give me a pass there. You can slice out all the evolutionary psychology and pseudoscientific explanations for why some methods work ("It's because women needed confident men who would wrestle animals on the Serengeti, and so natural selection then...!"), and you're still left with the core that's the problem ("Here's a way to behave that women, on average, respond positively to. At least according to repeated trials, which admittedly weren't lab-controlled.")
So yeah, I think negging is "using science", depending on what factor made someone decide to try it. If a man decides to eat less red meat because he's read reports of studies correlating red meat with heart disease, is he using science?
I'm sure every one here has heard about Roisy's site.
With most normal girls, simple confidence and masculine behavior works.
However, "asshole game" as defined by Roissy is pretty effective with the messed up ones and the ones with Daddy's issues.
Since most PUAs are just trying to get laid, physical appearance is what is most important to them, not personality, not her issues just her attractiveness and her sexual availaibility.
Another thing you need to take in mind is this: these guys aren't going after trad Catholic girls or preachers' daughters; they're going after the kind of women who live in DC and the other major cities.
Obviously, a lot of "game" is just ridiculous and as CD pointed out, "negs" backfire more than not.
But what I described above is either science, or so close to being science that I think most people would give me a pass there.
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. People don't think of themselves as doing science when they try on clothes until they figure out what size they are or what colors go best with what, nor do they think of themselves as doing science when they figure out how to do something on a computer by randomly pressing buttons until they find something that consistently works, nor do they think of themselves as doing science when they use this basic method to learn the best way to solve Sudoku puzzles; and if the notion of 'science' extends so far, this becomes just a concession that it's a useless term that says nothing. Trying things out until you find what works is not scientific inquiry; it's just what it seems to be -- guessing until you stumble upon something, and it is so even if some of the guessing was educated guessing. Nor did something like 'negging' require any elaborate inquiry to discover; it's something people have always done, and all that happened here is that it was given a jargonish name rather than being called something like what most people would call it (e.g., 'teasing'). I can do science this way, too: noticing that people's attentions are drawn by brightly colored things, I can call it 'chromatic excitant stimulus' and claim it as a scientific discovery. It would still be saying no more than 'something that gets people's attentions because it is brightly colored', which is not an actual scientific discovery, being something everyone is familiar.
Game is a handful things that facilitate social interaction surrounded by a massive amount of pompous windbaggery that you would in other cases be the first to puncture, so I'm not really sure why you credit it so much. In fact, Game is just a new variation on old rhetorike*, and as Plato's Socrates in the Gorgias points out, it's not a skill or craft, not an applied science, but an empeiria, an experience-based knack, like trying out different spices for a soup until you've discovered a combination people like. You might as well call fashionable color coordination a science, or advertising firms scientific institutions.
* In fact, this is really clear if one looks at the history of it; early Game theorists on the old fast seduction sites often explicitly and deliberately transferred salesmanship and business negotiation tactics, modifying it as seemed necessary. And it's still that today: an extraordinarily jargonistic and bombastic theory of how to close the deal like a salesman in an area we don't usually think of as sales.
Brandon,
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case.
I don't think game, as I understand it, is comparable to 'one person, via trial and error, trying something at random until it works' as in the examples you give. When people experiment, take note of apparent trends or patterns in their data, gather data from others, come up with explanations of why they're seeing the patterns they are, and try to build off that knowledge... I think this gets closer to what "Game" really deals with, and I submit it's more difficult to write this off as "not science".
I already said that you can eliminate the evolutionary psychology aspect of it and still be left with a significant chunk of what really seems like science to me, at least given how I understand both Game itself (perhaps Game at its best), and science (again, acknowledging the fuzzy boundaries of it.)
Game is a handful things that facilitate social interaction surrounded by a massive amount of pompous windbaggery that you would in other cases be the first to puncture, so I'm not really sure why you credit it so much.
Where am I crediting it so much? I've said it's science, or at least a good share of it is. I've suggested (and Darwin here seemed to concede this much as well) that it, to a degree, works as desired. I'm certainly not saying the major proponents aren't blowhards. (Though if being a blowhard means you're not doing science, wow, what fields are left?) I'm also not endorsing the game mentality as something guys should use. Abortion is quite an effective technique for avoiding 'unwanted children' - I don't recommend it, but I don't have to pretend it doesn't work as advertised. And I don't think it's correct to say it's not science.
I'm honored that you suggest I like to puncture windbags, by the way. I like to try, when I'm not actively being one.
Here's another example you give, and here's where I have a problem.
an experience-based knack, like trying out different spices for a soup until you've discovered a combination people like.
I think this becomes problematic when you expand it more. Game isn't one man's experience - it's a collective enterprise, as I understand it. Again, it's finding patterns or apparent patterns, forming explanations for why you're seeing the patterns you are, trying to build off those explanations, testing your ideas - and doing this not as an individual in Game's case, but as a collective enterprise.
or advertising firms scientific institutions.
If you tighten your definition of science enough, you don't only leave out the advertising firms - you leave out the psychologists, the anthropologists and more. And maybe rightly at that.
Let me concede this much. I said from the start that we can have an argument over what is and isn't science. I'm not going to pretend my take here is cut and dry, because I don't believe a cut and dry distinction on this subject exists. But I think a good argument can be made that a fair chunk of what you see in 'Game' qualifies as science, or is near enough. And I admittedly don't think you need peer review, double-blind students, or - God forbid - a position at a university to do science.
Er, double blind studies, not students.
And so long as I'm editing, abortion != science, but certainly what goes into the techniques of developing abortion procedures, etc, are rightly called science.
That's what I get for wanting to get done with comments and get back to Legend of Grimrock.
Game isn't one man's experience - it's a collective enterprise, as I understand it.
Same with cookery.
Look, the very fact that we are having this particular discussion is precisely a reason why it's utter nonsense to claim that it's a science. Whether a thing is itself a science does not depend on how many people are doing it. If the only reason you can give for something being more of a science than originally learning how to play tic-tac-toe is that it is collaborative, you are committed to saying that playing World of Warcraft or EVE Online is a science, that learning how to have the most fun in a game of Dungeons and Dragons is a science, that writer's workshops are examples of science in action.
Likewise, yes, you can "tighten your definition of science enough" so that it leaves out a great many things that count as sciences, but I'm not 'tightening my definition of science' -- my definition of science is not on the table. I am pointing out that the reasons you are giving for making Game a science commit you to taking the term in so broad a sense that it really doesn't have any special significance, nor deserve any special respect.
If I may...
I think part of the problem here is that in common usage we often confuse techniques or applied technology with science.
So, for example, practicing agriculture is not "doing science", although many agricultural techniques are based on the findings of sciences (botany, chemistry, etc.) and are detailed, based on long experience, and highly repeatable.
Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the way the scientific method is often taught is "you make a prediction as to what will happen if you do something, you perform that test, and then you see if it worked out as predicted. If things went as predicted, you've supported your hypothesis, if not, you revise you hypothesis and test again."
This is more a sort of trial and error technique. I think a better description of actual science would be, "You form an understanding of how some physically determined process works. You then formulate a test which, if your theory is correct, will work out a certain way. You perform the test, and if the test produces the expected results, you have supported your theory."
The key, I think, is that science involves trying to come up with an explanatory model as to how some physical system works, and refining that system through coming up with disprovable hypotheses which follow from that explanatory model.
Brandon,
Look, the very fact that we are having this particular discussion is precisely a reason why it's utter nonsense to claim that it's a science.
No. Someone's ability to say "I object, and here's my reason" does not offer much reason to believe that the claim can be put aside. This is like someone who comes up with some objection, any objection to an idea, then uses their own objection as evidence that the idea under discussion is "debatable". Please, don't do that.
If the only reason you can give for something being more of a science than originally learning how to play tic-tac-toe is that it is collaborative
And this is simply bull.
I stressed a lot more about the difference between 'game' as I understand it and your examples than the collaborative nature. You blew in here with examples like 'Choosing something at random and seeing what works'. I outlined a system of looking for patterns of behavior, developing a working theory of why anyone was seeing the patterns they were, coming up with new ways to interact based on those theories, testing the results, etc. Sorry, your counterexamples didn't really work. Find some others.
you are committed to saying that playing World of Warcraft or EVE Online is a science, that learning how to have the most fun in a game of Dungeons and Dragons is a science, that writer's workshops are examples of science in action.
No, I'm not. Now, I may well be committed to accepting the possibility that one can use or 'do science' with regards to everything from playing a game to making a game to writing a compelling book. It doesn't make merely 'playing a game' or even 'making a game' automatically "science", but yes, it means that someone may well come up with an approach that could rightly be called "science" under the definition I'm going for here.
And you know what? I'll bite that bullet. What, I'm supposed to be chastened that my definition of 'science' may be such that it includes more people than, say, PhDs or 'guys hired to do a job and it has science specifically in the title'?
that it really doesn't have any special significance, nor deserve any special respect.
'Special significance'? Beyond what - the scientific method? Again, if the worry is that "If you define science this way, then some people are 'doing science' even when they don't have PhDs. For God's sake, that guy's wearing sweatpants!" or something close to it, sorry - it's not a worry I share.
Do you want me to go through the scientific method as commonly outlined and see if any aspects of Game fit the bill? I'm more than willing if you'll grant that, if it does that, then yes - some aspects of Game can reasonably be call science.
And so long as you're bizarrely accusing me of arguing 'Game is science because it's a group activity and that's the only reason!', I'll turn around and suggest this: your insistence that game has nothing to do with science seems a lot more rooted in your thinking game's advocates are a bunch of jackasses, and that the way the data is used is something you don't approve of. But if something being science depending on whether or not its proponents were jackasses or whether the data could be abused, it's not clear we'd have much science to speak of at all.
Darwin,
So, for example, practicing agriculture is not "doing science", although many agricultural techniques are based on the findings of sciences (botany, chemistry, etc.) and are detailed, based on long experience, and highly repeatable.
Hey, I'm fine with saying 'game' is 'based on the findings of science', not science itself. But I have a feeling no one here is going to be happy with that either, save myself.
I think a better description of actual science would be, "You form an understanding of how some physically determined process works. You then formulate a test which, if your theory is correct, will work out a certain way. You perform the test, and if the test produces the expected results, you have supported your theory."
You just made one point for me: by the common understanding of the scientific method, it's pretty hard to say that Game doesn't involve science pretty directly. Why's your redefinition better? Please tell me it's not because "For one thing, it makes damn sure we don't have to say Game involves science at all!"
Not to mention, if science has to involve a 'physically determined system', I wonder how much evolutionary thought and speculation is sliced off in the process, among other things.
Look, I'm going to say again: I don't endorse Game, or at least I don't endorse how it's commonly used, or the personalities who tend to be behind it. And I can't help but get the feeling one of the themes here is 'Let's deny that game has anything to do with science, because ugh, science has a certain authority, and I absolutely do not want these jackasses to lay claim to that authority, nor do I want methods like theirs to be considered somehow scientific'.
And if that really is a driving urge here, I can't get behind that.
A few random observations:
Perhaps better words than "science" for "Game" would be the Greek "technike" or the English "art" in its fuller sense, as a collection of methods that work, rather than an organized body of knowledge.
I'm not terribly familiar with the online comic being quoted here. Is the lady a recurring character and engaging in her characteristic behavior? If not, she can scarcely be called a Mary Sue.
The proponents of Game sound very much like they have read Stephen Potter and taken him seriously.
Bob the Ape, you win the MrsDarwin Favorite Esoteric Commenter Award for referencing Stephen Potter. Indeed, I often think that these discussions are prolonged exercises in Gamesmanship: "The first muscle stiffened is the first point gained."
Crude,
FWIW, Brandon and I tend to enjoy getting picky about what is and is not science in general: He teaches philosophy and has done a fair amount of work on the early modern period which involves, among other things, the development of the philosophy of science, and I have a tendency to pick fights with ID theorists on the one hand and with folks who think they can derive morals or life philosophies "scientifically" on the other. So it's not just a matter of picking on game, though I wouldn't deny that I'm a bit motivated by that too, it's mostly that it's a topic we both like to sink out teeth into.
That said, at a general level I think there's a tendency for people to invest with "science" the narratives which they apply to scientifically derived information, and then to spread that mantle of science to moral or social conclusions they reach based on the narrative.
This probably sounds like a slightly weaselly way of saying "'based on the findings of science', not science itself" but I think the extra layer of distance (science > narrative > conclusions following form narrative) is key in that the narrative is often kind of a just-so story which fits with the actual scientific findings more or less but applies a gloss of a number of things we don't actually know (and may or may not be testable in any rigorous way.)
Please, don't do that.
Then don't give objections that straightforwardly show the problem by requiring such a weak account of science that almost anything counts as scientific, which had been precisely my point. It's that simple.
And sure, if you want to say that Game is as much a science as the knitting is in a knitting circle, which is what you've essentially done, since a knitting circle meets all your conditions, I don't really have much problem with that. It's entirely possible to do so; it's a useless extension of the term, and absolutely contrary to your previous claims it's far too broad to count as what most people would call science, nor could it possibly be what Randall has in mind in xkcd. Likewise in and of itself it does not, contrary to your previous suggestion, give any reason to credit it. (I can't help but absolutely laugh at your comments about special significance; you were the one who brought it up by listing Game's being a science as a reason to credit it, which means that being classified as a science gives something special significance as creditable.) But sure, one can stipulate anything to fall under any term.
So your comment effectively throws out half the things you've said on the subject in previous comments. I'm not really sure what more to say on the matter, beyond that you've pretty obviously managed to get Game in as a science only because you've defined the term 'science' into such a useless breadth that anything counts if you just give it the right collaborative tweak.
Bob,
Personally, I would oppose the technike label more vehemently than the science label, for reasons mentioned briefly in a comment above, i.e., it doesn't actually meet the requirements. To quote Socrates (Gorgias 463a):
"It seems to me then, Gorgias, to be a pursuit that is not a matter of art (technikon), but showing a bold mind, given to making guesses, which has a natural bent for clever association with people, and I sum up its substance in the name flattery (kolakeia)."
And that I think is the best and most accurate label. It's a kind of cultivated experience concerned with mere appearances that Plato called flattery.
On the character, it's always hard to say since xkcd is just stick figures who mostly look alike, but I think she is supposed to be the recurring girl super-geek (I don't know if she has a name, but fans and critics usually call her Megan), particularly given her association with Mr. Hat (whose standing characteristic is playing utterly insane practical jokes on people). But, again, it's stick figures, so I don't know.
Brandon,
by requiring such a weak account of science that almost anything counts as scientific
Bud, you almost completely misrepresented what I said here, and you threw back a very weak objection. What I outlined does not make 'almost anything' count as science. It may well extend what typical people think science must involve (There has to be a lab coat and a professor and peer review!) - I cop to that happily. But your depiction of this ('Knitting is science now!') is just insane.
And sure, if you want to say that Game is as much a science as the knitting is in a knitting circle, which is what you've essentially done, since a knitting circle meets all your conditions, I don't really have much problem with that.
No, it's not. Now, what I did grant was that it's possible for someone to 'do science' or use science even in some areas that one wouldn't reflexively think of as a scientific area (previously you threw out different examples involving games), but there's a difference between that and saying the area itself is or even involves science as a rule. "Science can involve playing a game" does not cash out to "All game playing is science".
Let's run with one of your past examples: cooking. You microwave a Hot Pocket as the instructions say. Science? If that's the beginning and end of things, no. Not at all in my view.
Now, go towards the other end of the spectrum: thinking that perhaps certain lengths of cooking time at different levels of power will make the Hot Pocket tastier than others for various reasons after you've spent some time examining and researching the components involved - maybe you think some times will affect the moisture, or how the flavor spreads throughout the contents, or who knows what - you start to cook the things at various powers for various lengths of time, while feeding them to a random (if not perfectly random) sample of people. You record their reactions, you look for patterns. Aha! You notice what you think are some patterns. You start to hypothesize about why you got that pattern. Maybe you alter some more aspects of your Hot Pocket preparation (let's dip it in water first! I think moisture is the key here!), hand them out to more people, test more reactions. At the end, you may have a variety of cooking methods that people seem to like more, and a hypothesis about why.
Not science? Sorry, I don't think that's clear.
Likewise in and of itself it does not, contrary to your previous suggestion, give any reason to credit it.
I didn't say "Game is science! That's why you should credit it!" I gave a rough outline of how 'Game' was arrived at at least in part, what the track record regarding it reportedly was, and pointed out that it qualified as science. And I thought that the xkcd comic dumping on Game was a little hypocritical as a result.
I can't help but absolutely laugh
I'm glad to bring you such joy, but please control yourself. You'll get graham cracker crumbs all over your keyboard. ;)
Anyway - you may want to reread the thread. YOU are the one who complained that my standard was sapping science of 'special significance'. I made it clear that I really don't care about it being all that 'special', beyond some basic standards - I suggested, briefly, adherence to the scientific method being one of those standards.
So your comment effectively throws out half the things you've said on the subject in previous comments.
Only if you have real rotten reading comprehension borne of some weird ax - or in your case, axes - to grind. I notice you sidestepped the scientific method suggestion, and I suppose for good reason: it'd support my view, and skunk yours.
Or maybe you'd suggest that adhering to the scientific method has zero to do with whether or not we should regard something as science. Walk that route if you wish - it'd be fun.
Darwin,
FWIW, Brandon and I tend to enjoy getting picky about what is and is not science in general: He teaches philosophy and has done a fair amount of work on the early modern period which involves, among other things, the development of the philosophy of science, and I have a tendency to pick fights with ID theorists on the one hand and with folks who think they can derive morals or life philosophies "scientifically" on the other.
I'm well aware of Brandon's interests and history. Smart guy, runs a nice blog. We don't get along well at times, which you can either blame on my snarky personality, his snarky personality, or both. I don't deny he's damn well read. I also think he flies off the handle too easily, and that he's giving a rotten series of arguments here.
I've got no problem dumping on game - or ID for that matter - so long as it's done fairly. I just disagree with how it's being viewed here with regards to the subject of science, and THAT is largely a concern mostly because of what I take as xkcd's typical theme.
That said, at a general level I think there's a tendency for people to invest with "science" the narratives which they apply to scientifically derived information, and then to spread that mantle of science to moral or social conclusions they reach based on the narrative.
Believe me, I can get behind a lot of the complaints you have here. I'm not at all a fan of the kind of abuse you speak of. I'm certainly not saying that 'game is/uses science, and that makes it okay' - I tried to make that much very clear. I understand some of your worry about the narratives, and even - despite my arguments with Brandon here - about overextending what science means, can do, or can say. When I'm not arguing here, I'm usually arguing elsewhere with people who think 'science has shown' what it absolutely can't show. ("Science has shown God doesn't exist!" "Science has shown God DOES exist!" "Science shows that things pop into existence from nothing uncaused all the time!" "Science shows that such and such sexual act is morally good!")
But here, my understanding of Game and how its conclusions are formed, along with what I understand of science and the scientific method, leads me to conclude that Game isn't detached from science. As I said, I'm more than happy to go with 'Game is based on the findings of science, not science itself'. I can completely sympathize with wanting to be careful about what that means, or what the science in question shows or can show.
But I stop short of, I think, denying something is or involves science on the grounds that we don't like how the data can be used, or worse, what the data is. Beyond my petty xkcd crankiness, I think it contributes to a larger problem.
Post a Comment