Playtest 2.0 files - Things that still bug me.

[captainjack23]

The key thing as to what makes a science is the method used. Psychology and Sociology have never been in doubt from me as being (at least in part) social sciences, because those methods can be applied to their disciplines. But how can History possibly apply them?

Dare I suggest....Psychohistory.

...And you hivers out there shut up :!:

If nothing else, I would like to see the Traveller game explaining about what scientific method actually means.

Uh. No. Not really at all. Not the point of a light entertainment like an RPG, and certainly not this one, I think. And I've taught classes in the subject. Scientific method, not light entertainment.:mrgreen:

Plus, and I hate to say this, but if you really really want to be even a bit of a RPG science maven , traveller and most Space Opera and SF, hard or not, is a disaster.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Dare I suggest....Psychohistory.

...And you hivers out there shut up :!:

I could accept the rational for psycho-history as a potential science - pending technological/psychic breakthrough.

Uh. No. Not really at all. Not the point of a light entertainment like an RPG, and certainly not this one, I think. And I've taught classes in the subject. Scientific method, not light entertainment.:mrgreen:

Plus, and I hate to say this, but if you really really want to be even a bit of a RPG science maven , traveller and most Space Opera and SF, hard or not, is a disaster.

I'd still definitely want to ensure that all the scientific definitions in the book are accurate. And I would like to see an expressed understanding of scientific method - in terms of it being about experimentation. If nothing else, experiments could be made into plot hooks, anyway. It's not just a question of educating people about science - it's about finding an authenticity in the game.

 

[captainjack23]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

Assuming we have any kind of agreed upon definition for "Hard" (hehhh hehhhh), possibly. Me, I'd vote for Psychoneuroendocrinology; Computational Neuroscience is pretty introspectively model intensive . Of course, if Math is hard, then clinical Psyc is pretty hard.

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

No. :evil:

Lets stop this right here before we get booted for excessively tedious geekiness that isn't about traveller.. :wink:

Cap.

(Dr Cap, I suppose)

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

Assuming we have any kind of agreed upon definition for "Hard" (hehhh hehhhh), possibly. Me, I'd vote for Psychoneuroendocrinology; Computational Neuroscience is pretty introspectively model intensive . Of course, if Math is hard, then clinical Psyc is pretty hard.

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

No. :evil:

Lets stop this right here before we get booted for excessively tedious geekiness that isn't about traveller.. :wink:

Cap.

(Dr Cap, I suppose)

Aw. I was just starting to find it interesting..... :wink:

 

[AKAramis]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

No. It's the overlap between sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, and instruction.

Sociology, anthropology, history, instruction, neurobiology: all relate to how and why people do things. But all of them look at different parts of the overall situation.

Broadly,
Sociology is "groups and how they form and respond"
Anthopology is "People as animals"
Psychology is "individuals and how they perceive, act and respond"
History and Archeology is "How have organized groups acted and reacted & why"; history uses documents, and archeology uses physical evidence.
Neurobiology examines the process by which perceptions become actions and reactions.
Instruction focuses on how and why people learn.

They all overlap, but form a big daisy-like thing when drawn out on a venn diagram...

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

No. It's the overlap between sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, and instruction.

Sociology, anthropology, history, instruction, neurobiology: all relate to how and why people do things. But all of them look at different parts of the overall situation.

Broadly,
Sociology is "groups and how they form and respond"
Anthopology is "People as animals"
Psychology is "individuals and how they perceive, act and respond"
History and Archeology is "How have organized groups acted and reacted & why"; history uses documents, and archeology uses physical evidence.
Neurobiology examines the process by which perceptions become actions and reactions.
Instruction focuses on how and why people learn.

They all overlap, but form a big daisy-like thing when drawn out on a venn diagram...

All sciences overlap - Biology is an application of Chemistry, which is in turn an application of Physics, etc. The distinction I was making with neuroscience, over the polar extreme of psychodynamic theories, say, was that neuroscience actually experiments on tangible biology.

Anyway, history, doesn't experiment at all, in it's current form - notwithstanding the sci-fi potential of psycho-history, of course.

 

[captainjack23]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

No. It's the overlap between sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, and instruction.

Sociology, anthropology, history, instruction, neurobiology: all relate to how and why people do things. But all of them look at different parts of the overall situation.

Broadly,
Sociology is "groups and how they form and respond"
Anthopology is "People as animals"
Psychology is "individuals and how they perceive, act and respond"
History and Archeology is "How have organized groups acted and reacted & why"; history uses documents, and archeology uses physical evidence.
Neurobiology examines the process by which perceptions become actions and reactions.
Instruction focuses on how and why people learn.

They all overlap, but form a big daisy-like thing when drawn out on a venn diagram...

AC-tually.....ummm....thats a pretty good definition.

Miller time, gents. Aramis is buying.

 

[AKAramis]

AC-tually.....ummm....thats a pretty good definition.

Miller time, gents. Aramis is buying.

Come on over, and taste my Cinnamon Nutmeg Heart of Mead....

 

[Golan2072]

And finally......NO CITIZENS! (i.e. No Lister from Red Dwarf, or Kaylee from Serenity, or Luke Skywalker from Star Wars). Cutting out 'Everyman heroes' from the game is cutting out a massive amount of interesting characters and storylines. Please include them! Oh and the Medical Bills list is missing entrees for both Citizens and Merchants, currently.

I've cobbled together a Citizen career in Mongoose Traveller format. I've sent it to the Mongoose feedback e-mail a few moments ago. As I have problems accessing my usual FTP right now, if any of you want to take a peek at it as well, feel free to PM me and I'll e-mail the file to you as well (MS-Word format or PDF, whatever you perfer).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, I think the thing about the Citizens, is that they will make the game seem very 'complete' (but still open to supplemental development), but without them, I will be feeling denied of an interesting, playable option. I want them in the core rules - not seperate, somewhere else.

You can send your Citizens thing to RKhues@AOL.com, though, and I'll certainly have a look at them.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Anyway, history, doesn't experiment at all, in it's current form - notwithstanding the sci-fi potential of psycho-history, of course.

In that case, by this kind of definition, then fine art or media are sciences. I've used experimentation in my art career and study, and the media uses experimental evidence all the time. Mind you, it's often subjective, as it's often based on peoples' opinions. But nevertheless, experimentation does happen, even if it is only an approximation of the rigour of the scientific method. It's as least as 'experimenty' as sociology or linguistics.

Don't forget it was artists who gave us optics, perspective, and anatomy.

If we look at media in particular, or multimedia, or take it further to holography, there are an awful lot of things that will also look like Engineering: Electronics, or Computer.

But I'm not going to argue that fine art should be classed as a science in Traveller. Intuitively that doesn't work so well. Classing History as a science does work intuitively. It requires a base of knowledge and the use of various techniques to gather data.

And if we extrapolate to the future we can speculate on a method of experimentation with History (for instance, advanced computer modelling trying to replicate the thought processes of Napoleon to get a better understanding of his state of mind - that's just as valid as modelling the Big Bang based on our theories now).

We could call History a Cultural Science, along with Sophontology or Archeology...

 

[TrippyHippy]

No, not 'experimentation' in terms of 'trying out something new and different'.

'Experimentation' as in 'testing a hypothesis under strictly controlled conditions, that are reliable, valid and can be universally applied, and produces data that can be analysed statistically'.

We are talking at cross purposes here.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Dare I suggest....Psychohistory.

Indeed you can!

...And you hivers out there shut up :!:

No.

Psychohistory, in Traveller terms, is a science. Definitely. Statistical analysis of collected, measured data and outcome prediction based on that statistical analysis.

Manipulation, OTOH, is an art. It has subtleties, nuances, styles and themes. Manipulation can be influenced by or based upon Psychohistorical data and research and, in fact, most Hivers that are Manipulators will use Psychohistorical data to support their manipulation proposal.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Just one additional thing about Psychohistory:

It has nothing to do with Psionics. :!:

 

[Klaus Kipling]

No, not 'experimentation' in terms of 'trying out something new and different'.

'Experimentation' as in 'testing a hypothesis under strictly controlled conditions, that are reliable, valid and can be universally applied, and produces data that can be analysed statistically'.

We are talking at cross purposes here.

Erm, so am I. Not talking about trying something new and different. So no cross purposes whatsoever.

Admittedly, a lot of media theory is just so much cobblers (but then, this is the same with some science), but there is clear research and experimentation into various phenomena of interest to artists and film makers. It maybe not universally applied, but it can be analysed statistically.

There is also clear experimentation and research into how people percieve and assimilate media of any kind. This is what goes on in art departments at universities across the world, along with people painting pretty pictures or blagging a pile of bricks as the next big thing.

I am NOT claiming the arts are equivalent to science, I am just pointing out experimentation is not exclusive to the sciences.

If artists don't universally apply their findings, then historians most certainly do, and their work is peer reviewed exactly as science is.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Admittedly, a lot of media theory is just so much cobblers (but then, this is the same with some science), but there is clear research and experimentation into various phenomena of interest to artists and film makers. It maybe not universally applied, but it can be analysed statistically.

There is also clear experimentation and research into how people percieve and assimilate media of any kind. This is what goes on in art departments at universities across the world, along with people painting pretty pictures or blagging a pile of bricks as the next big thing.

I am NOT claiming the arts are equivalent to science, I am just pointing out experimentation is not exclusive to the sciences.

If artists don't universally apply their findings, then historians most certainly do, and their work is peer reviewed exactly as science is.

Nope. What you are talking about still doesn't sound like scientific practice - it sounds like market research and statistics analysis. Again, this is not an inductive process. Like history, your not attempting to disprove theories to create reliable, immuteable laws, in the same way that you do in physics.

The point of which the proposed (fictional) 'Psychohistory' is a science, over and above History, is that it is supposed to be able to reliably predict future events as a universal constant. This is something that History doesn't even attempt to do - and it's the key difference in what I'm trying to explain.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I was never arguing art was like scientific practice, I was arguing that experimentation is not necessarily exclusive to 'proper' science.

And it is totally an inductive process. Life drawing is purely inductive, for instance.

It may not be an attempt to "disprove theories to create reliable, immutable laws" in the way physics does, but it certainly is about finding more accurate ways of describing reality, or various concepts or emotions.

If Edward Muybridge's experiments do not count then I don't know what does. He, for instance, proved that the way artists had depicted horses was wrong, by careful and controlled observation. Artists, animators, and film makers are still using his research today.

I'm not interested in getting involved in a pedantic argument about the scientific method. I was just pointing out the objection to considering history as a science because it did not involve inductive experiment wasn't necessarily the best argument.

History fulfills just as many criteria as sociology, so if that can be a science, so can history. In fact, given the wide remit of Traveller skills, it may be better to call it socio-history and combine them together.

 

[TrippyHippy]

'Socio-History' would be a better, more descriptive name than 'Psycho-History', and if it was defined as a (fictional) inductive process of scientifically predicting the future, then my issue with including it under the Science cluster, would mostly be resolved.

My major issue is in how all these 'sciences' are defined in the game. If there is a rationale for each of them to be included, and a clear explanation of what science itself means (not an essay, you understand, but a dictionary checked definition), then I'd be happy.

It may not be an attempt to "disprove theories to create reliable, immutable laws"....

....SNIP!

That, right there, is my point. :wink:

 

[Klaus Kipling]

The problem is that art and science are not mutually exclusive fields. Good science needs a bit of artsiness (or imagination, etc) and good art needs scienciness (rigourous application of principles and laws that are relevant, etc).

If we take a loose definition of the 'arts' being generally a practical endeavour that makes a product that has subjective value, and a loose definition of 'science' as an often theoretical endeavour that seeks to find objective truths about observable reality (with engineering the practical application of theory, along with medicine etc), then history is certainly more like a science than an art. That seems to be the aim of the skillsets.

At the end of the day, any distinctions in an rpg which has such general skills is going to be arbitrary. Defining history as a science, while something of a tiny stretch, is better than having History all by its lonesome, or moved into 'Art' where it certainly doesn't live.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The problem is that art and science are not mutually exclusive fields. Good science needs a bit of artsiness (or imagination, etc) and good art needs scienciness (rigourous application of principles and laws that are relevant, etc).

If we take a loose definition of the 'arts' being generally a practical endeavour that makes a product that has subjective value, and a loose definition of 'science' as an often theoretical endeavour that seeks to find objective truths about observable reality (with engineering the practical application of theory, along with medicine etc), then history is certainly more like a science than an art. That seems to be the aim of the skillsets.

At the end of the day, any distinctions in an rpg which has such general skills is going to be arbitrary. Defining history as a science, while something of a tiny stretch, is better than having History all by its lonesome, or moved into 'Art' where it certainly doesn't live.

Well, since my original complaint, I have posted three possible solutions to my problem with it:

1) Have seperate skill entrees for 'Academics' and 'Science' (and Arts).
2) Rename 'Science' as 'Knowledge'.
3) Vigourously check definitions and provide rationales for each speciality about why it could be regarded as a science.

The third solution, after all this debate, is currently my favoured method. This is, not least, because it's the most fun.....because it can lead to speculations about how history/sociology, etc, could be made genuinely scientific in the future. And, indeed, that is what science fiction is all about!

Anybody have any thoughts about how to explain/define 'Philosophy' next.......or should that be pushed into Arts?