Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AugustWest]

lol

Dang, that kobold was pretty fearsome.

[jaydub]

For a while I was the opposite of a Monty-Haul DM.  My players eventually got used to high infant character mortality, and waited until they had leveled up a bit before developing their characters back stories and whatnot.  I eased off a bit eventually, but still had a rep as a "killer GM" in the gaming club I belonged to at college.  People seemed to enjoy it though; I usually had the highest player counts of the various campaigns that were going on.

[dejavroom]

Oh yes... oohh yesssss... http://youtu.be/hPzaMJYoImk?t=2m40s

[pmcd9]

Science hasn't solved every mystery of life. There is still yet much more that we don't know than what we do. That doesn't prove the existence of God.

[dejavroom]

That doesn't prove the existence of God.

No one is trying to prove that, hoss. Just sassily *demonstrating* that Science is only a narrow compartmentalization of knowledge, and scientists should shut their trap when tempted to talk about something else than polymers and shit (those 5 items Craig listed will never be explained by Science, simply because Science cannot be everything and still be Science. That's why we have separate fields of knowledge: Mathematics, Ethics, Aesthetics... if Science could have any saying in those areas, it wouldn't be Science anymore, it would have become... well, Mathematics, Ethics, Aesthetics etc.)

[jaydub]

Perhaps its splitting hairs, but science is a way of understanding and communicating knowledge - not knowledge itself.  How do you know what you know?  If you can describe it with logic and numbers, if you can reproduce the event predictably, if its occurrence is independent of bias on the observer's part, then it is science.

[dejavroom]

If you can describe it with logic and numbers, if you can reproduce the event predictably, if its occurrence is independent of bias on the observer's part, then it is science.

Yes, exactly. I just liked the video because it's rare to see a man of science being caught with his ##### down (if you see the continuation of the debate you'll see Atkins is dumbfounded and can't find a straight answer for Craig), and it clearly illustrates how arrogant (and wrong) scientists get when they try to talk about faith.

[pmcd9]

I'm gonna show my ignorance here, but mathematics isn't science?

I disagree that science will never be able to explain ethics, aesthetics, etc... I don't believe that anything is unknowable. Already science has made inroads into understanding Ethics and aesthetics. For instance, scientific research has identified and detailed the relationship between certain colors and mood. And you can't hardly turn on All Things Considered without learning about some behavioral study that tells us something new about human behavior. Sure, it's rudimentary and up to this point has mostly served to quantify what is already known, but it's a start.

And that speaker was totally arguing in favor of the existence of God.

[dejavroom]

I'm gonna show my ignorance here, but mathematics isn't science?

Nope. Science deals with concrete, measurable, repeatable facts of the world (for instance, the acceleration rate of a car, or the right combination of substances to achieve a certain chemical result). Mathematics deals with abstract concepts (numbers, sets, infinity etc). Science employs Mathematics sometimes, and that's it.

A good brain exercise is asking yourself: "Are numbers real?". If you say "of course they are", then follows the question "Well, have you ever seen/touched/smelled/licked one"? To which the answer obviously can only be "No". We've all seen graphic representations of numbers, but not the numbers themselves. Because they have another type of existence: A metaphysical existence (in contrast with physical existence -- which is the rightful domain of Science) and I'm not gonna shock the present company if I tell you that metaphysical existence is the same type of existence that Metaphysics attributes to our ol' pal God (and, you know, it makes sense... I mean, would the Creator be contained, physically, within the Creation? To my mind it would be like trying to make a big bowl fit in a smaller bowl: impossible. Jesus, who according to tradition is God incarnate, came down here only for a limited amount of time. And all major religions stress the fact that we're separate from the Father).

This distinction already signals that there are areas where Science becomes useless: would you ask for romantic advice from a scientist, in his capacity as a scientist? I certainly wouldn't. What good could come from me knowing that love is probably an interaction of chemical particles and electricity?

Now, back to the question about numbers, if you say "Of course numbers are not real", then follows the question, "Well, then how all these bridges, overpasses and buildings remain erect (let alone the fact that they ever got to be built at all)?" They were built with calculations which employed numbers, so these numbers gotta have *some sort* of existence, otherwise it wouldn't have worked in the real world.

Already you see the subject is more complicated (and way, way, way more interesting) than the usual "faith is dumb, science is smart" that people like Dawkins hock for a living. I hope this explains why I find this subject endlessly fascinating.

I'm gonna come back to your other points in a bit, if that's ok.

[pmcd9]

Sure, in a literal sense numbers exist in the metaphysical plane, but the calculations they represent apply in the physical world. If math isn't science then it is a tool of scientists.

I'm not sure I would discount the input of a scientist in regards to questions of romance. Like I stated before science has made inroads into understanding human behavior. Of course I'm no Mr. Spock when it comes to love.

[theinevitable]

So you're saying science can't study god, because he isn't factual? He's made up like art and ethics and aesthetics and math? I guess I am OK with that.

The other day this very nice girl at work found out one of us was an atheist (not me, I stayed the fuck away from that convo) and couldn't even get her mindset outside of believing in god. You don't believe in god? Aren't you worried you'll go to hell? Wait, what do you MEAN you don't believe in hell either???

[jaydub]

Mostly.  There are realms of mathematics beyond my poor grasp that appear to me to be science.  It might just be that we haven't discovered the real world applications of them.  I know¹ Imaginary Numbers (like the square root of -1) are used in electronics, and prior to the existence of electronics they were pretty much just abstract concepts for 400 years. 

If math isn't science then it is a tool of scientists.

_{1 The beginning and end of my dealings with Imaginary Numbers was in 12th grade Math Analysis class.  I reserve the right to be wrong in these examples}

[wombat]

Not the Onion:
Haters Are Gonna Hate, Study Confirms

[dejavroom]

So you're saying science can't study god, because he isn't factual? He's made up like art and ethics and aesthetics and math? I guess I am OK with that.

Funny thing, see, is that the darned concepts employed in these areas seem to match perfectly outside reality! So... again - complicated, fascinating. Not really easily swept aside.

[jaydub]

Playing a wizard in Dungeon Robber got a lot easier once I realized I could charm bandits to become  my henchmen.  Better yet, my guy has CHA as his high stat, so I can get 2 henchmen.  I have to share food with them to heal them, but it seems like a reasonable tradeoff, and their stats are better than the joes and janes you get in the inn.  I'm curious to try charming higher level monsters and see if there is a limit to how powerful a minion I can get.