Forum > Design, Development, and Gameplay

Notice:Landmarks of Gaming Theory

<< < (18/20) > >>

Lunamancer:
In fairness, a self-evident statement does not require citation nor study. That's what makes it self-evident. Some statements, by their nature, do require studies or citations or rigorous proof. Others do not. I actually CAN provide citations to works of epistemology that back what I'm saying. I'm just not convinced that doing so would change anyone's mind.

If the point of the thread is to lay down ideas that are self-evident then making a statement that would require citations is off-topic. Asking to provide citations is besides the point, because even if the person then provided citations and it turns out their statement is true, that still doesn't make it self evident.

yosemitemike:

--- Quote from: Lunamancer;869903 ---
If the point of the thread is to lay down ideas that are self-evident then making a statement that would require citations is off-topic.
--- End quote ---


That has not kept people from making them.

Lunamancer:

--- Quote from: yosemitemike;869975 ---That has not kept people from making them.
--- End quote ---


Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations. While it's true not every statement made is self-evident, it's also true that not every statement made requires citations.

At least half of what the OP covers is self-evident. Maybe they're not made in the way I would word them. I would begin with a self-evident statement that people choose to do what they believe will result in more happiness.

If an RPG is observed to be the most popular, it self-evidently follows that it's the one the most people believe with be the most fun. If an RPG is observed to be the most popular over a substantial amount of time, it's not just that the most people believe it to be fun (due to good marketing), they actually do have fun while playing it.

And if that's true, it also self-evidently follows that there is a problem with a theory that classifies an RPG as "incoherent" or somehow bad or unfun when in fact it is observed to be so popular over such a long period of time.

Said theory in fact would be falsified by such an observation. This follows from self-evident deduction from self-evident premises, and so this statement is itself self-evident.

What's not self-evident is that D&D IS such a game. If anything, that's what would require a citation. But IF its popularity is verified true (does anyone dispute it?), it does falsify GNS theory.

yosemitemike:

--- Quote from: Lunamancer;870015 ---Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations.
--- End quote ---


I took that as meaning he thinks it's all a  fucking load of bullshit.

TristramEvans:

--- Quote from: Lunamancer;870015 ---Tristam was characterizing EVERY statement on this thread as needing citations. While it's true not every statement made is self-evident, it's also true that not every statement made requires citations.
--- End quote ---


More I was saying the whole thread was a load of bullshit. Pundit's Landmarks are far from self-evident, but the result of specious, at best, reasoning and half-baked conclusions.

I'm not sure citations would help.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version