Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Against RPG theory/Opinion.

In a prior post I posted the entire collection of posts that a moderator collected.

My disagreement against RPG Theory organization efforts

RPG theory Opinion Quackery & Pseudo-Science

In it I label RPG theory exactly what it should be labelled - quackery and pseudoscience (meaning fake). And it is built around a cult of personality which is an individual that uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods to create an idealized, heroic, and at times worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

In this post I explore just how I came to those conclusions.

Its not a theory. It's not even a Hypothesis. It's an opinion
First, there is the issue of calling it a theory. A theory on the least useful level is a contemplative and rational abstraction of general thinking - normally called a hypothesis. On a higher level a theory is rigorously tested, independently verified, reliable, and comprehensive. Theory require facts.

  • Opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive
  • Hypothesis is a proposed testable explanation for a phenomenon.
  • Contemplative means profound thinking about facts.
  • Rational means that it is based on facts or reason.
  • Reason means using logic, establishing and verifying facts, changing and justify beliefs

When I look to how the RPG Opinion was created the original source says the entire theory is based on the authors own thinking and not based on any consensus. The only element that I see is mentioning that it is based on the author's own thinking - which to me means it is contemplative only based on the author's own experience. It certainly was not created based on any external facts - not even consulting anyone else. The theory makes up it's own vocabulary and creates/quotes simplified fictitious game experiences as examples. So in the first place it is really an RPG opinion.

At the most it could be a RPG hypothesis, but that would require that the theory be testable. In my search for evidence of testing, all that I find are either those few that support it or the many that refute the theory. I believe that much of the pushback comes from the go-it-alone nature of the opinion. Many that oppose the opinion quotes as evidence a survey that directly contradicts the opinion and their own rational logic.

Because the original opinion has not been tested as far as I could find, the threshold of disproving it can be on the that same level of evidence. All it requires is another person's rational based on personal experience. Any actual real facts or data actually is stronger than contemplative thinking about one's personal experience.

Because of this I have also labelled the author a quack.

Quack - a person who dishonestly claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field
Pseudoscience - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

So, because the RPG opinion has been labelled a theory, that assumes that a testable body of knowledge has measurable facts tested. This RPG "theory" is thus pseudoscience and baseless. It tries to appear as scientific, but it's not. Maybe had the author actually sought consensus and sought out actual facts could the opinion even been considered a hypothesis - not to mention a theory.

How someone can actually make a RPG theory

If someone really wants to make a RPG theory it takes facts, testing, evidence, and consensus to make a claim that it is in fact a theory in the first place.

No comments:

Post a Comment