Editorial How to Survive Indiepocalypse in 5 Easy Steps

[Ringhausen]

something like Kant (but obviously not), or Kantor, something like that, and it is author of middle of 20 century, or 70s.

Kuhn?

 

[Fenix]

Kuhn

Yes, it is him! Huge thanks to you man! )

Too naive.

This article shows perfectly what I talked about, thank you Lurker King for this article, I saved it.
It shows that sciene is full of falsifications of various kind, starting from social science, where it directly and blatantly serves the society in it social demands, legalizing all kind of the vices (mechanisms of which are different from social and publuc pressure on those who express unpopular opinions to grants given to the "right" "scientists"), to exact sciences like chemistry and biology, where so called "big farma", or simple TNC with huge recources doing all they want just to get more money.

 

[gaussgunner]

Paying for a great game.

I see. Barebones functional 3D, tons of text but it looks well written, hardcore combat, all the serious RPG elements. I might try it sometime if the demo works on my shitty windows laptop.

Nothing new in the article. What would be interesting is his take on where to find the right people for different jobs and how to entice them into working for free for years.

Do you speak from experience?

... As a result - all the more acute is the question of how to reduce, roughly speaking, the real costs of population content, while not dropping the demand, the economy volumes, etc. ... And games are part of this, they can not be cheap because everything around is not cheap.

Games can definitely be cheap -- and most are, just like music and other "creative content". They're not physical commodities. They're only worth whatever people are willing to pay for them.

I think the question is, do gamers pay high prices for a few games they really want, or take more chances with low priced games? Unfortunately, low prices reward shovelware developers disproportionately to honest indies, but that's the current reality.

 

[Fenix]

I think the question is, do gamers pay high prices for a few games they really want, or take more chances with low priced games?

If I understend you right, I will pay even 60$ for the game I want, especially considering the fact that games I like are too scarse, like ~2-3 games for whole fucking 2015 year.

Continuing to talk about science, these are strings you want to know about.

The same freedom that empowers a statistician to pick a true signal out of the noise also enables a dishonest scientist to manufacture nearly any result he or she wishes. Cajoling statistical significance where in reality there is none, a practice commonly known as “p-hacking,” is particularly easy to accomplish and difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis.

and

One creative attempt to estimate how widespread such dishonesty really is involves comparisons between fields of varying “hardness.” The author, Daniele Fanelli, theorized that the farther from physics one gets, the more freedom creeps into one’s experimental methodology, and the fewer constraints there are on a scientist’s conscious and unconscious biases. If all scientists were constantly attempting to influence the results of their analyses, but had more opportunities to do so the “softer” the science, then we might expect that the social sciences have more papers that confirm a sought-after hypothesis than do the physical sciences, with medicine and biology somewhere in the middle.

That's why I always told that psychology is just a little more scientific then astrology (which I actually like btw).

Far more common is the delicate and subtle art of scouring inconceivably vast volumes of noise with advanced software and mathematical tools in search of the faintest signal of some hypothesized but never before observed phenomenon, whether an astrophysical event or the decay of a subatomic particle. This sort of work is difficult and beautiful in its own way, but it is not at all self-evident in the manner of a falling apple or an elliptical planetary orbit, and it is very sensitive to the same sorts of accidental contamination, deliberate fraud, and unconscious bias as the medical and social-scientific studies we have discussed. Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years—the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border—have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.

That's it.

And especially this lol

Many defenders of the scientific establishment will admit to this problem, then offer hymns to the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

That's what I talked about.

 

[Lurker King]

Kuhn

Yes, it is him! Huge thanks to you man! )

Too naive.

This article shows perfectly what I talked about, thank you Lurker King for this article, I saved it.
It shows that sciene is full of falsifications of various kind, starting from social science, where it directly and blatantly serves the society in it social demands, legalizing all kind of the vices (mechanisms of which are different from social and publuc pressure on those who express unpopular opinions to grants given to the "right" "scientists"), to exact sciences like chemistry and biology, where so called "big farma", or simple TNC with huge recources doing all they want just to get more money.

You are welcomed. Scientists are just people. They have egos the size of cathedrals and social incentives to lie and many other flattering predicates. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have any scientific knowledge or that science’s pedigree isn’t warranted, even if most scientists are dumb bureaucrats. You have to find a reasonable middle ground between blatant uncritical scientism and common sense. If I have to take a vaccine or use voodoo to prevent from a disease, I will take the vaccine, no questions asked. The same can be said regarding philosophers too. Kuhn is not an infallible being, he is just an influential philosopher that proposed a theory about the nature of science. Whether this theory is correct, it’s a matter of debate and proper analysis. Personally, I think he is incoherent, but that is another issue. The important thing is that knowledge can be obtained from many sources, including informal ones, like VD’s anecdotes about his personal experience in game development.

 

[Fenix]

Lurker King the more I read it, the more I enjoed it.
This is real modern science, not the nobel-rutine and banquets for winners.
The more complicated scince become, the more importance get methods to method allows to distinguish valid data from falsification, or to prevent such a situation.
I think science has reached the point where its progress - real progress and not what we have today - is impossible without improvement of existing methods or the development of entirely new.
Therefore authors like Kuhn are true herous of modern science.
I will make one assumption of conspiracy kind - if there was scientists that could foresee the current situation in science, mean falsifications, then there could be other people who used it on global scale for their own interest, like depopulation, mean Malthusianism, Club of Rome, Neo-Malthusianism.

Kuhn is not an infallible being, he is just an influential philosopher that proposed a theory about the nature of science. Whether this theory is correct, it’s a matter of debate and proper analysis. Personally, I think he is incoherent, but that is another issue.

Of course he is the same scientist, but what differ him from other is that he question science as social institute, while other many are not.
His work (I didn't read it, was too difficult for me, but I'll try again) can may contain errors, but also may contain true pieces. I personally think what I have read in review of the book is mostly true.

 

[Lurker King]

Fenix Kuhn is not a hero in my book, since he denies the possibility of any scientific progress. The true heroes are the researchers who do their jobs with integrity or criticize the methodological problems and academic vices. Just as we have some honest developers in the midst of the toxic game design environment, we also have genuine scientists among the dishonest herd. I think that the academic professionalization is also to blame here. If people didn’t have any social incentives to publish, there would be no frauds. If you want to know more about the nature of science, read a good textbook about philosophy of science. I recomend this book, but you will find many others that are interesting.

 

[Roqua]

That sounds like hypocrisy but you're right. $20 isn't much... but do you spend it on food, booze, music... or a game that's 99% certain to suck? Vogel's games aren't worth it, they're too recycled and crappy looking, and the long play time isn't a positive, it's a waste of my time. Bastard Bonds and SitS aren't worth it. Underrail $15, may be worth it if it's way better than those. AoD is $30, am I paying for a great game or the fucking 3D? If VD thinks he can sell Colony Ship for $30 then recycle it as a $20 tRPG, he's smoking crack. Games used to cost $20-70 for discs, boxes, and distribution. That's gone. Inflation doesn't make up for it; there's a glut of games and a shortage of spending money.
.

It isn't hypocrisy - why should I pay three times more than people who buy it through the apple store for a tablet? My rule makes perfect sense to me. I have enjoyed pretty every spiderweb game I've played, if everyone had to pay the same price off sale I would still pay that price, but because little hipster fucking idiots who play games on hipster devices paying 1/3rd what I am for the same thing because they are fucking hipster retards means Vogel thinks sticking his penis in my ass while encouraging idiots to buy stupid shit is fun. Well fuck him.

I enjoy his games so will still buy them, but not for 1 cent more than retarded apple device pussies pay.

 

[Fenix]

Fenix Kuhn is not a hero in my book, since he denies the possibility of any scientific progress.

I didn't know he goes so far.
But to be honest - maybe his theory is true?
Actually I remember that I read some article which stated, that philosophical idea of scince-technical progress that bestow benefits to humanity was proven failed already in the middle of 20 century.
I mean exactly what was implied by science-thech progress as philosophy understand it.
So, in those article even was name of the author and the book, that was widely known in narrow circles of specialist as I understood from context.
Sadly I didn't saved this article because was young&stupid, and didn't know that this will be interesting for me.
So, you better not to reject outright possibility that Kuhn was right - it is another field for thinking for you and me.

Thank you for your comments and your contribution to that theme Lurker King - these are the moments I love Codex for. )


Also thanks for the book, but sadly I'm not sure I can master the book in English.

 

[Lurker King]

You are welcome. If you can read the posts, you can read the book. It's as simple as that.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Also thanks for the book, but sadly I'm not sure I can master the book in English.

There are a lot of legit sources in the net also, freely available. To get a taste, I would recommend Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, cf. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/

That way you can save money for buying indie rpgs, right?

 

[Lurker King]

Stanford is reliable, but it’s too complicated for the uninitiated. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is more accessible, even though it doesn’t have a general entry about philosophy of science. Since he was more interested in a less abstract source about science, more specifically, about the corruption in contemporary science, he will enjoy reading this.

 

[CyberWhale]

You poor poor men
The Indiepocalyse is cometh! Soon indie developers will be expunged for their sins! Only the inclined will survive, and Vault Dweller will rule over them with a iron fist!

Repent or die!

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

 

[Mustawd]

You poor poor men
The Indiepocalyse is cometh! Soon indie developers will be expunged for their sins! Only the inclined will survive, and Vault Dweller will rule over them with a iron fist!

Repent or die!

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

 

[StaticSpine]

You poor poor men
The Indiepocalyse is cometh! Soon indie developers will be expunged for their sins! Only the inclined will survive, and Vault Dweller will rule over them with a iron fist!

Repent or die!

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

 

[covr]

You poor poor men
The Indiepocalyse is cometh! Soon indie developers will be expunged for their sins! Only the inclined will survive, and Vault Dweller will rule over them with a iron fist!

Repent or die!

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

 

[Kev Inkline]

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk?

- Sim.

Obrigado.

 

[Mustawd]

You poor poor men
The Indiepocalyse is cometh! Soon indie developers will be expunged for their sins! Only the inclined will survive, and Vault Dweller will rule over them with a iron fist!

Repent or die!

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

 

[laclongquan]

What the fuck, people?!

 

[Fenix]

he will enjoy reading this.

Sadly I can't read this - Subscribe or Sign in.

Since he was more interested in a less abstract source about science, more specifically, about the corruption in contemporary science

Yes, as I have said before, I believe (after reading that article Lurker King gave me) science has come to a standstill, dead end untill more reliable methods and methodology for the separation of reliable information from all sorts of fraud are invemted.
Therefore there is nothing more important in science now, then field of methodology of science.

 

[Lurker King]

he will enjoy reading this.

Sadly I can't read this - Subscribe or Sign in.

Search the article's title on google and click on the first result. This will overcome the paywall.

 

[Fenix]

It works! Thanks Lurker King!

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Self correcting ability? This sounds like magic, sounds like everything that is science or scientific is correct, or if wrong theories come, some science magic immediately correct all erroneous theories.
There are literary hundreds, if not thousands books about what the science is, what the scientific methodology is, but you are talking this like "science=true" is set in stone.

Nothing can be farther from truth. Self correction stems from the idea that nothing is sacred and everything is open for question. Every truth is only provisional can if new facts emerge is open to changes.

Next step, whach is actually was made in 2014 was try to assept pedophilia as the same "sexual orientation"

False. This piece of right wing propaganda was spreading like few years ago. It was totally untrue.

You see, when argumentation falls down to pseudo-psychology, which is a common trick in West, it shows that someone have zero argumentations.
It is the same as if when Chernobyl nuclear power plant went into a dangerous mode and someone expressed concerns about this, instead he heard "you were sleeping in bed with mom to 10 years?".

This is not pseudo-psychology. I just say that if you criticism is to be useful for something it must be a knowledgeable criticism not ignorant criticism. For example: creationism was popular and had many proponents but all of that "scrutiny" was not useful. Pitdown man hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists.

Actually I remember that I read some article which stated, that philosophical idea of scince-technical progress that bestow benefits to humanity was proven failed already in the middle of 20 century.

Nothing more untrue. Look at the average human lifespan in the middle of XX century and now for example.

Thomas Kuhn has made some interesting observations but his book is more beneficial if you don't treat it too seriously. You really should read Karl Popper, he is a much, much better science philosopher. This is very good for example: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Lurker King kuhnism is not inherently antiprogress. When there is a paradigm shift and resulting scientific revolution, the new paradigm can be better than the old one.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

It's simpler and higher level than all that.

Look at any role, station, pursuit or profession - at any level, and fully half of the people you find there are terrible at what they do.

Scientista, politicians, teachers, doctors, drug dealers, cops, judges, McDonald's employees, janitors, professors, and on and on. Half are shit at every level.

 

[Lurker King]

Thomas Kuhn has made some interesting observations but his book is more beneficial if you don't treat it too seriously. You really should read Karl Popper, he is a much, much better science philosopher. This is very good for example: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Lurker King kuhnism is not inherently antiprogress. When there is a paradigm shift and resulting scientific revolution, the new paradigm can be better than the old one.

Kuhn is a sloppy and overrated philosopher. You said that one paradigm could be better, but by which standard? The standards from the old paradigm or from the new one? Later on he denied accusations of being a relativist. Of course, this was complete baloney. His theory is pointless without relativism. In fact, as a teacher he was known as tyrant who forbid his students from supporting any form of anti-relativism. Now, notice that his theory is self-defeating. If we accept his own theory about science, it falls apart. If theories in physics or other hard sciences are incommensurable, philosophical theories must also be incommensurable. However, if philosophical theories are incommensurable, his own theory about incommensurability can’t be compared to other rival theories. Therefore, we don’t have any reason to accept his theory over alternatives in the first place.

Regarding Popper, his theory is also superficial and outdated. Counter-examples in the literature abound. Scientists love to quote his name and talk about the importance of falsification, but science as we know it would end if falsificacionism were the norm. Any good textbook would explain this. Chapter 7 of this book present some reasons why it doesn’t work. This paper also present some reasons, but it is not as good. What was the subject of this thread again?