• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

How is this Known?

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I've seen the statements, and so have you. Grand and universal they stand and because they are said in such a way that they appear authoritative, we take them and run with them as if they are "proven," and need not be questioned.

For instance, how is it known that a particular thing will result in a particular response? I have heard posters tell us the negative consequences of a change, but seldom have I seen them tell us why they believe such a thing. Claiming that X will be the case if we do Y does not, in itself, prove anything. It is an assumption.

So the question: "How is this known?" must be asked of any conjecture. It is a difficult question to answer if you are trying to anticipate what ill happen in the future if you change something in the present because you have no direct way of measuering what will happen until after the change is made. And thus you have to use something other than direct measurement. There are at least two lines of reasoning you can use to provide a basis for your claim.

First, you can use parallel cases. If a change was made that caused X to happen and the change you are wanting to make is similar, you can anticipate it, too, will cause X. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least it's more probable that the same type of change will result in the same type of effect, than not. And if the first change didn't cause disaster, to the degree the second is similar to the first, it probably won't cause disaster either.

Second, you can use reasoning. You can say, if I do X and people can do Y in response, is it more or less likely that, since Y is a negative to them, they will do it or not? If you give somebody the opportunity of taking all their money out of the bank and throwing it into the river how many people do you think will do so? Of course this assumes people are rational enough to see the negative consequences and to avoid them. Conversely, if you give them the opportunity to do X and it's a positive to them, are they more likely to do it or not?

So you have two ways to strengthen the accuracy of your conjectures. And two ways to weaken them as well. For if you discover, as you attempt to warrant your conjecture that the results will probably be more negative than positive, then you can change your opinion. This is what thinking it through is all about. It is asking ourselves not "what do I think is true," but also so examining why we think it to be true. It is saying to ourselves, 'how is this known," over and over, and thus holding ourselves to a more rigerous standard of what we know.

AJ
 

SoulsSilhouette

Buddy Fan Club member
Prediction relies on peoples perception of predilection, I believe.

Root cause analysis is the one way to apply critical thinking.

Case in point... trading issues. What is the root cause of the trading issue? Lack of trades. Why are there a lack of trades? Dead cities. Why are there dead cities. Players quit, Why do players quit?

And therein lies the true question. Why?

There are many reasons for this. I'm not sure trading is on the top of that list. I would submit that Ease of Use is among the top ten. So maybe I will start a thread of Why did you quit playing a game? In fact, I shall. See what comes up.
 
Top