Learning the Scientific Method From Games

Wired is running a story about a research paper out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison which discusses how some games get players to do scientific research without them explicitly realizing it. The paper itself is also available. Quoting: "... we examine the scientific habits of mind and dispositions that characterize online discussion forums of the massively multiplayer online game World of Warcraft. Eighty-six percent of the forum discussions were posts engaged in 'social knowledge construction' rather than social banter. Over half of the posts evidenced systems based on reason, one in ten evidenced model-based reasoning, and 65% displayed an evaluative epistemology in which knowledge is treated as an open-ended process of evaluation and argument."

Comments

Re:My first reaction...

[Marsala]

These kids are not practicing science, they're practicing being human beings.

I dunno, boss. That "theorycrafting" stuff looks awfully scienciful to me. :)

Check out an example here. Specifically, the analysis of enhancement shaman and an attempt to figure out the best weapon/spell combo to maximize damage output.

Basically, what theorycrafting is is people attempting to deduce formulae of game mechanics from experimental observation, and then figure out how they can optimize their character's stats to deliver maximum performance in different settings (player-versus-environment or player-versus-player).

It's also worth pointing out that this section of the community is not very tolerant of wild-assed claims with no data to back them up... they will want to see your data and will demand you explain the logic behind your conclusion.

PhD level stuff? Not even close (well, maybe in a liberal arts program). Organized and consistent? Hell, no. But I believe that it's a mistake to dismiss it as simply a bunch of bright kids merely stumbling onto the right answers after putting their thinking caps on for a few minutes. :)

Re:The New Scientific Method

[AKAImBatman]

Because Information Theory has no practical application to the physics of the Universe, right?

Or not.

Re:The New Scientific Method

[AKAImBatman]

I'm afraid that it is not I who is "missing the point". Shannon's entropy relationships CANNOT be divorced from the physical workings of our universe. If they were, then they would be capable of producing any number you wanted them to. However, since Shannon's findings agree with how the universe operates, they are by definition scientific discoveries. No more or less than the discovery of absolute zero is a scientific discovery.

If you can find a method by which Shannon's theories may be disproven, then you may have a point. But as it stands, they are tremendously useful in the proper application of engineering and physics. (Both physical machinery and "virtual" software.) If they did not reflect the nature of the universe, then they would not be useful.

Which is why you've heard a subtle shift in the terminology of physics in recent years. What was once the domain of computer science is now overlapping with advanced physics. Hawking does not refer to "information" because he believes it to be a cool term to use. He refers to it because it is a solid concept rooted in the nature of the universe.