But most art is lost. And for good reason: because it's not worth saving. The idea that because all these obscure systems are fading out and the more popular ones are harder to find fully working versions of that history will forget video game origins is insane.
Mario will be remembered for hundreds of years. Emulators recreate the experience of the game. We can make a perfect replica of a Genesis or a NES if we need one for some gaming museum... but these obscure systems that most people don't remember? They're the other artists working at the same time as Van Gogh that nobody cares about because they aren't worth remembering. A lot of our childhood was shitty and of no merit and just because it holds special value to us personally doesn't mean it needs to be preserved by society as a whole. The important things will be remembered and preserved and the rest will land exactly where it belongs: by the wayside.
I have over 1000 hours clocked on TF2. I have dozens on Fallout 3. Hell, Star Craft, Diablo and Diablo 2: compares to the consoles being discussed, they're new games. Portal, Castle Crashers, Psychonauts. I can go on. These games are all amazing and relatively new. There were shitty games for the old consoles. PILES of them. But we don't remember them because... they were shit. WE only played them once or twice tops.
What imagination is required to play mario? Megaman? Sonic? They were just pattern recognition and learning through rote made arbitrarily more difficult via level cap. YOU used more imagination because you were a kid. Just like I used more imagination because I was a kid. I loved Contra when I was little but that doesn't make Contra better than Bioshock. Give someone who has never played any videogames, and therefore has no nostalgic investment in anything related those two games and I all but guarantee they'll say bioshock is better.
But we replaced those things for a reason. They weren't good. It's like people complaining about how games are so easy now and how we used to not have saves and only have 3 lives.
Those things were terrible. We replaced them because they were frustrating and annoying and reduced the gaming experience. What you remember is the joy of being younger, and while remembering that system might help YOU with that, it doesn't mean that society as a whole needs to remember them and put them on pedestals and more than we need to keep our old betamax tapes and laserdisks.
Any poll is inherently biased by it's source. If you read a study out of a university they probably pulled their dataset entirely from their own student body. I've taken part in a number of experiments that were offering free gift cards or cash for participating. 90% of my fellow lab rats were students. Furthermore, since there's a cash card incentive to take the study it inherently pulls those with less money or an interest in psychology. Unless you're able to grab 20000 random human beings off the planet against their will and have them answer your questions then 20,000 facebook users are as valid a dataset as 20,000 people grabbed off the street. Facebook represents about 1/13th of the earth's population, significantly more is you take out the third world. What makes them any less valid than anywhere else for?
China and North Korea make no pretense to being fair and free democracies. We KNOW they commit human rights violations. That's not news. America however, claims to be a proper, geneva convention abiding, "good", democratic nation. When they do something wrong it's a bigger deal.
Might I direct you towards TFA? "six times more likely". It has a full breakdown of the numbers and provides the group who did the study so you can backtrack to find their methodology.
Everyone who wants their belief taught in science class. Yes. I have little problem with people who don't accept scientific fact. I think they're wrong, I don't particularly want to hang out with them, but they aren't in any way lowering me or my family's quality of life.
But when you present your claim as "science" and try to push it into the public school system you need to be ready to back it up. What the creationists are trying to do is take the archaic and out of use term "evolutionists" and then attack it as a valid opponent when they SHOULD, if they wanted to be honest, be taking every branch of study that opposed theirs. And that isn't "evolution" it's a great deal more than that. In order to properly press themselves into school within the confines of their own beliefs they should be asking to be put into not just biology alongside the teaching of evolution but in geology, in history class, in philosophy, in physics... etc.
By saying they're both scientifically viable and that they're against 'evolutionists' they are implying that (A) "Evolutionist" is a proper scientific term, which as I showed before, is no longer true, it is not in use in proper science anymore. (B) That their theory is a competitor to evolution, which it isn't. It's a direct competitor to our entire understanding of the universe which happens to include evolution. (C) that the only options are creationism and evolution, which they aren't.
In order to be academically honest they cannot state that they are opponents of "evolutionists" without widely acknowledging that they are also an opponent of ancient historians,,immunologists, every other facet of biology which their theory would invalidate, every branch of every other field of science their beliefs would invalidate and more.
Using the word "evolutionist" the way they do is a red herring to the actual issue and the actual nature of both evolution as it exists in the field of biology and of their own theory's scope and nature.
But that's the trick of it. The people they disagree with AREN'T "evolutionists" it's everybody who isn't them. They have their own belief which, were it true, invalidates not only evolution, but every other creation story and 3 or 4 other branches of science.
Evolution is just the easiest opponent they have to attack. Even if they could prove evolution wrong it wouldn't in any way support their hypothesis because they still have all the other opposing branches of science. It's "science and history" vs "creationism".
So I guess that is the term I want them to use. "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians". Because their belief goes contrary to entire swaths of all three.
Like, I said, "evolutionist", as they use it, implies a parallel to "creationist" that just doesn't exist.
But yeah, that's the term I'm saying they should use "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians".
But it isn't an accurate term because everyone else stopped using it ages ago, it's a "technically correct" term. saying "Don't hang out with Steve, he's a real bastard." when Steve was born out of wedlock is technically correct but it's misleading.
The reasonable alternative is not labeling people who accept evolution and then pretending they're the only other option. There are creationist and people who are not creationists. Some of them support evolution, some have absolutely no theory regarding the nature of diversity of life, some support a creation story completely separate from the Christian one. By making it "creationism and evolutionism" you create a false dichotomy by implying that the two are the same type of thing and that all the other options besides those two are lesser while those two are equal. Evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is a philosophical outlook on the nature of existence. They're trying to say it's comparing apples and oranges when they are, in fact, comparing apples and the early work of John Stamos.
You could be right, it could be that I'm letting my bias get in the way of my objectivity. But I feel that they are using intentionally manipulative language to give their belief a stronger position than it can hold on its own merits.
"we're supposed to shut it down for maintenance"
"No! This is our only chance to beat CERN! While they're still doing repairs!
"You have to stop, the numbers! They're not stable!"
"Almost there... almost there..."
"GORDON! GET OUT OF THERE!"
*green electrical storm*
"My god... I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade, let alone create one!"
and that's it people. We sent the crowbar to CERN. We're doomed.
Scientists are calling it, "the fist bump" and are quoted as saying "it's just much harded to fuck up". Fox News reports increased popularity of "Terrorist Fist Jabbing"
"Are you a creationist or an evolutionist" and the whole "teach the controversy" marketing thing they do implies exactly that there is an academic divide.
In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are not used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic
Modern biology is built upon the concept that evolution is correct. It has become the foundation of enough of the fields understanding that it cannot be removed without finding new reasoning for much of what is currently being done in the field. Also it implies a false dichotomy between evolution and christian creation theory.
Physics existed before we discovered quantum physics but quantum physics is now an irremovable part of the field. Geology existed before we knew... well pretty much everything we do now about geology but that doesn't mean you can hold up flat earth theory as legitimate geological science anymore.
I'm not saying that "evolutionist" doesn't technically describe the people they want it to. I'm saying that by accepting it as a valid term you're inadvertently giving credence to the legitimacy of their position.
The DSM isn't real hard science though. Because ethics prevent psychologists from doing proper double blind tests for a lot of things it's more akin to scientifically based philosophy than science.
Homosexuality could quite easily be considered a mental disorder if you assume that the base nature of life on earth is the perogative to pass on their genes, then homosexuality is a pretty major disorder in that. It was taken off the DSM because it was seen as prejudiced to have it on there and implying there was something intrinsically "wrong" with being gay or a lesbian. But both genius and homosexuality are clearly large deviations from basic "proper" human thought and desire. It's only because our species has a pack "different is bad" mentality that they have to keep homosexuality off the DSM. Not because it fails any particular criteria to be on there.
Disclaimer: I have no problem, ethical or otherwise, with homosexuality. I am just noting that it is, in fact, a mental deviation from what is the human norm based on our best evidence.
I have a legitimate problem with them creating a term to indicate a divide which does not meaningfully exist. The people who study evolution are called "biologists". I am fine with them using "evolutionary biologists" if they are discussing the specific subset of biology specifically devoted to the study of biology but to use "evolutionist" implies that modern biological science and evolution are not intrinsically intertwined which is fallacious. What you don't seem to be getting about my point is that I am saying that they SHOULD NOT be using a using a special term to define those who disagree with them.
It is disingenuous and akin to the XKCD comic where there's the cereal on the shelf that says "arsenic free". The point being that while it's technically true, the implication of stating it by it's very nature brings up unsaid assumptions about the topic which are inherently UNtrue. (that the other cereal contains arsenic or that the study of evolution has equal ground to the study of creationism)
Furthermore, you are requiring IDers, in order to make an argument at all, to claim that they are not biologists, effectively defining away the existence of their position.
Yes. That is exactly what I am doing. Their position is not a scientific one. Creationism is not scientific and, in fact, requires you to abandon important discoveries from several branches of science (biology, geology, astrology, anthropology, east asian history(which I know is not a branch of science, but still, it goes back too far for creationism to coexist with it)) by it's very nature. Their argument requires them to reject or ignore core principles of biology. Therefore, by being creationists, they cannot legitimately be called biologists.
As for people who don't STUDY biology but accept evolution to be true, as I said "educated individuals".
What I'm saying is that by making a special term for biologists who accept evolution the ID people are implying that there is a legitimate scientific debate over the issue which there is not.
The term creationists should use is "biologist". That is what I am saying. There are not two branches of biologists with equal ground and argument over the issue. There are creationists and there are biologists. One side's argument requires the rejection of the findings of modern biology the other is the study of it.
"Evolutionist" implies a special subset of biology that does not exist. They should call them "biologist" and drop the pretense that they have a valid scientific claim.
Look, what do you call someone who understands the laws of thermodynamics to be true? someone who understands gravity to be a real thing? someone who accepts that humans are made of living cells? The people who study science and believe what the scientific data supports get named "scientists" and then something else according to their field. It's only the people in a separate, divergent group who get their own name. You don't have a term for people who aren't skinheads, or who aren't sociopaths or who aren't Firefly fans because they hold the default position.
It's "biologist" and then "creationist" if a creationist also studies biology they could be arguably be called a "creationist biologist" (not by me though) but evolution is such a core part of modern biology that to assign a special term to those who study biology and understand it to be true is disingenuous to the nature of the issue and the nature of the field.
I believe what I am saying is that anyone who claims to be a "biologist" but doesn't understand that evolution is an irrefutable fact isn't really studying biology. the more appropriate analogy would be someone claiming to be a physicist who doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics.
Slashdot Mirror
But most art is lost. And for good reason: because it's not worth saving. The idea that because all these obscure systems are fading out and the more popular ones are harder to find fully working versions of that history will forget video game origins is insane.
Mario will be remembered for hundreds of years. Emulators recreate the experience of the game. We can make a perfect replica of a Genesis or a NES if we need one for some gaming museum... but these obscure systems that most people don't remember? They're the other artists working at the same time as Van Gogh that nobody cares about because they aren't worth remembering. A lot of our childhood was shitty and of no merit and just because it holds special value to us personally doesn't mean it needs to be preserved by society as a whole. The important things will be remembered and preserved and the rest will land exactly where it belongs: by the wayside.
I have over 1000 hours clocked on TF2. I have dozens on Fallout 3. Hell, Star Craft, Diablo and Diablo 2: compares to the consoles being discussed, they're new games. Portal, Castle Crashers, Psychonauts. I can go on. These games are all amazing and relatively new. There were shitty games for the old consoles. PILES of them. But we don't remember them because... they were shit. WE only played them once or twice tops.
What imagination is required to play mario? Megaman? Sonic? They were just pattern recognition and learning through rote made arbitrarily more difficult via level cap. YOU used more imagination because you were a kid. Just like I used more imagination because I was a kid. I loved Contra when I was little but that doesn't make Contra better than Bioshock. Give someone who has never played any videogames, and therefore has no nostalgic investment in anything related those two games and I all but guarantee they'll say bioshock is better.
That's not because the games are better. It's because of nostalgia.
But we replaced those things for a reason. They weren't good. It's like people complaining about how games are so easy now and how we used to not have saves and only have 3 lives.
Those things were terrible. We replaced them because they were frustrating and annoying and reduced the gaming experience. What you remember is the joy of being younger, and while remembering that system might help YOU with that, it doesn't mean that society as a whole needs to remember them and put them on pedestals and more than we need to keep our old betamax tapes and laserdisks.
No. The capital of Nebraska is "N".
Don't be silly. Google is ALWAYS watching.
Any poll is inherently biased by it's source. If you read a study out of a university they probably pulled their dataset entirely from their own student body. I've taken part in a number of experiments that were offering free gift cards or cash for participating. 90% of my fellow lab rats were students. Furthermore, since there's a cash card incentive to take the study it inherently pulls those with less money or an interest in psychology. Unless you're able to grab 20000 random human beings off the planet against their will and have them answer your questions then 20,000 facebook users are as valid a dataset as 20,000 people grabbed off the street. Facebook represents about 1/13th of the earth's population, significantly more is you take out the third world. What makes them any less valid than anywhere else for?
China and North Korea make no pretense to being fair and free democracies. We KNOW they commit human rights violations. That's not news. America however, claims to be a proper, geneva convention abiding, "good", democratic nation. When they do something wrong it's a bigger deal.
Might I direct you towards TFA? "six times more likely". It has a full breakdown of the numbers and provides the group who did the study so you can backtrack to find their methodology.
Would you like a more complete breakdown? Here's the actual study by the people who did it with their full write up
Are you implying that Kraft Dinner is not the greatest food in the world? As a Canadian I am deeply offended!
Everyone who wants their belief taught in science class. Yes. I have little problem with people who don't accept scientific fact. I think they're wrong, I don't particularly want to hang out with them, but they aren't in any way lowering me or my family's quality of life.
,immunologists, every other facet of biology which their theory would invalidate, every branch of every other field of science their beliefs would invalidate and more.
But when you present your claim as "science" and try to push it into the public school system you need to be ready to back it up. What the creationists are trying to do is take the archaic and out of use term "evolutionists" and then attack it as a valid opponent when they SHOULD, if they wanted to be honest, be taking every branch of study that opposed theirs. And that isn't "evolution" it's a great deal more than that. In order to properly press themselves into school within the confines of their own beliefs they should be asking to be put into not just biology alongside the teaching of evolution but in geology, in history class, in philosophy, in physics... etc.
By saying they're both scientifically viable and that they're against 'evolutionists' they are implying that
(A) "Evolutionist" is a proper scientific term, which as I showed before, is no longer true, it is not in use in proper science anymore.
(B) That their theory is a competitor to evolution, which it isn't. It's a direct competitor to our entire understanding of the universe which happens to include evolution.
(C) that the only options are creationism and evolution, which they aren't.
In order to be academically honest they cannot state that they are opponents of "evolutionists" without widely acknowledging that they are also an opponent of ancient historians,
Using the word "evolutionist" the way they do is a red herring to the actual issue and the actual nature of both evolution as it exists in the field of biology and of their own theory's scope and nature.
But that's the trick of it. The people they disagree with AREN'T "evolutionists" it's everybody who isn't them. They have their own belief which, were it true, invalidates not only evolution, but every other creation story and 3 or 4 other branches of science.
Evolution is just the easiest opponent they have to attack. Even if they could prove evolution wrong it wouldn't in any way support their hypothesis because they still have all the other opposing branches of science. It's "science and history" vs "creationism".
So I guess that is the term I want them to use. "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians". Because their belief goes contrary to entire swaths of all three.
Like, I said, "evolutionist", as they use it, implies a parallel to "creationist" that just doesn't exist.
But yeah, that's the term I'm saying they should use "Scientists, heathens and ancient historians".
But it isn't an accurate term because everyone else stopped using it ages ago, it's a "technically correct" term. saying "Don't hang out with Steve, he's a real bastard." when Steve was born out of wedlock is technically correct but it's misleading.
The reasonable alternative is not labeling people who accept evolution and then pretending they're the only other option. There are creationist and people who are not creationists. Some of them support evolution, some have absolutely no theory regarding the nature of diversity of life, some support a creation story completely separate from the Christian one. By making it "creationism and evolutionism" you create a false dichotomy by implying that the two are the same type of thing and that all the other options besides those two are lesser while those two are equal. Evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is a philosophical outlook on the nature of existence. They're trying to say it's comparing apples and oranges when they are, in fact, comparing apples and the early work of John Stamos.
You could be right, it could be that I'm letting my bias get in the way of my objectivity. But I feel that they are using intentionally manipulative language to give their belief a stronger position than it can hold on its own merits.
"we're supposed to shut it down for maintenance"
"No! This is our only chance to beat CERN! While they're still doing repairs!
"You have to stop, the numbers! They're not stable!"
"Almost there... almost there..."
"GORDON! GET OUT OF THERE!"
*green electrical storm*
"My god... I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade, let alone create one!"
and that's it people. We sent the crowbar to CERN. We're doomed.
Sure, but wouldn't it be easier to deal with if you ALSO had a pretty sweet handshake?
Scientists are calling it, "the fist bump" and are quoted as saying "it's just much harded to fuck up". Fox News reports increased popularity of "Terrorist Fist Jabbing"
In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are not used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic
- wikipedia: most reliable source on the internet (source of citation connected to quoted text)
Modern biology is built upon the concept that evolution is correct. It has become the foundation of enough of the fields understanding that it cannot be removed without finding new reasoning for much of what is currently being done in the field. Also it implies a false dichotomy between evolution and christian creation theory.
Physics existed before we discovered quantum physics but quantum physics is now an irremovable part of the field. Geology existed before we knew... well pretty much everything we do now about geology but that doesn't mean you can hold up flat earth theory as legitimate geological science anymore.
I'm not saying that "evolutionist" doesn't technically describe the people they want it to. I'm saying that by accepting it as a valid term you're inadvertently giving credence to the legitimacy of their position.
The DSM isn't real hard science though. Because ethics prevent psychologists from doing proper double blind tests for a lot of things it's more akin to scientifically based philosophy than science.
Homosexuality could quite easily be considered a mental disorder if you assume that the base nature of life on earth is the perogative to pass on their genes, then homosexuality is a pretty major disorder in that. It was taken off the DSM because it was seen as prejudiced to have it on there and implying there was something intrinsically "wrong" with being gay or a lesbian. But both genius and homosexuality are clearly large deviations from basic "proper" human thought and desire. It's only because our species has a pack "different is bad" mentality that they have to keep homosexuality off the DSM. Not because it fails any particular criteria to be on there.
Disclaimer: I have no problem, ethical or otherwise, with homosexuality. I am just noting that it is, in fact, a mental deviation from what is the human norm based on our best evidence.
I have a legitimate problem with them creating a term to indicate a divide which does not meaningfully exist. The people who study evolution are called "biologists". I am fine with them using "evolutionary biologists" if they are discussing the specific subset of biology specifically devoted to the study of biology but to use "evolutionist" implies that modern biological science and evolution are not intrinsically intertwined which is fallacious. What you don't seem to be getting about my point is that I am saying that they SHOULD NOT be using a using a special term to define those who disagree with them.
It is disingenuous and akin to the XKCD comic where there's the cereal on the shelf that says "arsenic free". The point being that while it's technically true, the implication of stating it by it's very nature brings up unsaid assumptions about the topic which are inherently UNtrue. (that the other cereal contains arsenic or that the study of evolution has equal ground to the study of creationism)
Furthermore, you are requiring IDers, in order to make an argument at all, to claim that they are not biologists, effectively defining away the existence of their position.
Yes. That is exactly what I am doing. Their position is not a scientific one. Creationism is not scientific and, in fact, requires you to abandon important discoveries from several branches of science (biology, geology, astrology, anthropology, east asian history(which I know is not a branch of science, but still, it goes back too far for creationism to coexist with it)) by it's very nature. Their argument requires them to reject or ignore core principles of biology. Therefore, by being creationists, they cannot legitimately be called biologists.
As for people who don't STUDY biology but accept evolution to be true, as I said "educated individuals".
What I'm saying is that by making a special term for biologists who accept evolution the ID people are implying that there is a legitimate scientific debate over the issue which there is not.
The term creationists should use is "biologist". That is what I am saying. There are not two branches of biologists with equal ground and argument over the issue. There are creationists and there are biologists. One side's argument requires the rejection of the findings of modern biology the other is the study of it.
"Evolutionist" implies a special subset of biology that does not exist. They should call them "biologist" and drop the pretense that they have a valid scientific claim.
Look, what do you call someone who understands the laws of thermodynamics to be true? someone who understands gravity to be a real thing? someone who accepts that humans are made of living cells? The people who study science and believe what the scientific data supports get named "scientists" and then something else according to their field. It's only the people in a separate, divergent group who get their own name. You don't have a term for people who aren't skinheads, or who aren't sociopaths or who aren't Firefly fans because they hold the default position.
It's "biologist" and then "creationist" if a creationist also studies biology they could be arguably be called a "creationist biologist" (not by me though) but evolution is such a core part of modern biology that to assign a special term to those who study biology and understand it to be true is disingenuous to the nature of the issue and the nature of the field.
I believe what I am saying is that anyone who claims to be a "biologist" but doesn't understand that evolution is an irrefutable fact isn't really studying biology. the more appropriate analogy would be someone claiming to be a physicist who doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics.
"evolutionists" isn't a thing. They're called "biologists" or, for those who don't study it but know it to be true "educated individuals"