JiiTuomas refered on argument about philosophy of science at Rule7, which started as something else. Got interested what kind of RPG forum Rule7 is and started to read. Some arguments in thread made me write this comment. Especially view expressed by ChessyPig (which few seem to agree) raises multiple problems in terms of what is science:

the English definition of science (which involves things like falsifiable hypothesis and controlled experiments [...]). (ChessyPig)

Although there are multiple ways of interpreting comment, I take that he made strong claims: science requires falsifiable hypothesis AND controlled experiments. (Just linking science alone with Popper’s philosophy by making falsifiable hypothesis a criteria of science is problematic as, e.g, Kuhn [1962] has argued in detail.)

One obvious question that relates to falsifiability and controlled test as criteria of science is: is mathematics a science? How you use controlled test with mathematics? Are mathematical theories falsifiable?

Then how about physics? Would these above-mentioned criteria lead to that physics is not a science? Physics do not use controlled experiments, I think (I take that controlled experiments means tests with control groups like in medicine). Moreover, does formulating hypothesis that are currently not testable make that part of theory formulation unscientific (and it might turn to be science when someone invent a way to tests the hypothesis)? I think not.

The question is not so straight forward as some writes at Rule7 propose. John Dewey (1929) have criticized very premises of science as seeking certainty and something unchanging (e.g., Popper’s philosophy and falsifiable hypothesis).

Dewey (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action.
Kuhn (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press

The central question in Gallagher’s book is how embodiment shapes human cognition. He is combining phenomenology with empirical studies in, e.g., neurology, like what different pathologies, to reveal about how the brain and body work.

Read the rest of this entry »

You can watch presentations, including mine, at Philosophy of Computer Games at tv.unimore.it.

Note for myself for performance review

Building and Reconstructing Character (among others) has been used as course material in SMST319-07B Game Studies course (University of Waikato, New Zealand / Screen & Media Studies).

It might be that spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning is connectected. Lakoff and Johnson argues in their book Philosophy in the flesh that basis of our thinking is in our bodies and what kind of relations our bodies have with environment we are living in. Multiple essays in Spatial schemas and abstract thought traces questions on how spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning are connected.

If there is strong link between spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning does that meant that games that utilize 3D space and require solving spatial problem (e.g., Prince of Persia: Sand of Time) train abstract reasining in general?

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Gattis, M. (ed.) (2001). Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

It seems that UIAH email system is totally dysfunctional and has being so for some time now. Currently I haven’t received any emails outside UIAH after 1800 yesturday (I know that I should have got at least some admin messages). Hopefully they will arrive sometime in the future. Admins and consultants are trying to fix the situation–so far without success.

If you need to contact me reliably, using phone is recommended.