Science: The Gathering (?)

[aldimond]

By virtue of my large (but not too-large) text size I declare myself Authority.

The five sciences shall be:

1. OBEDIENCE
2. DISCIPLINE
3. XENOPHOBIA
4. OTTERS AND DUCKS
5. OBEDIENCE II


By virtue of my as large red text I say nay to your scheme good sir.

[bbctol]

I'm going with:
Black-Physics
Blue-Chemistry
Green-Biology
Red-Engineering+CS+Math
Yellow-Social Sciences in general (anything from linguistics to psychology)

[ArchangelShrike]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[The LuigiManiac]

Agree with bbctol, seeing as he specified colours.

[Thunderbird4!]

I couldn't think of anything too witty for the italic part

[bbctol]

Elementals:
Physics-Einstein
Chemistry-hard... I'll go with Linus Pauling.
Biology-ooh really hard... Darwin
Engineering etc.-So damn hard! Wilbur or Orville Wright, or maybe Tim Berners-Lee, or maybe even Dean Kamen...
Social Sciences-Freud, maybe?

Yeah, these will be hard.

[ArchangelShrike]

What about those of the past that did it all, Newton being one of the most recognizable? Should they get lumped in to certain categories or not?

[bbctol]

Yeah... I'm trying to figure out if I should go recent or ancient. Because Aristotle works great for Social Sciences too...
Okay, how about Elementals invented or discovered that branch of science, and these guys'll be Masters of Elements. So now:
Physics-Newton
Chemistry-Paracelsus or Boyle
Biology-Linnaeus? Or maybe Hippocrates?
Engineering etc.-Babbage
Social Sciences-Aristotle

Like this better? I do.

[ArchangelShrike]

I would think we'll need to bounce this around more, but I so no reason why not for now.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

Engineering etc.-So damn hard! Wilbur or Orville Wright, or maybe Tim Berners-Lee, or maybe even Dean Kamen...

Either Buckminster Fuller, Leonardo DaVinci, or Scotty.

[bbctol]

Oh shit! Forgot Leonardo! And how he's the most brilliant man who ever lived! Yeah, Babbage is outta there, though he's still probably a card.

[Belial]

I don't like aristotle on the social science side...I'd keep it at freud.

And Darwin for biology. The elementals shouldn't just be the most important but also the most known, as they're the embodiment of their "element"

[Solt]

Look, you can't have engineering be a subset of Science: The Gathering. It's not a pure science!

What we need is 5 fields that have NO major overlapping, that are fundamental sciences.


-Physics
-Chemistry
-Biology
-Archeology (studying human civilizations of the past- I think this clearly qualifies as a fundamental and pure science that does not overlap with the others. there is quite a bit of research involved in figuring out what things used to be like)
-Anthropology (studying human culture, probably close enough to include social sciences)

I think together these sciences make up the bulk of human knowledge about our world and ourselves. To leave out history or the study of human culture would be criminal, and to include CS & Engineering would be redundant.

[bbctol]

Anthropology and probably even Archaeology are Social Sciences. And they're certainly one group, at least.

[Belial]

What we need is 5 fields that have NO major overlapping, that are fundamental sciences.

Archaeology and Anthropology overlap. Also, I tend to prefer sciences in which actual experiments can be performed (thus why I keep emphasizing psychology in the social science area), otherwise it's just excavation.

[ArchangelShrike]

I disagree on archeology and anthropology. First, because wikipedia says archeology is a subset of anthropology, but also because they are no more hard science than the techniques given to them from the other sciences. Radiocarbon dating? Stratigraphy? I'm viewing that the game should be more focused on sciences/disciplines that more directly deal with advancing human knowledge of the unknown, rather than sciences that can tell us what a detailed record can tell us.

I'm not against it being in the social sciences, but I don't think it should take two spots.

[Edit: Damn, late to the party...]

[SpitValve]

Why does it need to have 5 colours? Why does it need to have colours at all? It doesn't have to be exactly homomorphic to Magic.

Anyway for Aristotle etc: remember you can have multicolour cards. Wouldn't that be particularly appropriate for a Legendary Scientist?

Also, I like the word "homomorphic".

[bbctol]

Why does it need to have 5 colours? Why does it need to have colours at all? It doesn't have to be exactly homomorphic to Magic.

Anyway for Aristotle etc: remember you can have multicolour cards. Wouldn't that be particularly appropriate for a Legendary Scientist?

Also, I like the word "homomorphic".

Brilliant. Multicolord cards can be Renaissance men. Who don't have to be men, or in the Renaissance. Da Vinci and Aristotle both fit quite well here.

[Belial]

Anyway for Aristotle etc: remember you can have multicolour cards. Wouldn't that be particularly appropriate for a Legendary Scientist?

If he can really be called a scientist, so much as a "speculator"

[electoralfraud]

I can kindof see that, now that you put it that way, but won't that section just leech cards from the other sections? Like, without engineering present, I would put "Hydrogen Bomb" under physics, but with Engineering present, it kindof defaults to that, since it's technology rather than theory and phenomena.

So physics decks cannot play nuclear bombs unless there is at least one engineering card in play? This doesn't seem to cause problems for me as in MTG tourneys a green deck may contain cards that are anti-black and vice-versa which are redundant unless playing against an opposing deck. Such is the way. [Edit: This is a sideboard yeah? Ihaven't play since 7th Ed. But I think a sideboard is still in there yeah?] Sometimes a tourney deck go many many rounds because they are playing against a neutralising deck or one that does not contain a major opposing/allied colour.

As for motherfucking Anthropology thats worse than history by many many miles. Anthropology is the poor man's philosophy in bad ways: "Oh I cba to study math or logic properly, and I haven't the talent to take Literature or something else (maybe psych. I use as an example, 'tis hard and maths...replace with whatever) I'll take anthropology"

You can play relativity or nuclear physics without any engineering cards in play but you cannot play nukes without engineering or nukes without physics. This not only makes the game more in depth strategically and tactically but seems like a realistic potrayal of science.

[electoralfraud]

Socrates/Aristotle would come under the math/phil - artifacts...

At this point I just see it as making playable systems and cards. And to blow my own trumpet I think my designation makes the best of the worst. At least everyone can be represented and everyone has good cards. The play mechanics seem to work and provide a satisfactory depth for both tact. and strat. players. Thus allowing faster tourney decks and slower 2+n games. (round table, whatever, xxx)

[electoralfraud]

If it wasn't evident already: I shall fight tooth and claw on every front to prevent anthropology being anything other than a social science. And to credit social sciences with Socrates/Aristotle, I think this is one of the greatest insults Socrates/Aristotle and I have ever recieved. You must have listened to too many lies to children eh?


I declare myself authority! I may not have large red letters, but I shall not see the greats reduced to social sciences!

Otherwise, you'know it ain't such bad beats, but that is where I definately draw the line. Anthropologists... Cultural cleansing candidates if ever I saw them.

[Belial]

In the future, try to confine all your points to one post at a time, eh?

[ArchangelShrike]

There... are... Canadian raptors?! *Head Explodes*

That said, before we get into a contest about which scientist/legend of antiquity is better than which, some guide lines are needed.

1. Those at the top should be well known, or their works well known. Ex: Newton/Gravity.

2. You can't nominate yourself, if you have published papers (unless it's purely a joke)

3. No verifiable proof means scientist kicked out.

4. Lower scientists can be lower creatures, I think we can agree on.

That said, Madame Curie should be somewhere in Physics/Chemistry, or even multi-colored. Two Nobel Awards? Just crazy.

Should awards/titles granted be artifacts? Or something else?

[SpitValve]

I think only Legendary Scientists should be named.

More common creatures should be broader things like "Computational Astrophysicist" or "Boring Lecturer" or "Physics Tutor" or "Goblin Librarian".

[ArchangelShrike]

Fair enough, except we can use "Grad Student" for all of those titles, and more.

[fjafjan]

Philosophy is a subset of the other sciences, and usually it's not SCIENCE.
It may have BEEN science, but so was fucking religion, and Philosophy as a scientific method is not really good.
Most real applicable philosophy is math. and Math I think is very much science, it's basically the most abstract, while social sciences and Biology are the most direct.

Basically ALL fields of science overlap somewhat, But I still think we should have the most important fields
Physics is a givven, and so Is chemistry, and biology.
Physics at a more abstract level is maths, I think maths fits in there too.
These are all in a kind of unity, they sort of cover everything which is NOT humans, animals, space, and so forth.
That leaves the studie of humans and society, Social sciences.

For the "math haters" there ARE proffesors in math, not to mention the fact that all scientists need to study it, there are no laborations in math, as there are very few calculations in Biology (atleast compared to physics or the like) but I don't think is what makes it science, it's essentially a part of the real world, which humanity is discovering through a scientific method.

Economics aswell as anthropologists again are another bounch of social sciences folks.
The problem might be that the social sciences are in general much larger, but I think it makes up for this by not having quite so many recognized "people", physics I think has the most.

If the lack of famous mathematicians is weak enough you COULD change it into philosophy, as to encompass the ancient greeks and other famous philosophers, the problem might be that alot of philosophers are seen as early physisists etc. Another problem is the fact that they are, or atleast the ancient greeks weren't, subscribing to the scientific method, they largely just guessed and then talked about their guesses.
Well some did. But essentially that's it.

And why can't the elements be things which are greatly important for the respective fields
Physisits can have either stellar formations or the like (galaxies, stars) or subatomic particles
Chemists can have atoms, or molecules
Biologists can have families, or such
Social sciences .. hmm not sure about that
Math/Philosophy ... hmm, not sure about that one either, but to be fair I am darn tired

Oh yes

[quote= "The Fjaf"]
Tl;dr I suggest you look right after the word social and you might get a clue

Wait, so Cryptozoology is a science?![/quote]
John Hodgman would say so.
But I am not sure where in Cryptozoology the word science appears?
Unless you say "cryptozoological sciences" but I dunno.
The yeti is real!

[ArchangelShrike]

Math: Euler, Leibniz, Brook Taylor (of Taylor Series/Theorem) to please my teacher.

If we have no Economics/Social Sciences, where can we put Mr. Nash?

[fjafjan]

another couple cards

Physics:
Einstein
Heisenberg
Bohr

Maths
Turing

Instan/Sorcery (needs a new term doesn't it?): Nobel prize - add 3 +1/+1 nobel tokens to target creature, remove one nobel tokens at the start of your turn.
(phrasing?)

[ArchangelShrike]

Instrument: Beaker
Tap for two mana/(research points?) to *Chemistry* mana pool, then discard.

[Spaz Funbag]

about the nobel prize: I would say Legendary Elementals should have a nobel prize, at least the newer ones.


Why not circumvent the "science sections" idea at all? Just say you have your mana sections, and then all kinds of cards. They do not belong to a section, rather their mana cost "tags" them to a certain group, like Marie curie would have a nuclear tag. Or physics tag and chemistry tag.

Da Vinci gets engineering tag, mechanics tag, maybe chemistry tag. maybe art tag.

Now artifacts can say "destroy a mechanic", here applicable to da vinci. Or it says "boost a chemist", being applicable to both.

What I mean, is see the "colours" a bit looser, have more and do not fix creatures to one single category. That might make it easier to scale the relatively interwoven sciences into that game.

[simen]

I approve of the math/philosophy idea. Both fields are abstract, and a lot of mathematicians a have dabbled in philosophy, or vice versa.

Aristotle: Legendary physicist/philosopher. Tap and recite ancient laws of motion: Target creature loses trample.

[Nyarlathotep]

I couldn't think of anything too witty for the italic part

I hope I can remember this till next spring when I get back to my home campus (going to be in Japan in the fall), as in the Physics dept there is in fact a room called the Schrodenger room. It has an entertaining sign warning of dangerous laser radiation inside, but of course there both is and is not dangerous laser radiation inside at the same time.

I should like to tape this thing just underneath the sign. For win.

[Solt]

I say fjafjan is the final word on decisions since this is his topic.


The Nobel Prize should be a doomsday card. Something like, destroy all enemy scientists and add 5 papers to your own score.

[ArchangelShrike]

Bumping because it needs to be bumped.

What should CERN be, or other such places? I realize that most of them are physics related (Fermilab, Bell Labs) but we could throw in schools as well (MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Cambridge, the such...)

[SpitValve]

\What should CERN be, or other such places? I realize that most of them are physics related (Fermilab, Bell Labs) but we could throw in schools as well (MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Cambridge, the such...)

Legendary Lands, I say.

Just Lands for the less prestiguous uni's.

[ArchangelShrike]

Sorcery becomes famous Experiments?

[Spaz Funbag]

Michelson Experiment.

toss a coin. If it is "heads", you have discovered the aether. Scrap the game and destroy all cards dealing with relativity and QM.

Design an alternate universe.

[ArchangelShrike]

Should all Nobel Prize experiments be included? Or just the biggest ones? And others, like the measurement of time to revolve around the sun, circumference of the Earth, such ancient experiments?

On the topic of Philosophy, are we including noteworthy texts as well as artifacts or spells?

[electoralfraud]

So I was pretty obnoxious a few posts back. Sorry, I was back from the pub tanked up and ready to take exception to anything. However ignoring the drunken bolshyness I think I may have made a few reasonable points there.

fjafjan, I was proposing math and philosophy as one set (artifacts equivalent) together. I agree that philosophy is not a science, I wasn't asserting that, I was asserting that it has had major impacts on the development of science, and as such should surely be included with mathematics as a set.

What about all the work in epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science? You surely can't say that this has not had active bearing on the development of scientific and mathmatical method? Positivism? Empiricism? a priori/a posteriori? Reliablism? Justification? Socratic method? Logic? Occam's razor? Scepticism? Induction/Deduction? Scientific realism? Reductionism? Falsifiability? All of these have or have had impacts on the scientific community. All are philosophical concepts.

Maybe you were thinking about ethics in science? This is indeed a subset of whichever discipline it may be where ethical questions are being raised.

Whilst some of the earlier philosophers were often what we would now consider physicists and philosophers both; to say that those who were talking about metaphysics were physicists confuses both disciplines. This is not to say that at these earlier historical periods the disciplines were not overlapping.

I am not however confusing people such as Hooke, Newton, etc.. as philosophers, although both did write some philosophy. I realise that when these people called themselves philosophers the meaning is different to that which I am subscribing to.

The early greek philosophers may not have been using scientific method, however many of their techniques and lemmas derived from thereafter have been used as the basis for modern scientific method: Elenchus for example is basically the technique of building an inital theory/statement and then attempting to oppose it to test it for truth values, dependent upon which the theory/statement can be modified and refined, or reformulated entirely. These can then be tested again for truth values until a theory/statement that stands up to the current possible level of questioning is devised.

This sounds mighty like a basic version of:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

Many philosophers have also had a major impact in social science fields, for example political science. Plato, Aristotle, J.S.Mills, Nozick, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, Strauss, et al.

Well, I'm pretty tired. Even if I'm overruled at least the topic got a bump, it was almost dropping off the page and it's a damn cool idea and thread.