CSE wrote: Is it bad Netiquette to quote oneself from said thread ?

CSE wrote:...In short, and in my not so humble opinion: Josh is factually wrong to try to make this project alone. [...]

I don't know if it's bad netiquette to quote yourself, but it's a contradiction in terms to assert your opinion as factual.

Grumblesaur wrote:

CSE wrote: Is it bad Netiquette to quote oneself from said thread ?

CSE wrote:...In short, and in my not so humble opinion: Josh is factually wrong to try to make this project alone. [...]

I don't know if it's bad netiquette to quote yourself, but it's a contradiction in terms to assert your opinion as factual.

Which is why it is definetly not humble

It is my opinion that my opinion is a fact: it really is my opinion.

The fact that it is a fact that one has an opinion does not make one's opinion a fact.

Also, I just hurt my brain. Ow.

Grumblesaur wrote:

CSE wrote: Is it bad Netiquette to quote oneself from said thread ?

CSE wrote:...In short, and in my not so humble opinion: Josh is factually wrong to try to make this project alone. [...]

I don't know if it's bad netiquette to quote yourself, but it's a contradiction in terms to assert your opinion as factual.

OT this raises an interesting question: is it really a contradiction in terms? I argue no: if an opinion can also be a fact, then it is not a contradiction in terms because an opinion can be fact. Or does an opinion cease to be an opinion when it becomes a fact? Can I opine that some clouds are white? Or can I only opine that no clouds are white?

I think an opinion ceases to be an opinion when it becomes testable.
Thus, "clouds are white" is not an opinion unless the definition of "cloud" or "white" is itself an opinion.

0111narwhalz wrote:I think an opinion ceases to be an opinion when it becomes testable.

I disagree. "In my opinion, Limit Theory will never come out" is certainly testable: Josh is testing that right now. Or is this not an opinion?

"In my opinion, you will like the food I am preparing for you tonight" is also certainly testable.

Scytale! Good to see you! I'd argue that one can have the opinion that one's statement is, in fact, fact, without the statement being factual. Epistemology really throws a wrench in things when it comes to what even is a fact in the first place, so it's probably just safer to say one can opine about whatever they want, up to and including statements that happen to have the property of everyone agreeing in their opinion of that statement being fact.

Graf wrote:Scytale! Good to see you! I'd argue that one can have the opinion that one's statement is, in fact, fact, without the statement being factual. Epistemology really throws a wrench in things when it comes to what even is a fact in the first place, so it's probably just safer to say one can opine about whatever they want, up to and including statements that happen to have the property of everyone agreeing in their opinion of that statement being fact.

Good to see you too Graf!

Great reply, and agreed on the epistemology issue, but perhaps we don't need to invoke it to have a meaningful discussion. Most people accept axioms of logic like "A implies A and not (not A)", so stating a tautology like "milk is milk" may perhaps be considered a (vacuous) fact. Do you think logical tautologies can be opinions?

JoshParnell wrote:To clear it all up:

1. LT finances are such that I am capable of continuing development for a long time to come. As long as I continue to keep living expenses low, there is nothing in danger here. That being said, having no money coming in and having to live on minimal expenses is not ideal. As I've mentioned many times before, I have a whole lot of incentive to finish LT.
2. I pay the Tech Park, not vice-versa. However, it is a very modest fee for the office space I receive, so I imagine they are partially funded by grant/gov't money (but I don't know).

And a gratuitous 3, since it relates to certain conversations in other threads...:

3. I could absolutely not afford to hire another developer(s) for any substantial amount of time. I work for LT for the cost of my living, meaning essentially free labor (with, you know, the promise of future riches ). Developers, on the other hand, are not cheap.

Thanks for shedding some light on this Josh. I was really excited about this game when I first saw it (why I backed it), I'm really looking forward to the finished product. One man development is tough, but if Stardew Valley has taught us anything, it's that one man can do quite a bit. I'll keep my fingers crossed all this work pays off in the end.

JoshParnell wrote: 3. I could absolutely not afford to hire another developer(s) for any substantial amount of time. I work for LT for the cost of my living, meaning essentially free labor (with, you know, the promise of future riches ). Developers, on the other hand, are not cheap.

Is it possible you would open up the Kickstarter again? Not sure that's even possible.

I missed out on getting in on it, but would likely now if I could. Basically open the possibility of people purchasing Kickstarter packs again, not necessarily through Kickstarter.

Hey, Mobscene! Welcome to the forum!

That is unfortunately not an option. From the Game FAQ:

Scytale wrote: Good to see you too Graf!

Great reply, and agreed on the epistemology issue, but perhaps we don't need to invoke it to have a meaningful discussion. Most people accept axioms of logic like "A implies A and not (not A)", so stating a tautology like "milk is milk" may perhaps be considered a (vacuous) fact. Do you think logical tautologies can be opinions?

You know, that's a pretty good question. I'd wager not, but I'm sure an argument could be made that they are opinions. "Milk", for example, is only defined as what it is because of common an 'opinion' as to what it means for something to be "milk". I don't know if you can have a tautology such as "milk is milk" stand up to serious scrutiny and be considered 'fact' when the definitions of the very elements of the statement, which are nebulously defined in the first place, are based on culture and history rather than logical truth. On the other hand, that perspective and argument isn't useful for much other than being pedantic in a discussion about this very topic, so mileage may vary.

Fixed a missing bracket in your BBCode -- Grumblesaur

Thanks!

Graf wrote:

Scytale wrote: Good to see you too Graf!

Great reply, and agreed on the epistemology issue, but perhaps we don't need to invoke it to have a meaningful discussion. Most people accept axioms of logic like "A implies A and not (not A)", so stating a tautology like "milk is milk" may perhaps be considered a (vacuous) fact. Do you think logical tautologies can be opinions?

You know, that's a pretty good question. I'd wager not, but I'm sure an argument could be made that they are opinions. "Milk", for example, is only defined as what it is because of common an 'opinion' as to what it means for something to be "milk". I don't know if you can have a tautology such as "milk is milk" stand up to serious scrutiny and be considered 'fact' when the definitions of the very elements of the statement, which are nebulously defined in the first place, are based on culture and history rather than logical truth. On the other hand, that perspective and argument isn't useful for much other than being pedantic in a discussion about this very topic, so mileage may vary.

Fixed a missing bracket in your BBCode -- Grumblesaur

Good point, but I think saying "milk is milk" doesn't depend on the definition of milk - it could have any definition, but "milk is milk" would still be true. More generally, "an object/concept implies itself" is true regardless of the definition. Other examples might include (lifted from wikipedia) "if p then q; p, therefore q" and "there are no married bachelors", although the latter could fall into the trap of culture and history you mention. This is meaningless in any useful sense except for our purpose, right? That there are basic facts that we can point to and say "this is a fact".

That way we can remove cultural and historical biases from these "candidate facts". If we have arrived at a candidate fact then we can decide if that fact can also be an opinion.

i.e. it's easy to look at an opinion and say "is this a fact?" but let's try to do the opposite: look at a fact and say "can this be an opinion?"

edit: I'm no philosophy major, and from reading wikipedia I may be conflating "fact" with "logical truth"

Scytale wrote:conflating

Oh dang, a word I've never heard before! Thanks, Scytale! I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.

--IronDuke

Scytale wrote:
Good point, but I think saying "milk is milk" doesn't depend on the definition of milk - it could have any definition, but "milk is milk" would still be true. More generally, "an object/concept implies itself" is true regardless of the definition. Other examples might include (lifted from wikipedia) "if p then q; p, therefore q" and "there are no married bachelors", although the latter could fall into the trap of culture and history you mention. This is meaningless in any useful sense except for our purpose, right? That there are basic facts that we can point to and say "this is a fact".

That way we can remove cultural and historical biases from these "candidate facts". If we have arrived at a candidate fact then we can decide if that fact can also be an opinion.

i.e. it's easy to look at an opinion and say "is this a fact?" but let's try to do the opposite: look at a fact and say "can this be an opinion?"

edit: I'm no philosophy major, and from reading wikipedia I may be conflating "fact" with "logical truth"

How fortuitous! I'm currently taking a class on Discrete Math and this is a perfect opportunity to break out the P's and Q's!

Maybe we could try doing a proof by contradiction to prove that a fact can not also be an opinion, but I fear that this whole conversation is dangerously close to being a proxy for a semantics debate. I'm not sure how to start trying to do a proof for this in the first place, but I'll try it out when I finish with my econ homework.

As for a fact that *COULD* also be an opinion, what about facts that are proven to be false? For example, "There are 9 planets in the solar system." That fact used to be true, but now it is false. Is it still a fact or has it turned into an opinion? If it is no longer a fact and has become an opinion, it would imply that whether or not a statement is a fact or opinion depends on time- which from certain perspectives could be used to argue that the statement is always both fact and opinion, and only becomes either a fact or opinion when people talk about it.

IronDuke wrote:

Scytale wrote:conflating

Oh dang, a word I've never heard before! Thanks, Scytale! I'm always looking to expand my vocabulary.

Nice! New words are the best. 'Conflating' is a good word- but an even better new word.