thread: 2005-12-03 : Closing GNS and RPG Theory is Good
On 2005-12-07, John Laviolette wrote:
nope, I'm going to have to agree with Vincent and not Raven. sorry.
here's why: unlike a scientific discipline, there is no introductory text to the theory *as it now stands*, nor is there an introduction to the *entire* theory. what we have are a few articles on different aspects of the GNS portion of the theory as they were understood at specific moments in time, without any revisions, and pointers to old discussions, again frozen in time, complete with wrong-headed assumptions by "newbies" at that time trying to join the discussion. on top of this, there are several aspects of the theory that aren't even linked; they were merely mentioned in passing, sometimes in a thread not otherwise about theory. sometimes, not even described on the Forge itself, but on some other forum.
what scientific discipline requires you to read the entire history of a theory, including all the mistakes? and with not even a final summary that says "here is what we finally concluded from all that arguing"?
and how can it *not* be a sin for theorists in such circumstances to speak with condescension and arrogance to those trying to learn?
it's like saying "RTFM" when there is no "FM". just a lot of notes on discussions about what might be included in the "FM". and most of it is obsolete.
This makes RC go "History, Politics, Art Appreciation..."
There are lots and lots of disciplines that have no "final conclusions." Just ask the Marxists.
This makes NDP go "Its not the same..."
...though. In history & politics, you can read the accepted texts on a subject, and leave the debate that led up to/want to change those texts to the academic journals. But there are texts that are accepted as the best on a particular subject, etc.
This makes RC go "Let's agree to disagree."
If you feel it is not self-evident that there is widespread disagreement on the best political texts, we've very little common ground.
