You make a distinction with the ‘false’ assumption once evidence is presented. But once evidence is in play, no assumption exists anymore, so there is no opportunity for an assumption to become a ‘false’ assumption . Assumptions can not survive where evidence exists, else, they would not be assumptions.
That is just my opinion on how to draw the line on this abstract term, but what is important, is that both of us have a method of distinguishing the same thing by different means to the same effect. While you see it differently than I do, as long as your perspective is consistent and not prone to error it is unimportant.
I only take issue with positions that are systematically false.
When you correct someone who holds a position by proving their assumption false, you have won the point. This is actually how debate is supposed to function.
You are free to present evidence and dispute assumptions, but you can’t attack opinions.
Right, but is there such a thing as a false assumption, since proving an assumption as false is needed before it could possibly be a ’false assumption’, but the existence of that proof eliminates the assumption inherently? You see correct assumptions and false assumptions, I see assumptions that can be true or false. But both are completely coherent and reasonable explanations of the same thing.
Because there is a cascading effect of insufficient knowledge, and trying to pull things back from the topography of hearthstone to the root of misunderstanding of general things like the difference in negating the logic of statements, burden of proof, etc takes a lot of time and a lot of patience. The more violent people are as they are pulled out of the cave, the more likely they are to simply disappear since they are too embarrassed by their outburst.
I guarantee if this conversation was face to face it would be a lot easier. There is an inherent lack of trust between anonymous portraits, which makes it difficult to be acknowledged as being sincere.
This statement here madeinusa shows your lack of understanding of the scientific method. It is a common mistake so don t be hard on yourself. But facts are a lower tier in the accumulation of knowledge. Facts on the base level are gathered together and tested to formulate a theory. These theories are never 100 %. They can be changed when new facts are found or a better interpretation for the facts is formulated. Facts can be 100% when they are repeatedly tested and established but never theories. All our knowledge about the world even in the hardest natural sciences is not 100%. That is a difficult pill to swallow but we are subjective beings and have to see the true reality always through artificial tools like the scientific method. Take the theory of evolution. It accumulated all the facts out there and formulates our best view on the development of life but it is just our best theory now and is still refined and not at all complete. But good science makes it possible to work with this theory and dismiss incomplete alternative viewpoints who are not able to bind together the same amount of proven facts. Creation or intelligent design are just not able to give meaning to all the facts out there and are cherry picking random facts to further their own point. But the state of the art is the theory of evolution, still worked on and incomplete itself. So remember: scientific theories are more important and of higher order than plain facts, they are our best non-subjective way to understand and manipulate the world and the hope for 100% in knowledge is not possible and should not be used to devalue a good scientific theory. Just because the intelligent design follower shows you that biology has not all the answers to every question should not make you immediately dismiss evolution and all its answers it can already give you (compared to ID which gives you no answers at all).
All facts are essentially very well supported scientific theories. One could say, for example, that the theory of evolution is fact. Or that it is a fact that gravity exists. Or the germ theory of disease.
You can prove a negative where results are expected or observed and are in a consistent state. You could state that a blue car is not in your driveway, for example. Anyone can easily prove that there is not a blue car in your driveway. We just go take a look.
It’s the same with game codes. The code is either there or it’s not. If it’s not, it will be absent.
Say I create a video game on my computer in a program. I have drawn a simple character and created some walking animations. I go take a break and ask my brother to write some code to make him walk using the arrow keys and save it for me to test when I get back. Later, I come back and he’s gone. I assume he wrote the code, so I do a test publish of the game and try to use the arrow keys to move the character. Nothing happens.
Here there are two possibilities. 1. The coding doesn’t work Or, 2. The coding is not there.
Since the coding is something that exists or doesn’t exist, I just need to open the coding text and take a look. If the box is empty, then the code is absent. Proof that the code is not there. If the code is there, I can scan through and look for errors. If I find errors, there is proof that the code contains errors.
As with the HS game code, all you’d need to do is take a look through and see if there are any codes that would manipulate the players expected outcomes in a way that is not consistent with their implied game model. Although, it wouldn’t be proven that it was done purposely, the claim is that the game is rigged, not that a particular person rigged it. Basically, the coding is causing unintended outcomes that are inconsistent with fair play. The coding itself could be at fault. So you all can drop the argument about defending Blizzard or placing blame anywhere but the coding itself. The argument is just to show that the coding is rigged, not that anyone in particular did it.
Just so some people feel better, to deny or dismiss a claim that the game is rigged does not require evidence. But, to state that it is not rigged is a claim of certainty in itself that does require evidence. You are saying the game IS not rigged.
And then you would also have to assume that they gave you everything, that it matches what is live on servers, that it doesn’t interact differently when matched against the code contained on other machines… etc.
You have to make a pile of assumptions to accept it because none of them can be proven.
Yes Bran. And that’s why I always say constant vigilance on this topic is required. Because it could be that tomorrow they introduce this manipulation. Maybe they’re are going to implement something nefarious but it just hasn’t been finished yet.
And like I’ve explained to Someone else, why would you trust blizzard to give you the right source code when it’s their honesty you are calling into question? Their word is the subject of contention.
The funny thing is, I never claimed to have evidence. I also stated multiple times how this type of rigging is impossible to prove and that’s why Blizzard would do it.
This is a thread about discussing how the game is rigged and how to beat it. But, it’s actually attracted more posters who don’t think the game is rigged.
The reason this post is so long is because obsessive people come in here and demand evidence when they already know there can’t be any, because they can’t stand that someone else thinks something that they disagree with. That’s why this thread has become so large. Then it went off into tangents about fact vs opinion because some posters wanted to invalidate others opinions when they, themselves have no proof on their end. When the people claiming the game is rigged have felt like they’ve experienced results similar to that of a rigged system in the game and are just expressing their opinion which can’t be proven or disproven. Now this post is at almost 1400 due to the flock of obsessive controlling posters who can’t stand to let anyone disagree with them. Like MadeInUSA keeps saying, there will always be a difference of opinion because there is no proof on either side. But you all won’t leave it alone.
It is my opinion that Activision / Blizzard does format the game in such a way to increase profitability over fairness of gameplay and prioritizes monetization over innovative advancements for the sake of a more enjoyable gaming experience.
People demand evidence because people like the OP, who have no evidence the game is rigged, insult everyone who is not willing to believe the game is rigged without evidence.
That is why things like evidence come up in the conversation.
Then you have people who make claims like the logical properties of statements using ‘is’ and ‘could’ are equivalent, which are demonstrably false. Or that the scientific method is not reliable.
What is it about hearthstone that makes you believe this over other video games? Or do you think all video games are manipulated like this? You seem to be anchoring this opinion on intent, but nothing about that intent is exclusive to blizzard.
And to play off of that in the direction the conversation went, many of us have shown that one must affirmatively prove rigged game play before we can begin a discussion of how to beat it. Until there is proof of rigging, the assumption is that the game is not rigged.
I don’t agree that it is impossible to prove. I believe you can show that draw, matching, etc., deviate from random or expected parameters if you have the proper data. HS replay has this data. It would not be difficult for them to test many of the questions we have about the game.
As someone suggested either here or in another thread, you could make an argument that HSReplay likely already has examined their data for evidence of rigged or biased rng and that if they had found it they would have broken the news by now. Idk, but the data is there.
Also, knowing someone like HS replay was recording millions of games is exactly why Blizzard wouldn’t cheat.
What exactly do you think this looks like and what evidence would prove it to me or any of the other skeptics/scientists in this thread?
I am just a bit unclear on this sentence because I can read it three different ways depending on how the final clause is assigned.
Which or what is “for the sake of a more enjoyable gaming experience” in the sentence?
Is that part of (innovative advancements for the sake of a more enjoyable gaming experience) or (prioritizes monetization… for the sake of a more enjoyable experience) or (increase profitability…and…prioritizes monetization…more enjoyable game experience) is your intent?
Sorry, That sentence can be read to mean very different things and some of them can’t be construed as “rigging” the game.
Edit:
Honestly, I said yesterday I would not be shocked to find out it is rigged in several ways. I have had times I question the rng, too.
However, the difference is I won’t accept that the game is rigged until someone has data that proves the point. Everything we have seen so far is anecdote or too small a sample to determine if it’s just an outlier of bad/good rng.
dont know about the rest of you, but i have thoroughly enjoyed this debate, i am probably much older than all of you (maybe one or two are close to my age or older) and my education is probably lacking compared to many of you, thus some of my arguments are assumptions that are erroneous and mainly came from wisdom i have gained over the years, not education. but at the same time i have learned a lot through debate and research from this string. i feel i am much wiser for it and thank those that argued against my assumptions and proved me wrong to myself, for at my age it seems that is the best way to learn and increase ones knowledge and understanding of life in general.
ok selwynn, i am going to give you a big head or ego boost here.
remind me never to argue against you unless i am convinced i can prove you are incorrect in your thinking, i have come to realize your thought process and knowledge is so far above mine there is no way i can compete with you in a debate. i feel i have to automatically take what you are saying as a correct hypothesis, assumption or opinion and must ask questions to make sure i totally understand what you are saying before i formulate an argument against it, if i feel you are incorrect. you once told me “much respect,” well i feel the same about you.
i recognize a high intellect when i see one.
heck now i feel like referring to you as master… lol
So this is the big point for me. I wouldn’t go to the mat on something unless I had certainty that my position was the correct one.
Never do this with anyone
always always always do this. So much is misunderstanding and arguing about the wrong things in this world.
please don’t, lol
Thank you. I really appreciate conceeding points when you are wrong. It’s integral to furthering the knowledge and health of our species and planet, lol.
. Assumptions can not survive where evidence exists, else, they would not be assumptions.