you can just point me where i was inaccurate dude, but do understand. You’re not arguing with me. Humanity has thousands of years of history on philosophy, and you’re specifically about 800 years late, on the Empiricism vs Rationalism debate.
What i’m telling it’s not up for debate. I’m telling you, for a fact, we don’t use, in general, anecdotes to understand reality. If in any way possiblw, we preclude personal opinion from data analysis because to do so is to put human error on your data set. It’s not something you can disagree with. It’s a fact. Humans are Biased.
So if your hypothesis is that you’re unfairly matched, you track the data and prove it. Which no one in 8 years of these forums has done. Nada. None. 0. Because they can’t.
That i don’t know. My grammatic most likely isn’t up to par, i’m a self-taught speaker.
You’re corect. Just because i said so, doesn’t mean i’m right. You can however, keep yourself up to date on how research about anything is done and WHY it is done that way. Go read about it. Break a leg.
That’s ephemeral. Blizzard’s CEO could literally be Dr. Evil from Austin Powers and i wouldn’t budge into this issue a bit. IF Blizzard is messing with the game, it NECESSARILLY needs to show up on data. if it doesn’t show up on data, it doens’t exist untill further proof.
This is, in a a nutshell, why I have a problem with the defenders here.
All Team 5 has ever offered to the faces of those who doubt is:
“because We say so”.
This from a company that clearly misled players on the rewards track, and who was then forced to backtrack simply isn’t good enough.
The evidence may be mostly anecdotal and incomplete, but there is a gargantuan amount of it.
This is the same point people would make if you tell them Gnomes and Dragons actually exist dude.
First you gotta prove theres something there. Which didn’t happen yet. That’s the maddening part. I don’t even care if whatever you think you saw is or not a Gnome, but if the thing leaves no tracks, doesn’t poop, doesn’t smell, and is invisible, the rational, THE ONLY way to approach the situation is with skepticism.
“Oh,but a ton of people say they saw them gnomes”. I don’t care. A ton of people are frequently wrong on a ton of things. First they need to bring any proof there’s something, anything there. And still, nothing.
You’re mostly right. But I disagree that no one cares.
I myself am just waiting to see what their Wild “improvements”
bring.
If it sux as hard as I suspect that it will, then I’m gone.
Getting back on message: If Team 5 wanted to, they could assuage players doubts pretty easily.
The fact that they don’t bother says one of two things to me.
They don’t give a toss about the player base. (likely)
They have something to hide. (possible).
Either way, I don’t think they are qualified to sell Amway, much less design cards.
I don’t know how to tell you this dude, but this is like, literal middle schooler things. When i learned about empiricism my teeth were still falling out, and i’m not even exagerating.
I will reiterate. I’m really not joking. I didn’t even had start growing a beard by the time my teachers started tackling this. Hell, i’m pretty sure people talked about failures of the senses on children tv shows. We don’t have Bill Nye over here, but we have equivalents. Ever heard about the myth of the cave? It’s also about this.
I’m gonna be as specific as i can be here. Do understand i normally communicate with the spectation these things in education are common knowledge, so maybe it’s jarring for you.
No. In general, no one goes around doubting people over trivial things. I will say that just to make sure you or some other reader understand i’m not skeptic about existence in general. But i will use your apple example here.
Also no , but i get your point. You tell me: Elephants are real, and i will say sure. they are proven.
You don’t need to. I wouldn’t doubt someone ate apples in his life. But to entertain your point:
In general, you can’t. Your point is hardly a falsifiable one. Case in point, if someone would have taught you some other fruit is what we call apple and nobody ever corrected you, you may well come into your late life believeing you ate a ton of apples when you actually ate persimons or some such.
As (i assume) an actual human being, this is a hard as balls error to make. So i wouldn’t doubt you on that on the first place.
I had a lengthy write up on empricism and the evil genius thought experiment but i will spare you that. It’s phylosophy, you can look it up yourself. Pretty interesting stuff.
But what you need to understand is that we are not talking about apples. Apples, as an example, fail to properly illustrate the situation here because apples are easily “proven” or perceived.
Data, however, isn’t. You can educate yourself on biases, but suffice to say, humans perceive things wrong a lot of the time. A LOT. These have names and categories. There are several types of biases. What this means is that, given the exact same situation, two people will perceive them in different ways, and they do so frequently. So experience isn’t a reliable information source. People in general aren’t.
Because if you were intelligent enough to understand you and everyone else can fall victim to your personal biases, you would have looked and collected the data yourself in the first place. If you understood enough, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!
PEOPLE THAT UNDERSTAND WHAT A BIAS IS DON’T GO AROUND CLAIMING THINGS WITHOUT DATA, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE LIKELY WRONG!
Game gave me an unfavorable matchup once. It’s rigged. it’s obvious. An unrigged game will never give me an unfavorable matchup. It would only give me favorable matchups. It’s obvious game is rigged. Evidence I don’t need evidence you need evidence that it’s not rigged. It’s rigged. It’s obvious. It’s obviously rigged its obvious.
There is no discussion with that logic you get better responses talking to the wall.
We don’t have access to the tools that can prove anything.
Even deck trackers are subjective because they will only show you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads every time, which we know doesn’t discount the odds, it’s just weird.
What’s so funny? It’s not that bad for your brain, they say.
Wait, are you telling me those forums are much good for something else?
These forums have happened… Being an unmoderated dump that they are, sadly, as noted many times.
By the way, it’s the typical ‘British Scientists’ kind of thing: ‘You cannot — ever! —trust your eyes, since there are some illusions, you cannot trust your brain, for humans are imperfect, you cannot trust your memories, since they can get distorted, you cannot even trust facts, since they can be alternative —however, you can, no, even should… musttrust us, for we will present you with actual facts: look, we have got some data on navel fluff (lint) composition (or anything else as worthy of the Ig Nobel Prize) — this is evidence enough that you are to… [turn off your critical thinking, follow us like sheep and do as you’re told]’
Spoiler, especially for the ‘TLDR’ types: it’s all a load of ‘technobabble’… or hogwash, to put it colloquially , brought to general public mostly by lousy journalists in particular.
IDK in which context you’re saying this. In reality? In technical sense? You’re right, Humanity can’t prove anything for absolute real. That’s the point of cogito ergo sum.
In a “hearthstone is rigged sense:?” We can get as close as we can with anything with teh magic of “Statistics”. Statistics can tell us if you’re unfairly matched.
I got to tell you dude, this phrase made no sense. Either you dont know what subjective is, or any meaning you had got lost from brain to paper.
What i can say to you is taht the deck tracker per se has no biases, it’s just a table of data. So if you had tracked the games (and the deck tracker show deck version) we could tell if you were solely matched against weapon classes or not or whatever example you had. It’s far from subjective, and has nthing to do with a coin flip.
We don’t need to know every fact of reality to know parts of it. Analysis works dude. If we have, say, your matchup spread and we notice your Board Focused, Midrange whatever is facing, say, 80% of the time against the ahrdest of controls ina expansion and rank such decks aren’t common, we could know almost for a fact (because, y’know, sample size is a thing) that something is wrong.
We don’t need to know exactly how Blizzard would rig things. But if they aare rigging, it would show up on data, but there’s no data, because no one that claims rigging is smart enough to collect some, because y’all are falling prey to biases left and right!
That’s the problem! YOU PEOPLE DIDN’T EVEN COLLECT PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING! It 's literally the first, easiest step! And still, nada!
So show us, lmao. Show us you’re getting heads 70% of the time!
If you were smart enough to understand what is technobabble, you would know this has nothing to do with British scientists, lamo. Science is like this everywhere, but like, follow your own advice. Don’t seek doctors when you get sick, these are all scientists too.
