[Rq-rules] Farewell to CON

[Sven Lugar]

Your arguments are the same as those who beat me for supporting Plate 
Tectonics back in 1960 & with the same attitude that did not allow for 
any dissension. I knew a retired surgeon-doctor as a youth who still 
wore his blood-stained black frock-coat (he was in his 90's at the time) 
who refused to wash his hands or sterilize his equipment because he felt 
Dr Semmelweis & Dr Lister weren't scientifically sound physicians. All 
I'm saying is I keep an open mind because we don't know everything yet 
or even close to it. I've seen too many changes in my lifetime. When I 
was a kid the idea of pocket calculators let alone portable phones were 
"Science Fiction" - which was considered a derogatory term & not fit for 
anyone of scientific bent. Role-playing games hadn't even been 
introduced yet & when they were, they were considered the province of 
psychotics &  the delusional; & thus not fit for anyone of a scientific 
mind. I was taught that no man could make it into LEO let alone space 
because of the Van Allen belt & this was a "proven scientifc fact" & 
thus JFK was foisting a boondoggle on the American people to merely make 
his cronies rich. I've seen too much "proven scientific fact" fall as 
more knowledge comes in. I for one am glad of it.

BTW, because of the limitations of the study you mentioned, the study 
has been repeated with tighter controls & very similar results in 
several cases & ambiguous results in other trials. And no it wouldn't 
have qualified for the prize because the study that the doctors (who 
told me about this) drew no conclusions about what caused the effect 
(whether physical or not), but merely that there was an effect of 
undetermined mechanism.

I will disagree with you in that this has nothing to do with RQ, because 
I remember these things being discussed over the gaming tables when 
Steve was writing the rules & we were playtesting. Also it belongs 
because it so wonderfully illustrates a strength of RQ; it can encompass 
a great number of world views & incorporate them into a campaign. Thank 
you for helping to illustrate that.

Please do, tailor the rules to meet your vision. I don't devalue you for 
it or think less of you in anyway. There needs to be a brake to balance 
things out. Much as you do, I do prefer quantifiable scientific results 
myself so there is no need to disdain me so. I wish you the best & may 
your life always be about learning.
Skal,
Sven

Gary Sturgess wrote:
>>  Both of you have illustrated my point - that we can't even agree on a
>> definition of power, thus we can't even argue the merits. There are 
>> those
>> folk who feel that prayer has power yet it can't be quantified or 
>> measured
>> on a meter. However you will find reputable psychologists & doctors 
>> with no
>> religious bent themselves encourage their cancer patients to actively 
>> take
>> up prayer & show documentation that survival rates are measurably higher
>> amongst those who pray.
>
> Actually the study to which you refer has been roundly blasted as
> having no proper controls, and thus invalid. Were it otherwise, it
> would most certainly have qualified for the million dollar prize
> mentioned earlier.
>
>> Prayer is usually considered a form of magic.
>
> Of course.
>
>> Does it exist or not exist?
>
> People pray, yes. But it doesn't alter the laws of physics in favour
> of the prayer - not demonstrably, at any rate, though even an atheist
> like myself would be more than willing to be shown otherwise.
>
>> One author said many years ago that technology sufficiently advanced 
>> to a more primitive culture is indistinguishable from magic.
>
> Arthur C Clarke.
>
>> Are ESP, Magic & prayer merely our attempt to grasp a technologies we 
>> don't understand yet?
>
> None of those three have any credible evidence. There are generally
> the attempts of conmen to capitalise on gullibility, or alternatively
> a form of comforting self delusion.
>
> But again, this is NOT really anything to do with RQ; I'm more than
> happy to continue any discussion via email to avoid bothering the rest
> of the list.