Theory: Application of the scientific method to NLH
Posted by Duttywinee
Posted by
Duttywinee
posted in
High Stakes
Theory: Application of the scientific method to NLH
1) Arguments can be true if they follow a consistent methodology; there is no such a thing as an "accidental validity".
2) Any argument proposed by a man can be rejected as invalid if he/she does not follow or understand a consistent methodology.
3) Scientific arguments require universality.
4) Any scientific argument proposed by a scientist can be rejected if the scientist does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
5) A scientist who constantly acts in contradiction to his stated scientific theories shows that he does not understand or follow the requirement of universality.
6) Since the scientist does not follow or understand the requirement of universality, none of his arguments or conclusions can be valid, since the concept of validity only applies to the methodology, not the conclusion.
7) Such a person can no longer be called a scientist, since he has shown by his actions he does not understand or follow the requirements of his scientific arguments.
What can be learnt by everyone from the application of this argument to NLH?
Consequently what are the adjustments to to the 7 points to create a version tailored to creating arguments in poker?
Can this help us in creating arguments in this forum?
Loading 6 Comments...
What's universality?
I think he is meaning that science is not an exact science. You will eventually have to change as you grow as a poker player. There for what you come up with today as you get better it can change with your new thought process.
I do agree with the scientist post to an extant. I also have a theory that we all contradict our selves all the time and if you never did. You wouldn't be growing as a person. What you think today may be different tomorrow. If it always stayed the same then you are most likely a robot. Just my 2 cents
I haven't read that much contemporary philosophy of science in this subject, but my impression is that these rigid definitions of the scientific method kinda fell out of favor in the 70s-90s, and people are a lot more pluralistic now.
Also, you're going to have to explain what 'universality' means in this context. If 'universality'='applies to everything,' then I'm confused because it seems like scientific theories about chemistry don't really apply to other things like tennis, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with chemistry's scope.
Chemistry has a great deal to do w/ tennis – its parameters describe the reality in which “tennis”
as a concept can even exist :)
I think human beings tend to bring order to things in a way that diminishes or obscures completely a
much fuller and more enriched existence. I mean this in the sense that when eager scientists gather and compose lists their egos tell them clearly delineate all the physical parameters of the universe, they tend to
discover through new research years later that the proclamations of their theories no longer make sense.
Obviously certain central tenants of Science are near universal in the sense that they preform reliably
within the limits of our testable human experience. I just object to the fetishizing of Science in modern times as a sort of secular source of divine truth. It's very difficult to psychologically accept our limits as human beings I think.
As far as NLHE goes, the limits of our methodological reasoning are pretty clear. Considerable advancement has been made in the past few years but uncovering all the intricacies of a perfect NLHE strategy still eludes us and
thankfully so!
nothing is sustainable ftw
Be the first to add a comment