On Epistemology and Methodology

Recently there have been talks on the different methodologies with which the members of this forum evaluate character placements and arguments. The forum has set rules, but there is beginning to be variation even within these rules, and one could even ask what basis is there for these rules to begin with. And therein lie the age-old questions: what is knowledge and what can we actually know?

Let's all sit down and have a chat about this complex philosophical subject framed within the context of Star Wars debating.

I had a class on epistemology in the fall. Could be a fun aside to the debating scene.

There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

This.

I think all opinions should be valid as long as they are useful to explain what's portrayed in the material and they're not directly contradicted by consistent evidence. That doesn't automatically make them fact, but they should be acknowledged as plausible at the very least.

I mean, it's arguable whether absolutely true, final scientific knowlegde could be achieved, much less knowledge on Star Wars. Like any human work, it is bound to be inconsistent. Feats are subject to circumstances and even simple storytelling needs, and there's no shortage of contradicting statements either. Not only would one author have disparate views with another, but the creators might change their own conceptual framework over time. Taking all this into account, I think it's often better to agree to disagree on many SW debates.

My personal approach is to go for published OOU statements first, as I think they are the most stablished version of events, then look for possible contradictions due to feats or other statements. If there's no possible explanation for those feats that may reconcile them with the statement in question, then I favor the feats. If there's a conflict between statements, then more sources are required to determine which one is more likely to be true. In-universe statements are the less reliable evidence to me, but sometimes it's the only thing we've got to resort to. Regarding author intent, I find it to be tricky because of the reasons I noted above (different authors, evolving ideas, etc) so for me it's more of a case-by-case analysis. Then again, there may be some other methodology that makes more sense to you.

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

Pretty much this tbh.

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

And what methodology would you espouse as the most convenient and sensical?

Rohirrim wrote:

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

This.

I think all opinions should be valid as long as they are useful to explain what's portrayed in the material and they're not directly contradicted by consistent evidence. That doesn't automatically make them fact, but they should be acknowledged as plausible at the very least.

I mean, it's arguable whether absolutely true, final scientific knowlegde could be achieved, much less knowledge on Star Wars. Like any human work, it is bound to be inconsistent. Feats are subject to circumstances and even simple storytelling needs, and there's no shortage of contradicting statements either. Not only would one author have disparate views with another, but the creators might change their own conceptual framework over time. Taking all this into account, I think it's often better to agree to disagree on many SW debates.

My personal approach is to go for published OOU statements first, as I think they are the most stablished version of events, then look for possible contradictions due to feats or other statements. If there's no possible explanation for those feats that may reconcile them with the statement in question, then I favor the feats. If there's a conflict between statements, then more sources are required to determine which one is more likely to be true. In-universe statements are the less reliable evidence to me, but sometimes it's the only thing we've got to resort to. Regarding author intent, I find it to be tricky because of the reasons I noted above (different authors, evolving ideas, etc) so for me it's more of a case-by-case analysis. Then again, there may be some other methodology that makes more sense to you.

I agree with most of what you said. However, there are people who are disparaging of quotes that are not contradicted by anything. Their justification usually seems to be that statements that are not somehow reflected by the primary source material are spurious. Another stance I've heard is that feats are beholden to their respective media and the author's view of the universe and are thus often inaccurate portrayals of what the characters are actually capable of, and therefore quotes are the only form of evidence with which we can judge characters vis-à-vis those outside of their own medium.

The problem is that the powers that be have endorsed all these viewpoints as valid, yet they are evidently at odds with each other.

Azronger wrote:The problem is that the powers that be have endorsed all these viewpoints as valid, yet they are evidently at odds with each other.

Agreed.

Rohirrim wrote:

Azronger wrote:The problem is that the powers that be have endorsed all these viewpoints as valid, yet they are evidently at odds with each other.

Agreed.

So what makes you cling to your particular viewpoint over the others?

Azronger wrote:

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

And what methodology would you espouse as the most convenient and sensical?

Methodologies which add objectivity to their framework such as the one that was used in your debate with Ant.

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:

Azronger wrote:

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

And what methodology would you espouse as the most convenient and sensical?

Methodologies which add objectivity to their framework such as the one that was used in your debate with Ant.

There are many methodologies "which add objectivity." Would you say the one me and Ant used is the best one or do you believe there are other equally valid methodologies?

Azronger wrote:So what makes you cling to your particular viewpoint over the others?

Tbf, those other stances are usually brought up in the context of Legends, which I'm not a fan of and I find no point in discussing, so I've never given much thought as to whether I find them convincing. That's not to say anything about the quality of stories in Legends, which I know many of you have come to love.

Contrary to what I have seen you and others argue, I think Disney canon is better suited for trying to make sense of it, once you accept that the gap between the characters' power levels are smaller than in Legends (you'd rarely see any legitimate ragdoll) and so context and fighting styles become more important. Showings are much more consistent in magnitude across different media, no big difference between feats in movies, games, comics, etc. Surely having a Story Group helps keeping stuff under a greater control, and reference guides more reliable. AFAIK, the Holocron database was created in 2000, so keeping continuity and consistency prior to that would be nigh impossible, specially with Lucasfilm's apparently relaxed licensing policy.

I can't say whether I would alter the way I approach Star Wars if I were to study Legends. I know this is the Legends forum and that's what you were asking about in the first place, sorry I can't be of much help.

Rohirrim wrote:Contrary to what I have seen you and others argue, I think Disney canon is better suited for trying to make sense of it, once you accept that the gap between the characters' power levels are smaller than in Legends (you'd rarely see any legitimate ragdoll)

Funnily enough, that's what some people are starting to believe about Legends too.

Agreed with everything DS0 has said in this thread tbh.

Rohirrim wrote:

Azronger wrote:So what makes you cling to your particular viewpoint over the others?

Tbf, those other stances are usually brought up in the context of Legends, which I'm not a fan of and I find no point in discussing, so I've never given much thought as to whether I find them convincing. That's not to say anything about the quality of stories in Legends, which I know many of you have come to love.

Contrary to what I have seen you and others argue, I think Disney canon is better suited for trying to make sense of it, once you accept that the gap between the characters' power levels are smaller than in Legends (you'd rarely see any legitimate ragdoll) and so context and fighting styles become more important. Showings are much more consistent in magnitude across different media, no big difference between feats in movies, games, comics, etc. Surely having a Story Group helps keeping stuff under a greater control, and reference guides more reliable. AFAIK, the Holocron database was created in 2000, so keeping continuity and consistency prior to that would be nigh impossible, specially with Lucasfilm's apparently relaxed licensing policy.

I can't say whether I would alter the way I approach Star Wars if I were to study Legends. I know this is the Legends forum and that's what you were asking about in the first place, sorry I can't be of much help.

In no way is canon more easily deciphered, lol. There's not as much there yet, sure, but what he have is still often contradictory, with wildly inconsistent showings between characters.

SithArchaeologist wrote:
In no way is canon more easily deciphered, lol. There's not as much there yet, sure, but what he have is still often contradictory, with wildly inconsistent showings between characters.

You're entitled to your opinion. Still I haven't found anything as inconsistent as some showings from post-ROTJ Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader or Mace Windu in Legends, not to mention the huge disparity from the movies to the Old Republic material or TFU. Pretty much all canon feats are much more easily explained IMO.

Azronger wrote:

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:

Azronger wrote:

DarthSkywalker0 wrote:There is no objective methodology in a fictional universe as empiricism is impossible. As a result of this fact, we make methodologies which are convenient and make sense to us.

And what methodology would you espouse as the most convenient and sensical?

Methodologies which add objectivity to their framework such as the one that was used in your debate with Ant.

There are many methodologies "which add objectivity." Would you say the one me and Ant used is the best one or do you believe there are other equally valid methodologies?

@DarthSkywalker0

I just got off a talk with Gideon about this very topic and would like to renew this conversation. Can you to answer my question?

The primary issue, though I don't see it as such, is that Leland Chee purposefully leaves things open to interpretation. He didn't subscribe to the absolutes of 'most powerful' claims, he didn't even subscribe to the idea that conflicting sub-G Canon sources warranted retconning either way. Hell, he didn't even contradict the idea of dark side ending KotOR being a thing in GOH.

There is no such thing as an absolute system, because it wouldn't work even if there was. It's why I embrace a much looser 'over-all picture' view of feats/accolades/intent/holism.

None of this is new of course, it's always been this way. People have just gotten better at pretending that isn't the canon.

Quotes should only supplement the primary sources if they can add new information that isn't contradictory. If it clearly contradicts the visual depictions or the obvious subtext; e.g. Mace being "forced to use all his skill to beat Ventress" when it's obvious from the context that he's beating her easily while giving her the opportunity to surrender.

Quotes regarding the outcome of a duel often leave out the context, which is why I don't think we should rely on them. For example, you can find many quotes stating Kenobi beat Maul without any mention of Maul being caught off guard or Dooku straight stalemating Yoda when it's clear from both novelizations and the script Yoda was beating pretty thoroughly.

With the new rule of not being forced to use LFL policy in debating, I was just curious about how things changes, so:

1. What is your debating methodology? Anything you don't believe in or don't accept? 

2. How much has it changed from the previously established rules for methodology? Any changes in rankings?

Merged the threads as I believed them similar enough to one another.

1.Original source material.
2.Everything else.

Essentially, for example, whatever happens on-screen, on-paper or on-panel takes precedent over all supplementary material.