... well, maybe.

So I have this character in the Institute, mainly because I love science IRL and the prospect of doing science in a game is fascinating to me. Being my usual shortsighted self, I neglected to entertain the thought that, well, science in the general case isn't really possible in Lusternia (in any way I've been able to fathom). Now, I love the Institute and Hallifax and at least one or two people in them, and I have no desire to leave either (well, maybe when Hallimonks come out in like 2052), but I am feeling like I am missing what I originally wanted to do here. Science.

See, science has a few fundamental properties that are pretty important to the entire concept. The two I want to focus on are:

First, science (via deduction, at least) produces and uses testable predictions/experiments to verify a given hypothesis; those scientific proposals that do not cannot generally be accepted as true (or as close to true as one gets to in science) until testable experiments for verification can be proposed and designed.

Second, science is consistent; the same experiment performed twice should, given the same conditions, give the same (or, depending on the exact nature of the field, similar) results. This ability to demonstrate something repeatedly is the basis of scientific theories.

However, in Lusternia, neither of these hold, due to the way science and experimentation is done. Outside of admin-sanctioned events, scientific inquiry of anything that isn't a hardcoded mechanic is entirely at the mercy of whoever is performing the "experiment". Imagine the following hypothetical situation:

Person A and person B are discussing the effects of warping time around a spinning Harmonics gem via Aeonics. Person A posits that the warping will disrupt the rate at which discrete locations of the crystal resonate, leading to an immediate dampening effect rendering the gem useless. Person B posits that the warping will cause instability will cause the gem to, over time, begin to interfere positively with itself, amplifying its energy output as a function of time. Both persons go into separate rooms, and using emotes (the only realistic way experimentation can happen outside of admin intervention) perform identical experiments. Afterwards, each person comes back to meet the other, and share their findings and lo!, each confirmed their own hypothesis, which is inherently contradictory with the other's.

The second property mentioned above is quite obviously violated here: identical experiments gave contradictory results. The first is also violated, though in a more subtle way - there is no way for either player to actually create a testable prediction, because there is no way to perform these sorts of tests within the game world.

Now, it's possible that I'm simply a pedantic asshole, and these sorts of things should simply be overlooked in the spirit of fun or something. To me, though, that seems to completely miss the point. Science is a tool used to learn about the world around us, and deviations from the above properties make this impossible in any real sense, which to me kills the fun that comes with science. Anyone can say, "X is true because I did an experiment" and then someone else can, entirely legitimately, counter with "X can't be true because Y, which I verified via my own experiment, means X simply cannot happen!".

Or maybe I just lack the flavour of creativity needed for this sort of stuff, so there is an entirely obvious solution that I'm just missing. Science in Lusternia has been likened to be more similar to creative writing than actual science, which I can follow to a point, but it still, to me, falls flat (at terminal velocity into a concrete floor).

Obviously, it is entirely daft to expect the administration to code an entirely working, consistent, interactive physics system (amongst other things) for the game. I'm willing to apply some suspension of disbelief to this problem, as should be expected in a mechanics-driven roleplay game, but I cannot reconcile this sufficiently with how I see science. Some sorts of sciences, particularly social sciences, are far more easy to fit into the game in a more realistic manner, but the sort of stuff that I find really interesting (e.g. various sorts of physics/metaphysics, etc.; the sort of stuff the Institute appears to be based on) are just ... I don't know, I can't figure out a good way to incorporate them into the game with my character.

So, after this long rambly mess, I guess I have one real question: How can one approach science in-game in such a way that actually obeys the fundamentals of science without relying of begging to the admin to code or script this and that every time one wants to perform some manner of scientific inquiry? I also have a related question regarding the writing and verification and publishing of scientific texts, but I think the answer to this initial question has too strong an influence on the texts question itself to ask it without the answer to the initial question.

So, if anyone managed to read through this and understand what I'm trying (and probably failing) to say, halp plz?

I know that Ileein usually Makes Stuff Up™ (or he did last I checked) and that's pretty much the same approach I have.

Being vague helps.

Can't see any way to do it better, personally, I am afraid.

A. Base your scientific inquiry to the skills we have, fleshing out the mechanics of them
B. Make it up


That's really the only option we have, We have Ismbard to help us make it up. If someone makes up science that is counter to your science, it is clearly an anomaly and you should get the sentinels to kill them

Make It Up is the correct answer, but the key to making it work is to do it in cooperation with others. Like the "yes and" principle of improvisation, unless something is really off, you should accept the science others have done, and add onto it, and if they do the same, a whole body of lore that agrees with each other is formed, and scientific discussions can occur. If you want to have different results with your experiments, then you'll run into the problems you posited.

Science books that win prestige/get accepted into the World Library are considered to be canon or close enough for most purposes. Try not to contradict any of that. Or, if you do, explain how the old book fits into your new theory and why the observations therein are consistant with what you have now. Or why the old experiments are rubbish methodologically speaking and should be ignored.

I really don't think you're going to get the satisfying science experience you're looking for, sadly. Ileein got a little area-emote help from Elostian to make it seem like he was 'actually doing stuff,' but in the end it's all made up. Like my report for Shedrin's experiment, which could have been completely off the wall and wouldn't match anything written by any other subjects, if he had any.

I would guess that if you make up and publish a few things about a topic that interests you (crystal comp sci, or whatever) to show you're serious, you might be more likely to get some patron involvement in future pursuits (with minimal begging). And with a combination of city (or MoCA) funds and some admin magic, you could even have something with more tangible effects created.

I decided to address this by focusing on astrology since there's definitely things we don't know about how it works that can be determined empirically without requiring any divine help. It just takes a really dishearteningly large number of observations. (See my book from Project Conjunction.) If that approach sounds interesting and you want to take astrology, I could sure use a research partner.

Another non-Make-Stuff-Up approach would be biology. The world is full of critters which can be examined empirically -- even if most of them are mostly observed by killing them. Lusternia needs its own Linnaeus; you can even replicate the disagreements of taxonomy of those who want to organize by origin (in Lusternia's case, which god made them, then how they mutated later) versus by similarity of form. I know that a few people have done this in Lusternia's past a little, but they've barely scratched the surface.

But I sure don't want to sound like I'm speaking up against the Make Stuff Up approach. I just decided to choose one of the few areas of study that required very little of it. (Though if I ever find the time to continue the other projects in that series, the later ones will definitely venture into Make Stuff Up territory.) Make Stuff Up definitely has the advantage of not needing hundreds of hours of observation and analysis. In other words, it lets you get past the unglamorous parts of Science and skip to the last steps.

Astrology is pretty unique in that regard, admittedly, because it's still -possible- to observe all of it, just massively difficult.

Weather patterns, on the other hand...