Not Ragusa, Venice

[Gucumatz]

Then I am afraid you are missing the logic. Two cases of color changes, are still 2 cases. I meant the precedent that colors have changed. That ratios have changed. That city states have only existed for 2 previous civ iterations which is no where near enough to establish a mathematical pattern. Yes previous color type combos have replaced existing types but we don't have enough evidence [A few DLC cases and only a few GK cases] to say with any certainty. Certainly speculative at best

It is speculation and no where near a level of certainty as you have made in many posts

 

[Gucumatz]

And its certainly not a "law". Look at the amount of inputs we have had vs. amount of outputs that fit your "theory". It is by definition purely speculative at this point

 

[Menzies]

So if Venice was the one that was replaced, and not Ragusa, it comes down to see whether Ragusa has been replaced (which could very well mean Venice, but also Italy), or any other Italian city state has been replaced (which would confirm Italy).

Well, it being Venice rather than Ragusa (again, my bad) means that it's now either Italy or Venice on Italy's home ground. We're now in a position where Ragusa, Florence, Genoa or Milan could swing this.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

You know what would be funny, dshirk coming in and saying "Menzies right you guys" xD

Here's how I see it, wether or not Menzies si right, there's something to id, it is speculative.

You also have too look at how they decide which colour to use for city states, there's no color schemes in it. So why have all replaced city states shared the same colour?

And I personally feel that it would be better for the ratio to be equal (the same number of each city state type altgoether).

But that doesn't explain why Ur is a "new" city state.

 

[Gucumatz]

If Shirk did that I would accept it

But there he goes again "it being Venice rather than Ragusa". Its just irresponsible to make that assertion with that level of certainty

 

[Menzies]

Then I am afraid you are missing the logic. Two cases of color changes, are still 2 cases. I meant the precedent that colors have changed. That ratios have changed. That city states have only existed for 2 previous civ iterations which is no where near enough to establish a mathematical pattern. Yes previous color type combos have replaced existing types but we don't have enough evidence [A few DLC cases and only a few GK cases] to say with any certainty. Certainly speculative at best

It is speculation and no where near a level of certainty as you have made in many posts

So what you're saying is we have no idea of anything because you don't feel that we have enough data. You know what, fine... you can feel that way if you want. At the same time you also have no right to claim anything else though, and should leave this thread of wild speculation alone, as if a set of data point one way and only one way isn't enough, than nothing that it could say should be enough to say anything.

And its certainly not a "law". Look at the amount of inputs we have had vs. amount of outputs that fit your "theory". It is by definition purely speculative at this point

A law within science can be based on relatively nothing. It merely needs to be an observed law with nothing contradicting it. Nothing goes against this, it is a law. In the hierarchy of science a theory goes above a law. This is in no way enough data nor explanation to constitute a theory. It is either a law or a hypothesis. As it is only based off data though, it is an observable law.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

If Shirk did that I would accept it

But there he goes again "it being Venice rather than Ragusa". Its just irresponsible to make that assertion with that level of certainty

Venice and Riga share thes ame colour and type. He previously thought that Ragusa and Riga shared the same colour but they don't.

 

[Menzies]

If Shirk did that I would accept it

But there he goes again "it being Venice rather than Ragusa". Its just irresponsible to make that assertion with that level of certainty

It was a mistake in recognising colour. I'm sorry, my vision is not as good as my ability to read XML files.

At least you can't accuse me of picking the convenient answer for what I want, as I don't want either Italy or Venice in, rubbish choices, but one looks likely now.

 

[Gucumatz]

I know. Its just that he continues to use this theory as validation. And I am not going to have to say that because Spontaneous Generation wasn't observable for centuries, that it deserved to become a law - counter argument will I? If there isn't enough data, it doesn't deserve to be called a law.

This is speculation and it does look like Italy is a possibility. But they key word is possibility. You used the same level of certainty when there was no certainty in regards to what we have found out via our letters to the Pueblo council. There is a difference between confirmation and confirmation bias with lack of evidence

 

[Gucumatz]

It was a mistake in recognising colour. I'm sorry, my vision is not as good as my ability to read XML files.

At least you can't accuse me of picking the convenient answer for what I want, as I don't want either Italy or Venice in, rubbish choices, but one looks likely now.

Yes, I certainly don't accuse you of liking Italy. Nor do I have any problem with you mistaking colors, we all make mistakes.

 

[Nujabes]

Regardless of Menzies' sometimes self-assured tone, it's not his job to make you take the speculation here with a grain of salt, as you should.

At one point it was said that we probably wouldn't get another African nation. Like 10 minutes later, we saw the Beefjack interview.

Plenty of things could change, and he could easily be wrong again, but you can't knock the effort, and if it helps people make somewhat more educated guesses, why not.

If we get Venice, though, I'll eat a hat, regardless of what the CS analysis might suggest.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yes, I certainly don't accuse you of liking Italy. Nor do I have any problem with you mistaking colors, we all make mistakes.

I don't think Menzies once said " this proofs Italy/Venice is in.." I think he only said "This increases the chances of Venice/Italy being in".

And think about it. Italy is known for it's Renaissance period, and what ability would fit the best for that nation? A Culture oriented civ that has a bonusf or Great Art Works (or people).

So why shouldn't Italy/Venice be in this case. I'm just saying that ther'es something to it, and I think Menzies see it that way.

 

[Menzies]

I know. Its just that he continues to use this theory as validation. And I am not going to have to say that because Spontaneous Generation wasn't observable for centuries, that it deserved to become a law - counter argument will I? If there isn't enough data, it doesn't deserve to be called a law.

This is speculation and it does look like Italy is a possibility. But they key word is possibility. You used the same level of certainty when there was no certainty in regards to what we have found out via our letters to the Pueblo council. There is a difference between confirmation and confirmation bias with lack of evidence

Get your terminology right mate. It is not a theory. A theory is well supported and well tested, this is not, I have one small data set, which whilst only showing the result that this is right, is, as you point out, small. It is at best a law and a hypothesis for why it happens.

Why are you going on about 'spontaneous generation'? Are you seriously telling me that you don't don't understand the Evolution?

You are right, there is a chance that they've changed how they go about things and that what we know about how they do city states is invalid. We have at this time seen no reason to assume that this is the case and whilst we have a solid law to base an idea on, we may as well use it, if this offends you, fine.

 

[Menzies]

Regardless of Menzies' sometimes self-assured tone, it's not his job to make you take the speculation here with a grain of salt, as you should.

At one point it was said that we probably wouldn't get another African nation. Like 10 minutes later, we saw the Beefjack interview.

Plenty of things could change, and he could easily be wrong again, but you can't knock the effort, and if it helps people make somewhat more educated guesses, why not.

If we get Venice, though, I'll eat a hat, regardless of what the CS analysis might suggest.

I was elated to see that. Morocco being in was the dream scenario, I never thought it would happen. I'm still buzzing to be honest.

 

[seasnake]

ITALY is definitely coming. I'd bet almost anything. They'll use Florence, Venice, Genoa, etc.

 

[Gucumatz]

Get your terminology right mate. It is not a theory. A theory is well supported and well tested, this is not, I have one small data set, which whilst only showing the result that this is right, is, as you point out, small. It is at best a law and a hypothesis for why it happens.

Why are you going on about 'spontaneous generation'? Are you seriously telling me that you don't don't understand the Evolution?

You are right, there is a chance that they've changed how they go about things and that what we know about how they do city states is invalid. We have at this time seen no reason to assume that this is the case and whilst we have a solid law to base an idea on, we may as well use it, if this offends you, fine.

Apparently your reading comprehension needs work. No, I was not arguing against evolution. The "spontaneous generation" argument is made often to show the fallacy of arguing a point as a fact if there isn't enough evidence. It was silly historically to argue that Spontaneous generation was indeed a law, simply because there was nothing observable to say otherwise

Do you understand? You are on the same level of "Spontaneous Generation" at the minute by arguing that the little evidence we have makes this an unassailable law

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Of course venice could simply have switched colours, like i believe a number of city states did in G&K

 

[Menzies]

Apparently your reading comprehension needs work. No, I was not arguing against evolution. The "spontaneous generation" argument is made often to show the fallacy of arguing a point as a fact if there isn't enough evidence. It was silly historically to argue that Spontaneous generation was indeed a law, simply because there was nothing observable to say otherwise

Do you understand? You are on the same level of "Spontaneous Generation" at the minute by arguing that the little evidence we have makes this an unassailable law

The issue here is more one with the understanding of what "spontaneous generation" implies than an understanding of what a law is.

Here however, the only counter argument to the colour-type hypothesis is that whilst it may universally have been right so far that, maybe, the next point may be wrong. This is right in some way, but it's unrealistic in some ways, but I'll get to a proper analysis of this later.

I am still not convinced that you understand what a law is in a scientific seance though. To put it another way, the issue "spontaneous generation" is the interpretation, whilst I struggle to find any other interpretations of what is presented here beyond it being a statistical anomaly (as is mentioned).

 

[Menzies]

Of course venice could simply have switched colours, like i believe a number of city states did in G&K

Only two did, and they replaced other city states colour-types. No city states replaced their's however. Venice simply changing colour's is inconsistent with observations so far.

 

[Vandal Thorne]

A law within science can be based on relatively nothing. It merely needs to be an observed law with nothing contradicting it. Nothing goes against this, it is a law. In the hierarchy of science a theory goes above a law. This is in no way enough data nor explanation to constitute a theory. It is either a law or a hypothesis. As it is only based off data though, it is an observable law.

Er, no, not the case at all. Natural laws are theories that have been thoroughly tested and for which no contradictions have yet been found.

Theories are hypotheses that seem to hold up after a fair amount of testing.

Hypotheses are conjectured explanations for observed phenomena.