Whats your opinion on the Apex?

While I appreciate your fervor in keeping the number of similar topics to a minimum, in this case the previous topic addressing this situation intimately is past 10 pages of recent content and is thus rendered null and void in terms of "recent content".

This thread is a valid discussion of newcomer's opinions of a race and will remain open.

 

It is unscientific if there is no basis for the disagreement other than wishful thinking.

Intelligence certainly counts for something, but not really too much until space colonization occurs. At that point, we are something special (as far as Darwin is concerned. We are already special as far as I am concerned). Right now, if a nuclear winter or some other mass extinction event occurred (it would be the sixth), there's a good chance some humans would survive, but an even better chance cockroaches would survive.

I like the explanation "B" you have there, especially if that belief is enforced dogmatically by the Miniknog against the silent wishes of most of the Apex scientists!

 

Ok I never really am good it figuring out whether a thread counts as a dupe because wording can be very similar.

 

I understand.

In this case, however, there is good discussion going on versus *no* discussion in the previous topics anymore.

 

I think he means *in principle*.

In principle there is nothing unscientific about challenging dominant paradigms. That is what science is all about.

 

So dupe is preferred over necro? Or if something is reported before it gets alot of discussion going then it gets closed as a dupe?

 

A dupe is preferred over a necro when the necro is sufficiently outdated, as older topics can be prone to spreading misinformation to newer members of the forums.

I'd say if the dupe is of a thread that hasn't had any replies in 3-4 weeks, it's fine, but really I'm taking this on a case-by-case basis here. There is no catch-all rule that I can really advise on.

 

Ok I get what you mean.

 

That avatar makes me read things in a way too serious tone. I miss the cat avatar. Though the cat avatar probably had the opposite effect.

 

You mean there was a good discussion... then again, it could just be the time of the day.
Oh and uh; So. Many. Avatars! I be confuserized. I liked the earlier one better, this one looks too serious.

Anyhow, more relevant to the actual topic, I had this question included in a post I started writing, but redacted and re-wrote:
How much of the Apex "hate" seen here is actually what people feel and think and how much of it is role-play with tongue in cheek and how does this affect people's opinion on the Apex? A chicken or the egg question really: which came first, the Apex "hate" that created a role, or the role that created the "hate?" Quotation marks in case people don't actually mean hate as in carrying a connotation of racist undertones towards an imaginary race, or some other sort of loathing, abhorrence, abomination, animosity... extreme dislike or such, but rather just plain old "meh" or "not to my tastes."

In the case of actual hate, might I survey why that is, if reasons are known?

 

There is if you challenge it with nothing more than a gut feeling.

So it is entirely unscientific.

EDIT: I'd elaborate but previous individuals have already done an excellent job explaining it and I don't feel I need to say any more on the matter.

 

I like them but I don't think I will be creating one of them

 

I would only play the apex because they are the most technologically advanced. I just wish you didn't have to look like a monkey to get access to their building style.

 

Well, I sort of get what you're going here for, but I just can't help myself but to once again point out the obvious:
Science is based on falsifiability, that much is true. Yet the argument that "science constantly changes its mind" pops up as though it was a flaw, not a strength, as holding onto any ideas shouldn't ever be a matter of dogma, but that of being convinced, while many seem to think that fervor and conviction are instead good indicators of "Truth." Another misconception is that science could somehow be used to prove something that can not be tested or falsified, such as the supernatural, which by its definition can not be scrutinized scientifically, or logically, while philosophical discussions are all fine and dandy, but people should recognize the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. Doctor Who will explain:

Doctor Who: All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
Davros: Perfectly.
Doctor Who: You know what a human would say to that?
Davros: What?
Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink.
Davros: Humans do not understand logic.

(Logically sound argument is one whose form is valid and premises true, while any valid argument may work just as well with garbage in = garbage out)
Logically valid argument, certainly... sound, however, not. All too often do people mistake a valid argument as being a sound argument and try to use them to topple down well established scientific understanding to the point of even considering their ideas as paradigm shifting, without realizing that even at best, if these arguments turned out to be correct, they could most often only falsify some individual parts of our current understanding, which is what I suppose you were getting at, but wasn't clear to me. But this still has little to nothing to do with "challenging dominant paradigms," as much as it is about simply going on with business as usual in the field of scientific inquiry and skepticism (no inherent bias in science, though scientists may have such.) In fact, paradigm shifts are a bit of a misnomer to use at this point, as we don't exactly have conflicting paradigms such as geocentrism vs heliocentrism, though it may be quite possible that whatever unified theories we have will have an effect to our understanding that is akin to a paradigm shift in its importance. It's not as though intelligent design or such provided any competition, after all.

Aside from cynicism and blaming conspiracy theories, right about the only reason to jump on the metaphorical box in the park to shout about new ideas to the crowd, or how they're being suppressed, is that these people either lack the skills, knowledge and understanding to provide their tests, results and methodology to peer review, or that they actually have nothing substantial to provide to peer review in the first place. That, or they're intentionally dishonest and try to avoid scrutiny like the plague, lest they be exposed as snake oil salesmen and peddlers of falsities for reasons ideological, monetary, or otherwise, while certain people can still do that due to subject audience being willingly ignorant, voluntarily gullible and more than happy to buy "happiness" for whatever price. On the other end of that spectrum are those who cynically look at all the layman's interpretations of scientific papers on popular magazines and wonder when the next study will come out to contradict the findings of this one, whether it's about carcinogenic properties in certain food items, or their benefits...

Geeze, is there a medication for verbosity?

Huh, what do you mean by this? I wasn't aware of there being limitations to anything but race specific gear being limited at first to their respective races, while everyone can eventually get them? Nothing should be stopping anyone from imitating the building styles of any race, or to find planets with such buildings already there to appropriate.

 

I like the Apex, especially their "flavor" of item descriptions, such as being the only race to notice the hidden camera in the dresser. It makes me think they'll have an interesting perspective on the universe.

 

Keep laughing while I invent a gravity negating device and attach it to a broom.

Few modern theories have "withstood the test of time" anyway. Many of them have been accepted only in the last 100 or so years, and they replaced theories that had stood for thousands. Who's to say it won't happen again?

Wait... what?

I don't have a problem with Evolution per se. I'm just not sure the current theory (i.e. Evolution by Natural Selection) is the full story or not.

Not when the consensus can't do any better. The conclusion/interpretation of data is a very important part of science, but it is by its nature imperfect.

I think we're underestimating the extent on which Cockroaches rely on human civilization to survive, but maybe that's just me.

Also, cockroaches are immune to radiation? Didn't know that >_>

That could work. Or it's just a part of their culture. *shrug*

The problem with Teleology is not that it's wrong; it's that it can't currently be proven to be right or wrong. It's not a stretch to suppose that that could change.

 

Apex have beards that can be customized. They automatically win.

 

You mean like ones that were formed well before the scientific method was even established, or well before we had the methods with which to identify microscopic living cells as being the cause of many diseases and still we have people who deny this with pseudo-scientific babble, or well before telescopes that were used to help calculate the orbits of planetary bodies and still have modern geocentrists bring up the patently flawed idea of epicycles. Hey, at least these people tried to make sense of the universe, even if they were wrong in many of their interpretations made through limited observations and tools, which is something that can not be said by many of the people who quote these things as being examples of how "science has been wrong."

Well, you're not alone, since most anyone in the field worth their salt would say the same thing and point out things that... oh look, many of them were already posted on the previous pages by John Doe.

Uhuh, I've only ever seen scientifically illiterate people making the nirvana fallacy of stating otherwise. (Comparing actual things with unrealistic and idealized alternatives, or the tendency to assume that there are perfect solutions to a problem. "We wouldn't be doing science if we already thought we knew everything" after all ! )

There are other bugs much better suited for highly radiated areas, check the relevant MythBusters episode where they irradiated multiple different insect species and found that cockroaches aren't the best survivors.

Edit - fixed, due having misread and here's the deal: Is teleology or philosophy in general falsifiable in the first place? If the answer is no, then it doesn't fall under scientific scrutiny. No doubt scientists would be thrilled to find a method with which to determine such things as final causes or causality being somehow directed, but that not being the case, we still have people who believe in such things, just like we have people who believe the earth is not just flat, but concave and that every video, even those made by amateurs with video cameras strapped on weather balloons are part of some conspiracy to hide the truth, or in fact are providing evidence for their claims, such as there being no moon beyond the Kármán line, since it isn't visible in most of these videos on youtube.

 

I will be playing Apex because they remind me of planet of the apes the originals, I will of course be making up my own story for my character with that theme in mind.

 

Seems I really had to read that more than twice before it finally dawned on me that you might underestimate the varieties of cockroaches, many of which are tropical and have never set a single antennae or other appendage within a human dwelling aside from us picking them up to populate terrarios for us silly humans to gawk at with all the fancy or big and ugly bugs, like Madagascar hissing cockroach, but maybe that's just me.

But really, rely? 30 species out of 4500 identified are associated with humans and our dwellings and I've mostly encountered people who think that us humans are rather insignificant compared to nature (though unique and important) rather than those thinking that we're somehow important enough to even support cockroaches that are omnivores and quite... omnipresent too, as them bastards seem to live natively pretty much everywhere that isn't either underwater or frozen. You could've found this out on your own in the time it took for you to write that sentence.