Philosophy
Games have rules. Given any particular game, it is obvious that if some set of its rules are changed, that game will cease to exist, giving rise to a new game. For example, if the rules of chess change to allow unmoved pawns to move three spaces, queens to move only three times per game and knights to move only diagonally, a new game is created: call it ?chess-?.?
However, some rules of a given game can be changed without thereby creating a new game. For example, one could change the rules of baseball such that only the use of wooden bats is permissible, yet not thereby create a new game.
A few days ago, some friends and I attempted to answer the following question: If the rules of baseball were changed such that an umpire?s call could be overturned by video evidence, would a new game, call it ?baseball- ?? be created?
One side argued that it is just part of the game of baseball that the ruling of the umpire stands. More strongly, this side argued that there is no criterion, say, for a strike, outside of the umpire?s call. On this view, a thing isn?t a strike until the umpire says so. By allowing video evidence to overturn an umpire?s call, this side argued, we would thereby change the definition of strike in baseball, essentially creating a new game.
The other side (Black Socrates's side), argued that there just have to be criteria for the correctness or incorrectness of an umpire?s call which are independent of the umpire?s judgment. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance ?The umpire made a bad call,? or ?The umpire got that one wrong.? If it does make sense to say these things, then there is a standard of correctness for the calling of a strike outside of an umpire?s judgment. If this is the case, we would not create a new game in allowing an umpire?s call to be overturned by video evidence. The video would simply serve as a better umpire. It would track more accurately what the umpire seeks to track: the facts about whether something was a strike or not (or, better, whether someone threw a strike according to the rules of baseball).
I think my side?s argument is absolutely right. And it?s interesting to contrast baseball with a game in which the referee?s judgments are more closely tied to facts about whether something counts as something according to the rules of the sport. Take, for example, wrestling. A wrestler scores two points for a takedown and a wrester has taken his opponent down when he as established control. Now, obviously, establishing that a wrestler has control isn?t as easy as establishing that a football player is down, or that a pitcher has thrown a strike. Two people could watch a perfectly clear recording of a match and disagree about whether one wrestler established control.
In this sport, the judgments of the referee are essential to establishing the fact of the matter about whether a wrestler has established control. While we may disagree with a referee?s call, that the referee makes the call he does, in a sense, makes it the case that a wrestler has control. We hear wrestling fans say things like ?That was a questionable call,? or ?I wouldn?t have given him a takedown,? but rarely ?The official just got that one wrong.? If we were to establish more clear criteria for takedowns, replacing ?control? with a more technical and objectively verifiable definition, we would, I think, thereby change the sport of wrestling, creating a new sport ?wrestling- ?.?
- What's The Difference?: Athletics, Sports, And Games
What is the difference between games, sports, and athletics? While surely not all games are sports, can we say that all sports are games? Not all athletic activities sports, but are all sports athletic activities? What about competitive ballroom dancing?...
- Procedural Justice And Fan Interference
One notion of justice is what philosophers call "procedural justice," that is, justice is playing according to the rules. On this view, process is the key to a just result. Everyone agrees to to the rules beforehand and it is the objective application...
- Catcher's Ethics
The shorter of the short people has taken to playing catcher on his little league team. So, when we watch a ballgame, we often pay special attention to what the catcher does. In a game the night before last, the Orioles were playing the Mariners and with...
- Thoughts On The Asterisk
Want to add my two cents on the asterisk question. The hard part is keeping straight exactly what the asterisk is being applied to. Is it the home run record? Is it the claim that Bonds is one of the greatest ever? Is it his claim to being Hall-of-Fame...
- Will The Democrats Have The Will To Play The New Gerrymandering Game?
The Supreme Court upheld virtually all of the redrawn Delay map of Texas, a midterm redistricting plan designed for the sole purpose of giving the Republicans more seats in Congress. In their decision, the robed ones said that states may redraw maps at...
Philosophy
Rules and Games
Games have rules. Given any particular game, it is obvious that if some set of its rules are changed, that game will cease to exist, giving rise to a new game. For example, if the rules of chess change to allow unmoved pawns to move three spaces, queens to move only three times per game and knights to move only diagonally, a new game is created: call it ?chess-?.?
However, some rules of a given game can be changed without thereby creating a new game. For example, one could change the rules of baseball such that only the use of wooden bats is permissible, yet not thereby create a new game.
A few days ago, some friends and I attempted to answer the following question: If the rules of baseball were changed such that an umpire?s call could be overturned by video evidence, would a new game, call it ?baseball- ?? be created?
One side argued that it is just part of the game of baseball that the ruling of the umpire stands. More strongly, this side argued that there is no criterion, say, for a strike, outside of the umpire?s call. On this view, a thing isn?t a strike until the umpire says so. By allowing video evidence to overturn an umpire?s call, this side argued, we would thereby change the definition of strike in baseball, essentially creating a new game.
The other side (Black Socrates's side), argued that there just have to be criteria for the correctness or incorrectness of an umpire?s call which are independent of the umpire?s judgment. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance ?The umpire made a bad call,? or ?The umpire got that one wrong.? If it does make sense to say these things, then there is a standard of correctness for the calling of a strike outside of an umpire?s judgment. If this is the case, we would not create a new game in allowing an umpire?s call to be overturned by video evidence. The video would simply serve as a better umpire. It would track more accurately what the umpire seeks to track: the facts about whether something was a strike or not (or, better, whether someone threw a strike according to the rules of baseball).
I think my side?s argument is absolutely right. And it?s interesting to contrast baseball with a game in which the referee?s judgments are more closely tied to facts about whether something counts as something according to the rules of the sport. Take, for example, wrestling. A wrestler scores two points for a takedown and a wrester has taken his opponent down when he as established control. Now, obviously, establishing that a wrestler has control isn?t as easy as establishing that a football player is down, or that a pitcher has thrown a strike. Two people could watch a perfectly clear recording of a match and disagree about whether one wrestler established control.
In this sport, the judgments of the referee are essential to establishing the fact of the matter about whether a wrestler has established control. While we may disagree with a referee?s call, that the referee makes the call he does, in a sense, makes it the case that a wrestler has control. We hear wrestling fans say things like ?That was a questionable call,? or ?I wouldn?t have given him a takedown,? but rarely ?The official just got that one wrong.? If we were to establish more clear criteria for takedowns, replacing ?control? with a more technical and objectively verifiable definition, we would, I think, thereby change the sport of wrestling, creating a new sport ?wrestling- ?.?
- What's The Difference?: Athletics, Sports, And Games
What is the difference between games, sports, and athletics? While surely not all games are sports, can we say that all sports are games? Not all athletic activities sports, but are all sports athletic activities? What about competitive ballroom dancing?...
- Procedural Justice And Fan Interference
One notion of justice is what philosophers call "procedural justice," that is, justice is playing according to the rules. On this view, process is the key to a just result. Everyone agrees to to the rules beforehand and it is the objective application...
- Catcher's Ethics
The shorter of the short people has taken to playing catcher on his little league team. So, when we watch a ballgame, we often pay special attention to what the catcher does. In a game the night before last, the Orioles were playing the Mariners and with...
- Thoughts On The Asterisk
Want to add my two cents on the asterisk question. The hard part is keeping straight exactly what the asterisk is being applied to. Is it the home run record? Is it the claim that Bonds is one of the greatest ever? Is it his claim to being Hall-of-Fame...
- Will The Democrats Have The Will To Play The New Gerrymandering Game?
The Supreme Court upheld virtually all of the redrawn Delay map of Texas, a midterm redistricting plan designed for the sole purpose of giving the Republicans more seats in Congress. In their decision, the robed ones said that states may redraw maps at...