The Legend of Zelda and Philosophy_ I Link Therefore I Am - Luke Cuddy [48]
So, let’s step back and try to understand this: In this short interchange, we saw a number of different kinds of evidence employed to both bolster and critique an argument. These included the presence of Ganon(dorf) and his naming, the existence of Ganon’s trident, the location of the Master Sword, relational game marketing (Majora’s Mask was an explicit sequel to Ocarina of Time, while Four Swords Adventures was perhaps a sequel to Four Swords), and the game design similarities found between explicit sequels. Finally, the borders of what “counts” as evidence in these debates was discussed—the BS Zelda games were declared as being outside the realm of legitimate evidence.
The issue of evidence is an interesting one, but most interesting was how LINK-FAN-242 justified his or her evidence. Obviously, this does not happen in a vacuum in online forums, leading us to wonder the manners by which evidence itself is socially constructed, and how that may resemble what we see in science.
Socially Constructing Knowledge: The “Legendary” Zelda
In the philosophy of science, evidence and the ways that it interacts with theory has been a central concern from Comte and Popper to Kuhn and Lakatos. Historically, an assumed distinction between evidence and theory has had its roots in particular conceptions of science, but has been actively critiqued by philosophers who have aimed to better elaborate the ways that science and scientific knowledge are created.
For Bruno Latour, the construction of knowledge loomed large in his model of scientific practice. In Laboratory Life, Latour and Steve Woolgar challenged traditional notions of science and the scientific method, via ethnographic observations of a neuroendocrinology laboratory.36 The importance of the single, critical experiment was devalued by Latour and Woolgar, and they emphasized the ongoing construction of knowledge through social interaction in a community of practice with shared norms. In Zelda fan debates, the meaning of evidence is constructed through the arguments in the online forums. In the previous example, posters negotiated a particular chronology of the Zelda games through several proposals and critiques of a theory. The very nature of these debates involved a give and take in the development of the meaning of various pieces of evidence, and constructing timelines necessarily involved discussion to some extent. Evidence isn’t simple value-free information—it’s shaped by practices and norms which are held by those using it.
Therefore, what “counts” as evidence in these fan debates is, like in many scientific settings, a theoretical construct. It is unclear from the previous example whether or not SWORDM and LINK-FAN-242’s believe that the BS Zelda games or the Philips CDi games have explicit reasons for not being legitimate evidence, but given the other posts in these forums, there is certainly an implicit social norm which denies that those games are legitimate. For example, a post from April 2005 by poster MEERKAT-MAN stated:
I don’t take [the BS Zelda games] as canon because they aren’t available legally now, they are, in essence, remakes. The story is pretty ludicrous and generic IMO, and is pretty much just thrown on there for flavor. It is more like a mini-game than a real game.
The justifications for why these games are not considered evidence contain embedded value judgments—MEERKATMAN privileged the original creative work of Nintendo