Magic versus Technology

[Kether]

The word itself is not useless because it has meaning. It's just using the right meaning in the right context, and ultimately how people use the word in general. When I don't use the word indiscriminately (for one reason or another), I regard magic as something different from science and technology. I even have a story on a backburner where magic is just another sort of applied science that's kept secret from most people. I'm pretty flexible when I want to be creative, but I hold steadfast as far as official definitions are concerned, and no definition of magic has it as science.

Right, Thus every use of Magic in fantasy is a misuse of the word because they are sciences. Nothing can properly use Magic in its correct format.

[Mitera Nikkou]

It can be used in its correct format. ;/ It's really easy to do if you're negligent or don't have any real consistency with applications of devices. In essence, a plot hole is one form that magic can take. :O

[Kether]

It can be used in its correct format. ;/ It's really easy to do if you're negligent or don't have any real consistency with applications of devices. In essence, a plot hole is one form that magic can take. :O

That's an interesting point, is the author of a setting a part of it or a part from it?

[Sensei Kimiko]

To me this debate comes down to apples and oranges. The fundemental difference beween science fiction and fantasy magic, seems to be mostly backdrop more than mechanics. One can cite numerous examples of either sub-genera that are based on 'hard data' as it were. The net is full of a plethora of skematics for sci fi tech. Similarly anyone who has deleved deeply into some of the more detailed RPGs with spell schools and prgressions charts. Often the line is blurred.

For example, is telekisis a magic, a mental power, or what? Am I Psionisist or a a telepath. Frequently some cross to adegree. Babylon 5 had a group called technomages. They used nanites to evoke magical effects. Similarly, in the at least one web comic, magic is explained as altering quantum determency (That theory that says if you throw a tennis ball against a wall an infite number of times, the atoms will line up and the ball will pass through).

Ultimately it comes down to the story setting. After all isn't magic often a matter of science beyond our current level of understanding. I mean we fly across the world in metal boxes. We watch moving pictures in our homes, and we can cast down the very fires of the heavens upon our enemies.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Ultimately it comes down to the story setting. After all isn't magic often a matter of science beyond our current level of understanding. I mean we fly across the world in metal boxes. We watch moving pictures in our homes, and we can cast down the very fires of the heavens upon our enemies.

Silly Kimiko. What is beyond someone's understanding is not magic, for those who do understand know that those things work within their scientific realm. In fact it's not even a matter of perception.

And I disagree about it being apples and oranges. Science and magic, if not polar opposites, just don't work the same way. When you get right down to it, magic is the stuff that creates ice out of nowhere with just an incantation even though it's during the middle of a hot Summer and the freezing point of water at that altitude naturally occurs at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. If I jumped right now and flew into space, that would be magic, because it goes against how things work; it's not natural. If "magic" is a natural part of a setting then it's not magic in the sense that it defies how everything works according to universal laws.

What it's really about is the mechanics, and whether the magic is really magic in the setting. If the mechanics of the magic match the setting, then it's not actual magic in the sense already mentioned above; instead it's a science of that universe. If the mechanics are based on something other than what the setting is based on, or is based on nothing at all, then it's real magic. Like a plot hole. :O

[Unit Zero]

Right, Thus every use of Magic in fantasy is a misuse of the word because they are sciences. Nothing can properly use Magic in its correct format.

The problem is rarely with the fantasy settings, they explain what supernatural source the magic comes from, but that doesn't mean they are trying to say the source isn't supernatural. The problem is that you make up your own rules which you impose on these worlds, and then say that because your incorrect rules exist, their magic isn't actually magic.

Every source you've mentioned is an example. In Slayers, they drawn magic from Gods and Monsters, supernatural creatures that do not act within the physical realm. You decide of your own volition that physics does apply to them. Then, because physics doesn't apply to them, you have to go on and assume that they have special laws of physics to account for the fact that you don't understand what is going on, which is simply "magic." You do this in every example you use, ignoring the reality to make up your own set of physical laws, then citing these non-existant physical laws to support your point that they follow the laws of physics.

[Kether]

Right, Thus every use of Magic in fantasy is a misuse of the word because they are sciences. Nothing can properly use Magic in its correct format.

The problem is rarely with the fantasy settings, they explain what supernatural source the magic comes from, but that doesn't mean they are trying to say the source isn't supernatural. The problem is that you make up your own rules which you impose on these worlds, and then say that because your incorrect rules exist, their magic isn't actually magic.

Every source you've mentioned is an example. In Slayers, they drawn magic from Gods and Monsters, supernatural creatures that do not act within the physical realm. You decide of your own volition that physics does apply to them. Then, because physics doesn't apply to them, you have to go on and assume that they have special laws of physics to account for the fact that you don't understand what is going on, which is simply "magic." You do this in every example you use, ignoring the reality to make up your own set of physical laws, then citing these non-existant physical laws to support your point that they follow the laws of physics.

I didn't even say they were physical laws. They are natural laws. The Author of Slayers goes into EXPLICIT detail on how it works. There are both american and Japanese RPGS based on it that explain in explicit detail the laws of the Slayers Universe.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural


Number 3, "Of or pertaining to nature or the universe"


You're the one who seems to be not understanding definitions.

[Snow Dragon]

Well, I worked up the nerve to try this out again. I'm going to try to keep it brief, though.

My beef isn't whether or not Lian thinks magic and technology are technically the same. I don't really care if one or the other fits a particular definition.
To put it simply (and this is key!) that isn't useful to me.

Writing, and by extension, forum interaction and all that, isn't about precise definitions and a strict understanding of words. That's boring. It's about using language in such a way as to maximize understanding and the plausibility of the scenario to allow the reader to better interact with what's being written.
Calling technology magic or magic technology works counter to this. Unless someone's read your exhaustive commentary on why magic and technology are the same - and even then, they'd have to buy it - when you start calling magic a form of technology, it just confuses people and hurts the scenario. You can say that it works if you think about it. Maybe it does. But a reader shouldn't have to think about it much, or read a page of footnotes, in order to understand where you're coming from or try to frame what has happened. If they do, barring that the reader just isn't very bright, the failure rests with you as a writer.
It's useful to distinguish magic and technology because technology carries with it certain assumptions while magic has no assumptions to burden it. These are not absolute, but once you violate them, you confuse people.
If it's technology, I expect there to be some physical tool or machine involved in accomplishing a certain task. I expect it to have its grounding in the natural laws - though if the natural laws work differently in the setting, then obviously my assumptions change too.
If it's magic... then that's all I need to know. Knowing more is nice, but really, someone waves his hand, something blows up, and it's all good. You can include a system of reliable "magic laws," or you can have random stuff happening whenever this sorceror points at an object. It doesn't matter, because it's magic, and we don't expect anything in particular.

You CAN call magic a technology. For that matter, you can call any sufficiently advanced technology magic. But it ISN'T USEFUL TO DO SO. Unless your very purpose is to state something to introduce a set of assumptions in order to deliberately violate them.
If you call Lina an archeaologist, I'm going to watch Slayers expecting that she runs around exploring ruins and searching for clues to lost civilizations and piecing together ancient history. And when I see her searching for ancient spells and throwing around fireballs instead, I'm going to think there's something wrong with you. I'm not going to argue that you're technically wrong, but you violated my assumptions for what an archeaologist does when we have perfectly good words to describe someone who collects and casts spells: sorceress, wizard, mage, etc.
As a writer, I find this extremely frustrating. If I refer to someone as being "rich" in a story, and then my readers find out that the individual has very little money, but is "abounding in desirable elements or qualities," nobody is going to applaud my use of a little-known definition for a common word. They're going to think I'm a moron for not telling them that they're smart and nice.

It is useful to distinguish between magic and technology, because in most worlds they ascribe to a completely different set of natural laws (assuming you can call the magical laws natural). Thus, you have technology, which uses the laws of physics and chemistry to function, and the laws of magic, which can use whatever laws you want to make up. At times these laws even conflict with each other significantly; in the game Arcanum, machines would malfunction around powerful mages because they kept bending nature around them to the point that machines could no longer function with the precision necessary to work reliably.
By the same token, this also allows you to combine the two mediums. While you could, of course, call "Magitech" advanced technology and leave it at that, it better frames the scenario and the equipment involved to note that they combine the two different products, and thus operate according to two different sets of rules (sometimes).

I'm not concerned with what Webster thinks technology is. You can call magic whatever you want. It's just not a good idea.

[Kether]

Well, I worked up the nerve to try this out again. I'm going to try to keep it brief, though.

My beef isn't whether or not Lian thinks magic and technology are technically the same. I don't really care if one or the other fits a particular definition.
To put it simply (and this is key!) that isn't useful to me.

And I really don't think they matter. I cast a spell, I pull a trigger, I invoke god. Window Dressing.

Writing, and by extension, forum interaction and all that, isn't about precise definitions and a strict understanding of words. That's boring. It's about using language in such a way as to maximize understanding and the plausibility of the scenario to allow the reader to better interact with what's being written.
Calling technology magic or magic technology works counter to this.

No, it fails for you. Its implausable for you. These are subjective takes. the Reason why we have objective terms for words is so we can comunicate if I say tree means a large lizard that eats people its going to get confusing. Now one can get into the idea of "This is what everyone thinks the word means" but then you have to deal with the fact that is patently not true. The fact that there are other people simply arguing that proves my point. The fact that this isn't the first time I have had this debate and have had support before proves it. It has to do with your views and trying to claim objectivity there of.

Unless someone's read your exhaustive commentary on why magic and technology are the same - and even then, they'd have to buy it - when you start calling magic a form of technology, it just confuses people and hurts the scenario. You can say that it works if you think about it. Maybe it does. But a reader shouldn't have to think about it much, or read a page of footnotes, in order to understand where you're coming from or try to frame what has happened. If they do, barring that the reader just isn't very bright, the failure rests with you as a writer.

This demand was made of technology. That's what started this whole debate. Technology requires an explanation. Magic doesn't. I think if you require an explanation at all for the STORY it doesn't matter if its technology or sorcery or whatever. If in the story there is a ray gun that zaps people into catgirls that's part of the story does it need a complicated explanation? Well since its technology as stated at the begining of this whole debate apparently it would be. But if someone casts a spell nothing is required.


And generally if one is using Made up stuff its alot easier to understand so its generally taking alot less time to explain a sorcerous act than a real world scientific one.

It's useful to distinguish magic and technology because technology carries with it certain assumptions while magic has no assumptions to burden it. These are not absolute, but once you violate them, you confuse people.
If it's technology, I expect there to be some physical tool or machine involved in accomplishing a certain task. I expect it to have its grounding in the natural laws - though if the natural laws work differently in the setting, then obviously my assumptions change too.

If it's magic... then that's all I need to know. Knowing more is nice, but really, someone waves his hand, something blows up, and it's all good. You can include a system of reliable "magic laws," or you can have random stuff happening whenever this sorceror points at an object. It doesn't matter, because it's magic, and we don't expect anything in particular.

No, this is a personal choice. It may even be a choice you share with Syl or a hundred people. IT IS NOT OBJECTIVE.

A story about scifi DOES NOT NEED TO have the technology explained. It can just work. Does it hurt starwars that Hyperdrive isn't explained? Or blast pistols?


There are no assumptions about fiction. Things just work by Author fiat, a good author has internal consistancy thus creating a "universe" there in. A bad one has a universe of plot holes.

You CAN call magic a technology. For that matter, you can call any sufficiently advanced technology magic. But it ISN'T USEFUL TO DO SO. Unless your very purpose is to state something to introduce a set of assumptions in order to deliberately violate them.

And I don't find it useful to make distinguishments. If I want to tell a story about Spirits changing people, or zap guns or whatever I will explain and if its important to the story to explain why it works I will. If not I won't. And I don't expect a peson who's writing a story to do so.

I just expect the idea there is a fundimental order there, that is more than "I want this to happen now" or its a bad setup.

If you call Lina an archeaologist, I'm going to watch Slayers expecting that she runs around exploring ruins and searching for clues to lost civilizations and piecing together ancient history. And when I see her searching for ancient spells and throwing around fireballs instead, I'm going to think there's something wrong with you. I'm not going to argue that you're technically wrong, but you violated my assumptions for what an archeaologist does when we have perfectly good words to describe someone who collects and casts spells: sorceress, wizard, mage, etc.
As a writer, I find this extremely frustrating. If I refer to someone as being "rich" in a story, and then my readers find out that the individual has very little money, but is "abounding in desirable elements or qualities," nobody is going to applaud my use of a little-known definition for a common word. They're going to think I'm a moron for not telling them that they're smart and nice.

This leads back once more towards "My assumptions are objectively true" Why I called Her an archaeologist I was pointing out that not all real world scientists are lab types some go out in the field to gather information about lost civilizations.

Lets use someone we both agree is an archaologist. Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones loots the remains of lost civilizations and readily made use of magical items on 3 occasions..(4 coming up) more in Temple of doom he made use of particular chants he knew from his studies of history to cause a mystic effect.

IF you don't want to lead to confusion be precise. Your concept of "well we all know what a wizard, sorceress, mage are" isn't true.

It is useful to distinguish between magic and technology, because in most worlds they ascribe to a completely different set of natural laws (assuming you can call the magical laws natural). Thus, you have technology, which uses the laws of physics and chemistry to function, and the laws of magic, which can use whatever laws you want to make up. At times these laws even conflict with each other significantly; in the game Arcanum, machines would malfunction around powerful mages because they kept bending nature around them to the point that machines could no longer function with the precision necessary to work reliably.
By the same token, this also allows you to combine the two mediums. While you could, of course, call "Magitech" advanced technology and leave it at that, it better frames the scenario and the equipment involved to note that they combine the two different products, and thus operate according to two different sets of rules (sometimes).

I'm not concerned with what Webster thinks technology is. You can call magic whatever you want. It's just not a good idea.

No, that's a horrible use of technology. The very uses you point out transform science from a search for truth and technology as its fruit into a religion, into a cult. Into a fanatic crusade against oposing view points.

That's what your distinction does. It doesn't help anything. It doesn't make anything better. It makes Science and Technology in all ways lesser. It makes Scientists just tech priests purging foul sorcerers in the name of Physics and Chemstry.


It also shows a fundimental lack of understanding about how science works and its history.

[Snow Dragon]

And I really don't think they matter. I cast a spell, I pull a trigger, I invoke god. Window Dressing.

And you really don't think window dressing (you really like that phrase, don't you?) is important?
I do. I can't read anything if I can't put a finger on the mechanics of what's happening.
For example, I couldn't stand the FLCL series, because I kept trying to fit what was happening into a rational series of events with causes, effects, limitations, etc. This failed to account for how robots can come out of people's heads. Perhaps I was missing the point of the show, but after that aspect of the scenario was shattered, it didn't matter for me.

No, it fails for you. Its implausable for you. These are subjective takes. the Reason why we have objective terms for words is so we can comunicate if I say tree means a large lizard that eats people its going to get confusing. Now one can get into the idea of "This is what everyone thinks the word means" but then you have to deal with the fact that is patently not true. The fact that there are other people simply arguing that proves my point. The fact that this isn't the first time I have had this debate and have had support before proves it. It has to do with your views and trying to claim objectivity there of.

I loathe this particular argument you're making. Let me make that clear up-front.
I refuse to accept this premise you're making, because when you stretch it far enough, ALL writing is subject to interpretation and various likes/dislikes. So in the end, any argument in favor of any writing that is mechanically accurate (good spelling and grammar) can hide under the shield of "it's not objective, so you can't really argue against it". No. Not happening. There are mechanically correct pieces of writing that are, by the standards accepted in the literature community, complete crap. There are people who like it anyway. I have encountered the phenomenon, and it boggles me, but it's there. There are still standards that can be upheld, and there are still arguments to be made.
That is why I'm trying to make this argument of use. Apparently it's not useful for you to distinguish between systems that use very different forces (magical/technological) despite the fact that the vast majority of media you use choose to do this to great effect. I have no idea why, but whatever. It IS very useful for many other people, however. You MUST realize this, as we just escaped from a multi-page argument about it.
So the choice that you have to make, as the writer, is: do I satisfy MY requirements for a piece of writing, or do I write to make my scenario as comprehensible and acceptable to the greatest breadth of readers possible? I don't think I need to tell you that the whole point of writing is to accomplish the latter.

This demand was made of technology. That's what started this whole debate. Technology requires an explanation. Magic doesn't. I think if you require an explanation at all for the STORY it doesn't matter if its technology or sorcery or whatever. If in the story there is a ray gun that zaps people into catgirls that's part of the story does it need a complicated explanation?

It depends on many things.
In your case, it absolutely requires an explanation, because other people have to understand and react to it. If you say a ray gun has an effect, I use my assumptions for what a ray gun is and how it works, and those countermeasures may be very different from if you're telling me you're casting a TG spell.
But it's true that there are certain demands of technology that aren't required for magic. There are numerous games and fictions that have magic that go the entire length of the series without explaining a thing about it besides its effects, and it doesn't hurt the story at all because it's magic; we don't really need to understand it. If technology is being used, and it's of necessary complexity that you really have no clue how it does what it does, some sort of explanation is probably necessary. I wouldn't buy a ray gun turning people into catgirls unless A) the series was of the extremely silly sort that mocks or abusing sci-fi conventions (such as Futurama) or B) some sort of explanation was given as to how it works, via cell-reconstructing nanites, controlled mutation, or whatever. What the actual explanation IS is far less important than merely having one, and assuring me that my assumptions for this technology are not being violated (although, as always, it helps the more plausible the technology sounds).

And generally if one is using Made up stuff its alot easier to understand so its generally taking alot less time to explain a sorcerous act than a real world scientific one.

That's absolutely right. Funny how that works, huh?

A story about scifi DOES NOT NEED TO have the technology explained. It can just work. Does it hurt starwars that Hyperdrive isn't explained? Or blast pistols?

If you're talking about the movies, they have very different requirements for being effective due to lack of exposition and the visuals.
If you're talking about the Star Wars BOOKS, then:
A) Yes, except that
B) Both ARE explained. As are nearly every manner of technology that seems exotic enough to warrant an explanation. It just makes things flow better and makes the scenario more "real".
What made Stargate such an engaging series for me was that they actually bridged that gap between the "Take it as you see it" sci-fi of the Star Wars movies and the constant stream of expository text you can make use of in writing.

There are no assumptions about fiction. Things just work by Author fiat, a good author has internal consistancy thus creating a "universe" there in. A bad one has a universe of plot holes.

There are plenty of assumptions about fiction; a good author doesn't violate them, though he may expand beyond them. If you want to create your very own universe, with whatever laws you want, you can do that, but it's bloody HARD, so we have conventions with which to draw things down a bit and make a fantasy setting more accessible. You don't need to follow them, but it sure helps.

And I don't find it useful to make distinguishments. If I want to tell a story about Spirits changing people, or zap guns or whatever I will explain and if its important to the story to explain why it works I will. If not I won't. And I don't expect a peson who's writing a story to do so.

I can give you one very objective reason why it's useful to make those distinguishments. If you do, I'll stop lecturing you :p
That goes back to what I was saying before. Writing is a medium with which to communicate your ideas. If readers aren't picking up on your ideas very well, then what does that say about your writing?

This leads back once more towards "My assumptions are objectively true" Why I called Her an archaeologist I was pointing out that not all real world scientists are lab types some go out in the field to gather information about lost civilizations.

That's not Lina's job. Lina's job is making money through whatever means she can, primarily by blowing things up. Her ONLY reason for ever investigating ancient civilizations is because it happens to help her blow things up. So while she might practice archeaology, she's not an archeaologist. We have OTHER, BETTER words to describe what she actually does: treasure hunter, mercenary, sorceress. Take your pick. Archeaologist is woefully inadequate and relatively inaccurate.

Lets use someone we both agree is an archaologist. Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones loots the remains of lost civilizations and readily made use of magical items on 3 occasions..(4 coming up) more in Temple of doom he made use of particular chants he knew from his studies of history to cause a mystic effect.

Indiana Jones might be an archeaologist; I really don't know. I don't remember those movies. But I would use very different terms to describe what he does: treasure hunter or adventurer. Because I seem to remember him doing a lot less studying ancient civilizations and a lot more running away from Nazis and deathtraps.

IF you don't want to lead to confusion be precise. Your concept of "well we all know what a wizard, sorceress, mage are" isn't true.

Really? Who doesn't know what a sorceress is? Seriously, I can't think of a single individual who couldn't describe a sorceress, and couldn't watch Lina fight for two minutes before describing her as such.
I can think of a dozen people... well, pretty much everyone I know, including myself, who know what an archeaologist is, and would be baffled that I'd call Lina an archeaologist. In this case, you're not being precise; we have better words available to describe her.

No, that's a horrible use of technology. The very uses you point out transform science from a search for truth and technology as its fruit into a religion, into a cult. Into a fanatic crusade against oposing view points.

Uhm... how?

That's what your distinction does. It doesn't help anything. It doesn't make anything better. It makes Science and Technology in all ways lesser. It makes Scientists just tech priests purging foul sorcerers in the name of Physics and Chemstry.

... I have no clue what you're talking about. I think you're starting to attach a much higher meaning to what is a very basic and simple discussion of writing and fantasy mechanics. If what I'm saying about technology and magic somehow, in your point of view, devalues science... well, that's really too bad. This is fiction and video games. Get over it.
Arcanum, a game I have played, distinctly separates magic and technology such that the two forces interfere with each other. No matter what your moral take is on it, I don't really care. Arcanum is a legitimate fantasy medium just like any other, they made this distinction, and it WORKS. It's part of the universe, they explained it in a way that makes sense, and it added value to what would be quite a hopeless mish-mash of different energies otherwise. It's just one example, though. Would you like more?

It also shows a fundimental lack of understanding about how science works and its history.

That's nice. Would you like to share your fundamental understanding of science, and it's history?
Then we can route them around the internet, to ensure that as many readers as possible understand science as you intend them to! Because, you know, a lot of people might not understand science as well as you do.

[Kether]

And I really don't think they matter. I cast a spell, I pull a trigger, I invoke god. Window Dressing.

And you really don't think window dressing (you really like that phrase, don't you?) is important?
I do. I can't read anything if I can't put a finger on the mechanics of what's happening.
For example, I couldn't stand the FLCL series, because I kept trying to fit what was happening into a rational series of events with causes, effects, limitations, etc. This failed to account for how robots can come out of people's heads. Perhaps I was missing the point of the show, but after that aspect of the scenario was shattered, it didn't matter for me.

That's entirely a personal perspective. You as you say would have no problem with it if there were spells and cantrips. I however accept FLCL as it is.


Because if I start having a problem with FLCL I start having a problem with Stargate, or Battlestar Galactica or just about anything else.. they made up a bunch of stuff that doesn't make sense if you know the real science.. but it works for the story.

No, it fails for you. Its implausable for you. These are subjective takes. the Reason why we have objective terms for words is so we can comunicate if I say tree means a large lizard that eats people its going to get confusing. Now one can get into the idea of "This is what everyone thinks the word means" but then you have to deal with the fact that is patently not true. The fact that there are other people simply arguing that proves my point. The fact that this isn't the first time I have had this debate and have had support before proves it. It has to do with your views and trying to claim objectivity there of.

I loathe this particular argument you're making. Let me make that clear up-front.
I refuse to accept this premise you're making, because when you stretch it far enough, ALL writing is subject to interpretation and various likes/dislikes. So in the end, any argument in favor of any writing that is mechanically accurate (good spelling and grammar) can hide under the shield of "it's not objective, so you can't really argue against it". No. Not happening. There are mechanically correct pieces of writing that are, by the standards accepted in the literature community, complete crap. There are people who like it anyway. I have encountered the phenomenon, and it boggles me, but it's there. There are still standards that can be upheld, and there are still arguments to be made.

No, you are the one who is making the argument that standards don't matter if "everyone knows X"

That is why I'm trying to make this argument of use. Apparently it's not useful for you to distinguish between systems that use very different forces (magical/technological) despite the fact that the vast majority of media you use choose to do this to great effect. I have no idea why, but whatever. It IS very useful for many other people, however. You MUST realize this, as we just escaped from a multi-page argument about it.
So the choice that you have to make, as the writer, is: do I satisfy MY requirements for a piece of writing, or do I write to make my scenario as comprehensible and acceptable to the greatest breadth of readers possible? I don't think I need to tell you that the whole point of writing is to accomplish the latter.

This is also the base common denominator argument. BY the same token one shouldn't write in languages other than english.. one shouldn't use complicated or evocative words because someone might not get it.


Do you know what the word superfluous means? I spent multiple hours explaining to a bunch of people that it was not a compliment. I'd say at least 20 people thought it was a compliment and I had to explain to them. I went from person to person and still many didn't believe me until I brought in a dictionary.

This demand was made of technology. That's what started this whole debate. Technology requires an explanation. Magic doesn't. I think if you require an explanation at all for the STORY it doesn't matter if its technology or sorcery or whatever. If in the story there is a ray gun that zaps people into catgirls that's part of the story does it need a complicated explanation?

It depends on many things.
In your case, it absolutely requires an explanation, because other people have to understand and react to it. If you say a ray gun has an effect, I use my assumptions for what a ray gun is and how it works, and those countermeasures may be very different from if you're telling me you're casting a TG spell.
But it's true that there are certain demands of technology that aren't required for magic. There are numerous games and fictions that have magic that go the entire length of the series without explaining a thing about it besides its effects, and it doesn't hurt the story at all because it's magic; we don't really need to understand it. If technology is being used, and it's of necessary complexity that you really have no clue how it does what it does, some sort of explanation is probably necessary. I wouldn't buy a ray gun turning people into catgirls unless A) the series was of the extremely silly sort that mocks or abusing sci-fi conventions (such as Futurama) or B) some sort of explanation was given as to how it works, via cell-reconstructing nanites, controlled mutation, or whatever. What the actual explanation IS is far less important than merely having one, and assuring me that my assumptions for this technology are not being violated (although, as always, it helps the more plausible the technology sounds).

But they are simply your assumptions. Nanites and controlled mutations wouldn't quite work that way but crazy post Singularity stuff probably should. But Crazy post singularity technology should be so far beyond us that we couldn't possibly understand it.

And generally if one is using Made up stuff its alot easier to understand so its generally taking alot less time to explain a sorcerous act than a real world scientific one.

That's absolutely right. Funny how that works, huh?

So your argument is that Scifi should be bogged down by pages after pages of explanation of real world science thus ruining half the book with notes and explanations?

A story about scifi DOES NOT NEED TO have the technology explained. It can just work. Does it hurt starwars that Hyperdrive isn't explained? Or blast pistols?

If you're talking about the movies, they have very different requirements for being effective due to lack of exposition and the visuals.

I am talking specifically about the movies. Does it hurt the movies that we have no idea how their technology works?

If you're talking about the Star Wars BOOKS, then:
A) Yes, except that
B) Both ARE explained. As are nearly every manner of technology that seems exotic enough to warrant an explanation. It just makes things flow better and makes the scenario more "real".
What made Stargate such an engaging series for me was that they actually bridged that gap between the "Take it as you see it" sci-fi of the Star Wars movies and the constant stream of expository text you can make use of in writing.

More time is spent explaining magic in Warhammer than science in either.


And I will agree that Stargate should be explaining stuff as they go along. Its about exploration and adaptation of alien technology for them.

But starwars? That's like me writing a modern novel where I explain in detail how computers work and Cellphones function.. We know the basics we know the limitations. We don't need to know indetail how things work for the story.

There are no assumptions about fiction. Things just work by Author fiat, a good author has internal consistancy thus creating a "universe" there in. A bad one has a universe of plot holes.

There are plenty of assumptions about fiction; a good author doesn't violate them, though he may expand beyond them. If you want to create your very own universe, with whatever laws you want, you can do that, but it's bloody HARD, so we have conventions with which to draw things down a bit and make a fantasy setting more accessible. You don't need to follow them, but it sure helps.

And the standard of Fantasy novels is to explain in explicit detail whether in apendixes or secondary books in extreme detail how their magic works.

The Second most commonly played pen Paper RPG on the planet conceptualizes that there are no laws of physics. Things burn, or fall or fly not because of aerodynamics or thermodynamics but because of the particular rules each and every little god must follow and the flow of Essence.

And I don't find it useful to make distinguishments. If I want to tell a story about Spirits changing people, or zap guns or whatever I will explain and if its important to the story to explain why it works I will. If not I won't. And I don't expect a peson who's writing a story to do so.

I can give you one very objective reason why it's useful to make those distinguishments. If you do, I'll stop lecturing you :p
That goes back to what I was saying before. Writing is a medium with which to communicate your ideas. If readers aren't picking up on your ideas very well, then what does that say about your writing?

That I am writing to the wrong audience, that apparently they have closed their minds and have no desire to think about subjects.

This leads back once more towards "My assumptions are objectively true" Why I called Her an archaeologist I was pointing out that not all real world scientists are lab types some go out in the field to gather information about lost civilizations.

That's not Lina's job. Lina's job is making money through whatever means she can, primarily by blowing things up. Her ONLY reason for ever investigating ancient civilizations is because it happens to help her blow things up. So while she might practice archeaology, she's not an archeaologist. We have OTHER, BETTER words to describe what she actually does: treasure hunter, mercenary, sorceress. Take your pick. Archeaologist is woefully inadequate and relatively inaccurate.

Its not that much different than schleman.. Yes she does other things. But her methods of searching ruins are pretty much in keeping with 19th century archaeology. Its only in more modern times has it moved away from treasure hunting with afew ties to science.

Lets use someone we both agree is an archaologist. Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones loots the remains of lost civilizations and readily made use of magical items on 3 occasions..(4 coming up) more in Temple of doom he made use of particular chants he knew from his studies of history to cause a mystic effect.

Indiana Jones might be an archeaologist; I really don't know. I don't remember those movies. But I would use very different terms to describe what he does: treasure hunter or adventurer. Because I seem to remember him doing a lot less studying ancient civilizations and a lot more running away from Nazis and deathtraps.

He studied stuff. He found artifacts. Death Traps and Nazis got in the way. It was made more exciting but still he did study and search. Just like Lina studies and searches it just doesn't bog down the story with hours of "Lina studying" or her life before. She regularly demonstrated great knowledge of history after all.

IF you don't want to lead to confusion be precise. Your concept of "well we all know what a wizard, sorceress, mage are" isn't true.

Really? Who doesn't know what a sorceress is? Seriously, I can't think of a single individual who couldn't describe a sorceress, and couldn't watch Lina fight for two minutes before describing her as such.
I can think of a dozen people... well, pretty much everyone I know, including myself, who know what an archeaologist is, and would be baffled that I'd call Lina an archeaologist. In this case, you're not being precise; we have better words available to describe her.

You keep saying you know what words mean. Just because you can get a bunch of people to say its not true does not make it so.. see my superfluous example.


I would not say she IS PURELY an archaeologist, but I would say her actions fall under that.

More the only reason I bring up that she does archaeology is because Syl seemed to think that science can only happen in a lab.



This does not mean she can't do anything else with her life..people during medeival times tended to be more generalists anyway in the real world much less the extremeties taken in fantasy.

No, that's a horrible use of technology. The very uses you point out transform science from a search for truth and technology as its fruit into a religion, into a cult. Into a fanatic crusade against oposing view points.

Uhm... how?

That's what your distinction does. It doesn't help anything. It doesn't make anything better. It makes Science and Technology in all ways lesser. It makes Scientists just tech priests purging foul sorcerers in the name of Physics and Chemstry.

... I have no clue what you're talking about. I think you're starting to attach a much higher meaning to what is a very basic and simple discussion of writing and fantasy mechanics. If what I'm saying about technology and magic somehow, in your point of view, devalues science... well, that's really too bad. This is fiction and video games. Get over it.
Arcanum, a game I have played, distinctly separates magic and technology such that the two forces interfere with each other. No matter what your moral take is on it, I don't really care. Arcanum is a legitimate fantasy medium just like any other, they made this distinction, and it WORKS. It's part of the universe, they explained it in a way that makes sense, and it added value to what would be quite a hopeless mish-mash of different energies otherwise. It's just one example, though. Would you like more?

You are saying its useful because of this. I am saying its fundimentally harmful to people because it makes them dumber. I am objectively proving Arcanum has made you a dumber person.

Since you do not know what science means. Since you think there could be forces outside technology that it makes sense that there are things that would make "science' not work.(rather than particular ASPECTS there of). Shows that this distinction that you find useful has made accept falsehoods over facts. Thus.. dumber..

It also shows a fundimental lack of understanding about how science works and its history.

That's nice. Would you like to share your fundamental understanding of science, and it's history?
Then we can route them around the internet, to ensure that as many readers as possible understand science as you intend them to! Because, you know, a lot of people might not understand science as well as you do.

[/quote]


I do try. Its why I get into arguements like these. Generally speaking you get different versions of this argument or different arguements on different forums. You don't speak for the internet. You mgiht have a common misconception but.. it still a misconception.[/url]

[Snow Dragon]

No, you are the one who is making the argument that standards don't matter if "everyone knows X"

I'm afraid that if you're going to use my own argument against me, you're going to have to phrase it better. Last I checked I wasn't arguing that standards don't matter if everyone knows "X" (whatever X is), I was arguing that words should be used effectively to best communicate an idea or scenario.

This is also the base common denominator argument. BY the same token one shouldn't write in languages other than english.. one shouldn't use complicated or evocative words because someone might not get it.

Do you know what the word superfluous means? I spent multiple hours explaining to a bunch of people that it was not a compliment. I'd say at least 20 people thought it was a compliment and I had to explain to them. I went from person to person and still many didn't believe me until I brought in a dictionary.

Well, your argument as for language doesn't factor; whatever language you write in is the language you write in. That doesn't affect anything, because people who don't read your language aren't going to read your work, now are they? Thus, they aren't part of your audience.
But basically, yeah.
If your audience isn't likely to understand what a word means, or would come up with a definition for that word that works contrary to your intentions... well, why the hell would you use that word?
Now, if you want to to say you're smarter than everyone else, than that probably means that you'll have to dumb down what you're saying so that other people can make sense of it. Much as how an engineer might explain to his non-engineer friends how a machine works in non-technical terms. It's called communication. If you can't get an idea across effectively, then you're just wasting your time, aren't you? THERE'S your objective reasoning:
Writing is to convey your ideas to your audience as clearly and effectively as possible.
Therefore, your choice of words should be made such as to minimize confusion for your audience.
Is there something wrong with that logic?

But they are simply your assumptions.

Yes. And considering that it's just me and the piece of writing I'm trying to wrap my head around, I don't usually need anything more than that.

So your argument is that Scifi should be bogged down by pages after pages of explanation of real world science thus ruining half the book with notes and explanations?

Of course not. I said there should be some explanation.
Example: What is this big glowing circle that the Stargate creates that somehow allows people to travel between planets? It's obviously not magic, right? Answer: It's a wormhole.
There you have it. Problem solved. I don't need the particulars of what a wormhole is or how one could be created by a little pedestal and a metal ring. But unless I have some sort of explanation for what that glowing portal is, it kind of impacts my enjoyment of the scenario.

Now, let's have a counterexample from the same show: The Zat'nichotel.
At its core, it's a stun gun. One shot stuns. Okay, fine. I don't even need an explanation for that, because a stun gun isn't that far out there at all.
Two shots kill? Well, that's a bit sketchier, because it doesn't seem that electric bolts should work in such a way that one blast causes no apparent injury and the second blast kills instantly. I'd like to have an explanation for that.
Three shots disintegrate? Bullshit. Where does a stun gun suddenly get the power to just vaporize things?
If you've watched enough of the series, you'll notice that after the first few series, there's not a whole lot of disintigrating going on with the Zatt guns, despite there being a WHOLE lot of situations where a disintegration pistol would probably come in real handy. I wonder why that is?

I am talking specifically about the movies. Does it hurt the movies that we have no idea how their technology works?

Not really. As I said, movies have different standards than writing, or even TV shows. You have around two hours to relay a plot, build characters, and overall entertain. Writing is about communicating ideas, or in the case of entertainment fiction, to build a scenario. It's easy to build a scenario in a movie because you can physically see what's happening, where it's happening, and you follow the characters around. You don't need to make it seem real because it LOOKS real, and it's much easier to suspend disbelief.

But starwars? That's like me writing a modern novel where I explain in detail how computers work and Cellphones function.. We know the basics we know the limitations. We don't need to know indetail how things work for the story.

I don't understand the point of your comparison, here. Are you implying that it was bad for them to explain blasters, hyperdrive, and proton torpedoes?

The Second most commonly played pen Paper RPG on the planet conceptualizes that there are no laws of physics. Things burn, or fall or fly not because of aerodynamics or thermodynamics but because of the particular rules each and every little god must follow and the flow of Essence.

Okay. Fine.
... So what? Did you have a point there?

That I am writing to the wrong audience, that apparently they have closed their minds and have no desire to think about subjects.

Ah, the amateur writer's response! "It's the readers' fault that they can't understand me! They just don't get it!"
Adorable.
In all fairness though, you obviously ARE an amateur writer, if one can call you a writer at all. Your word choice is poor, your mechanics are sloppy, and time and time again you fail to communicate clearly what you're trying to say.
I simply had no idea you were actively resisting the conventions of effective writing rather than being ignorant of them.
But because I am lenient to a fault, let's take your hilariously novice assertion and put it into practice: It's not YOUR fault that the people who bother to read what you write don't get it. It's their fault. They're too closed-minded, or just too stupid.
So what are you going to do about it? You keep writing, and people just get confused. The information you wish to convey, or the scenario you're trying to create, just isn't getting across. You could always get a new audience, but that would involve moving to another forum in the hope that they're more receptive to your stubbornly bizarre ideas. Maybe you don't want to do that. So then what?

Its not that much different than schleman.. Yes she does other things. But her methods of searching ruins are pretty much in keeping with 19th century archaeology. Its only in more modern times has it moved away from treasure hunting with afew ties to science.

Yeah... I don't really care.
Lina is a sorceress. She summons eldritch energy, turns it into fire, lightning and ice, and throws it at people to hurt them terribly. She knows a great deal about history because it aids her in this, much as how I know a great deal about math because it aids me in accounting.
YOU can call her an archaeologist. I don't really care. But I contend that sorceress is a much better and more accurate description. As well as the one they actually use in the show.

You keep saying you know what words mean. Just because you can get a bunch of people to say its not true does not make it so.. see my superfluous example.

I saw your example. Your example proved nothing except that a bunch of people didn't know a certain word.
If you wish to contend that sorceress, wizard, or mage are not well known words, try your superfluous experiment with those terms. You might not be trying to do this. As I said before, you're not very good at communicating.

You are saying its useful because of this. I am saying its fundimentally harmful to people because it makes them dumber. I am objectively proving Arcanum has made you a dumber person.

Since you do not know what science means. Since you think there could be forces outside technology that it makes sense that there are things that would make "science' not work.(rather than particular ASPECTS there of). Shows that this distinction that you find useful has made accept falsehoods over facts. Thus.. dumber..

Ooh, so close, and yet... no, wait, not really very close at all.
You see, as it turns out, I'm not an idiot. Therefore, I don't define the real world according to what I see in a video game.
Let's take your proof step by step in order to show you how ridiculous your assertion is, shall we?
First of all, you state I do not know what science means, and you imply that this is because of Arcanum, or at the least this game contributed to that. It made me "dumber".
So, first, show me where I stated a definition for science. ANYWHERE. I doubt you'll find one, since I haven't bothered to try and fight you on Webster's turf.
So when you find that evidence that I don't know what science means, then point to a different definition of science that I had. Naturally, these two definitions must be before and after I played Arcanum, with that game as the definitive cause for a change of opinion. Otherwise, it's impossible to prove that my understanding of science changed playing this game.
After THAT, we can start discussing how wrong my definition is a compared to yours. But I doubt we'll get that far.

I hope you realize how silly your point sounds, to say nothing of your proof. To label the mechanics of the game as "falsehoods" and then claim it's harmful because... well, basically because you say so. How DARE these creators present a universe that presents a system of forces that aren't real!
Except... oops! You've already legitimized the creation of an entire universe from scratch. So what gives? Why can't Arcanum can't present forces that has an adverse effect on the functioning of technology? You seem extremely adamant about this point, and I can't figure out why.

I do try. Its why I get into arguements like these. Generally speaking you get different versions of this argument or different arguements on different forums. You don't speak for the internet. You mgiht have a common misconception but.. it still a misconception.

Well, I sure am glad you're around to clear up my foolish ideas!
I just wish you were capable of communicating them in a way that made sense, instead of a desperate scramble of inappropriate analogies and "objective" proofs that defy logic.

[Kether]

No, you are the one who is making the argument that standards don't matter if "everyone knows X"

I'm afraid that if you're going to use my own argument against me, you're going to have to phrase it better. Last I checked I wasn't arguing that standards don't matter if everyone knows "X" (whatever X is), I was arguing that words should be used effectively to best communicate an idea or scenario.

You keep thinking that. But you think alot of things. You are arguing the only effective method of communication is to sink to the lowest common denominator.

I am saying the reason why in the real world we have lingustic standards is because its not true.

This is also the base common denominator argument. BY the same token one shouldn't write in languages other than english.. one shouldn't use complicated or evocative words because someone might not get it.

Do you know what the word superfluous means? I spent multiple hours explaining to a bunch of people that it was not a compliment. I'd say at least 20 people thought it was a compliment and I had to explain to them. I went from person to person and still many didn't believe me until I brought in a dictionary.

Well, your argument as for language doesn't factor; whatever language you write in is the language you write in. That doesn't affect anything, because people who don't read your language aren't going to read your work, now are they? Thus, they aren't part of your audience.
But basically, yeah.
If your audience isn't likely to understand what a word means, or would come up with a definition for that word that works contrary to your intentions... well, why the hell would you use that word?
Now, if you want to to say you're smarter than everyone else, than that probably means that you'll have to dumb down what you're saying so that other people can make sense of it. Much as how an engineer might explain to his non-engineer friends how a machine works in non-technical terms. It's called communication. If you can't get an idea across effectively, then you're just wasting your time, aren't you? THERE'S your objective reasoning:
Writing is to convey your ideas to your audience as clearly and effectively as possible.
Therefore, your choice of words should be made such as to minimize confusion for your audience.
Is there something wrong with that logic?

Yes. Yes there is. The reason why one might use a long and more complicated word greater presion of meaning. This is generally why highy technical fields have theirown jargon.

This is generally why the engineer won;t dumb it down. Not because he doesn't want to but because using more commonly understood words destroys the meaning.

But they are simply your assumptions.

Yes. And considering that it's just me and the piece of writing I'm trying to wrap my head around, I don't usually need anything more than that.

So your argument is that Scifi should be bogged down by pages after pages of explanation of real world science thus ruining half the book with notes and explanations?

Of course not. I said there should be some explanation.
Example: What is this big glowing circle that the Stargate creates that somehow allows people to travel between planets? It's obviously not magic, right? Answer: It's a wormhole.
There you have it. Problem solved. I don't need the particulars of what a wormhole is or how one could be created by a little pedestal and a metal ring. But unless I have some sort of explanation for what that glowing portal is, it kind of impacts my enjoyment of the scenario.

So if they used the word "Schadenfreuda" instead of wormhole would it matter?

Now, let's have a counterexample from the same show: The Zat'nichotel.
At its core, it's a stun gun. One shot stuns. Okay, fine. I don't even need an explanation for that, because a stun gun isn't that far out there at all.
Two shots kill? Well, that's a bit sketchier, because it doesn't seem that electric bolts should work in such a way that one blast causes no apparent injury and the second blast kills instantly. I'd like to have an explanation for that.
Three shots disintegrate? Bullshit. Where does a stun gun suddenly get the power to just vaporize things?
If you've watched enough of the series, you'll notice that after the first few series, there's not a whole lot of disintigrating going on with the Zatt guns, despite there being a WHOLE lot of situations where a disintegration pistol would probably come in real handy. I wonder why that is?

Because it would ruin the difficulty needed by the story. Those plots were contingent upon someone not being disitegrated.

I am talking specifically about the movies. Does it hurt the movies that we have no idea how their technology works?

Not really. As I said, movies have different standards than writing, or even TV shows. You have around two hours to relay a plot, build characters, and overall entertain. Writing is about communicating ideas, or in the case of entertainment fiction, to build a scenario. It's easy to build a scenario in a movie because you can physically see what's happening, where it's happening, and you follow the characters around. You don't need to make it seem real because it LOOKS real, and it's much easier to suspend disbelief.

So the specifics here are.. IF you are given a visual representation it doesn't need an explanation. Only in the purely written word do you need anything resembling explanation. Is that what you are saying here?

But starwars? That's like me writing a modern novel where I explain in detail how computers work and Cellphones function.. We know the basics we know the limitations. We don't need to know indetail how things work for the story.

I don't understand the point of your comparison, here. Are you implying that it was bad for them to explain blasters, hyperdrive, and proton torpedoes?

I don't think knowing them are particularly problematic. I think explanations thrown in the middle of story make ti crap. I think that's what apendixes, rpg books and so on are for. I think Luke suddenly thinking about in detail how hoverlifts work would be like a detective novel suddenly explain the combustion engine in the middle of a chase scene.

The Second most commonly played pen Paper RPG on the planet conceptualizes that there are no laws of physics. Things burn, or fall or fly not because of aerodynamics or thermodynamics but because of the particular rules each and every little god must follow and the flow of Essence.

Okay. Fine.
... So what? Did you have a point there?

You are the one who said most common fantasy just adds magic. I am pointing out one of the better known fantasies that does far more.

That I am writing to the wrong audience, that apparently they have closed their minds and have no desire to think about subjects.

Ah, the amateur writer's response! "It's the readers' fault that they can't understand me! They just don't get it!"
Adorable.
In all fairness though, you obviously ARE an amateur writer, if one can call you a writer at all. Your word choice is poor, your mechanics are sloppy, and time and time again you fail to communicate clearly what you're trying to say.

That's cute. You don't know what amateur means either. In all fairness you write Fanfics. Write a novel get it published. Then you can be condesending about it.

I simply had no idea you were actively resisting the conventions of effective writing rather than being ignorant of them.
But because I am lenient to a fault, let's take your hilariously novice assertion and put it into practice: It's not YOUR fault that the people who bother to read what you write don't get it. It's their fault. They're too closed-minded, or just too stupid.
So what are you going to do about it? You keep writing, and people just get confused. The information you wish to convey, or the scenario you're trying to create, just isn't getting across. You could always get a new audience, but that would involve moving to another forum in the hope that they're more receptive to your stubbornly bizarre ideas. Maybe you don't want to do that. So then what?

To you BD. To you. Nikkou acknowledged that only plotholes properly fall under magic. Now since this has long since moved past a debate of words and concepts and into personal attacks i'd argue that there is personal stake in you intentionally not understanding my side.

Its not that much different than schleman.. Yes she does other things. But her methods of searching ruins are pretty much in keeping with 19th century archaeology. Its only in more modern times has it moved away from treasure hunting with afew ties to science.

Yeah... I don't really care.
Lina is a sorceress. She summons eldritch energy, turns it into fire, lightning and ice, and throws it at people to hurt them terribly. She knows a great deal about history because it aids her in this, much as how I know a great deal about math because it aids me in accounting.
YOU can call her an archaeologist. I don't really care. But I contend that sorceress is a much better and more accurate description. As well as the one they actually use in the show.

I won't debate that she is a sorceress. Having looked up the word its pretty spot on.


So I will revise my statement. Also going back over some of the novels helped.


In Lina's world there are generally two types of Sorcerer. The theoretical Lab type. Who spends hours pouring over notes developing new and more interesting spells based on commonly understood precepts and sometimes discovers new theories of magic. These would be your theoretical chemist or phycist analogues.

Of the many things Lina does(and unlike a 2e D&D character she can have many hats) is study ancient civilizations to gleam their secrets and gain power there of. This fills a niche similar to an archaeologist, Anthropologist or Historian.

You keep saying you know what words mean. Just because you can get a bunch of people to say its not true does not make it so.. see my superfluous example.

I saw your example. Your example proved nothing except that a bunch of people didn't know a certain word.
If you wish to contend that sorceress, wizard, or mage are not well known words, try your superfluous experiment with those terms. You might not be trying to do this. As I said before, you're not very good at communicating.

Not the same group of people mind you. the Superfluous were LARPers. SInce I had less time I had to pick the ten people I could find in my neighborhood.

This includes a bunch of white college kids. Some retired people and afew hispanic families.

the Hispanics I asked were generally unfamiliar with the words accept wizard. I had a mix of "user of magic" and "Basketball team"


The College Kids did better generally knowing Sorcerer/ess and Wizard but Mage would occasionally slip their grasp. As these were not fantasy fans/otaku/etc It makes sense since Mage is a more specialized term.

I was only able to talk to one elderly man, he was out gardening he could answer wizard and Sorceress but not Mage.

Mind you this was a very brief Survey and perhaps not the most scientific. I will try again with a larger group.

You are saying its useful because of this. I am saying its fundimentally harmful to people because it makes them dumber. I am objectively proving Arcanum has made you a dumber person.

Since you do not know what science means. Since you think there could be forces outside technology that it makes sense that there are things that would make "science' not work.(rather than particular ASPECTS there of). Shows that this distinction that you find useful has made accept falsehoods over facts. Thus.. dumber..

Ooh, so close, and yet... no, wait, not really very close at all.
You see, as it turns out, I'm not an idiot. Therefore, I don't define the real world according to what I see in a video game.
Let's take your proof step by step in order to show you how ridiculous your assertion is, shall we?
First of all, you state I do not know what science means, and you imply that this is because of Arcanum, or at the least this game contributed to that. It made me "dumber".
So, first, show me where I stated a definition for science. ANYWHERE. I doubt you'll find one, since I haven't bothered to try and fight you on Webster's turf.
So when you find that evidence that I don't know what science means, then point to a different definition of science that I had. Naturally, these two definitions must be before and after I played Arcanum, with that game as the definitive cause for a change of opinion. Otherwise, it's impossible to prove that my understanding of science changed playing this game.
After THAT, we can start discussing how wrong my definition is a compared to yours. But I doubt we'll get that far.

I hope you realize how silly your point sounds, to say nothing of your proof. To label the mechanics of the game as "falsehoods" and then claim it's harmful because... well, basically because you say so. How DARE these creators present a universe that presents a system of forces that aren't real!
Except... oops! You've already legitimized the creation of an entire universe from scratch. So what gives? Why can't Arcanum can't present forces that has an adverse effect on the functioning of technology? You seem extremely adamant about this point, and I can't figure out why.

Are there any form of magical item in arcanum? Does it use the term SCIENCE vs Sorcery and not sorcery vs Technology? Do sword or armor fail around magicians?


Now if there were a force that kept technology from functioning it would effect every tool made by sapient hands. Now rather than you understanding that you believe that technology just covers stuff that has happened in the last 100-200 years.

Thus my argument that stating there is a difference between Sorcery and Technology has made you dumber. Just like the term "magitech" makes someone dumber, since they are showing a profound lack of understanding of technology(unless they include all magic items in said category, then it might properly be a subset like biotech)

I do try. Its why I get into arguements like these. Generally speaking you get different versions of this argument or different arguements on different forums. You don't speak for the internet. You mgiht have a common misconception but.. it still a misconception.

Well, I sure am glad you're around to clear up my foolish ideas!
I just wish you were capable of communicating them in a way that made sense, instead of a desperate scramble of inappropriate analogies and "objective" proofs that defy logic.

[/quote]

Perhaps you should take a few Logic Classes next semester. Then we can come back to it when you have a grasp of Logic rather than a word you think you know like Science, or Technology or Amateur.

[Stellar]

That I am writing to the wrong audience, that apparently they have closed their minds and have no desire to think about subjects.

This is where I stop reading and personally get offended. I don't know the specific rp this originated in, but reffering technology to magic or vice verca and having it missconceived is your fault. I'd never mistake the two for one or the other unless there was no clear line as to wich was being used or if any devices/objects were being used. Maybe after reading your post once or twice I might realize what you meant to say, but calling the reader ignorant for taking a loose, widely accepted definition of either of the words puts you in the hot seat since neither words are large, complex, or rarely used in english.

From reading through most of this thread I can say BD isn't trying to tell you to dumb down your writing. You used a word in place of another word that doesn't make sence in the context described. That doesn't even have anything to do with the rest of your writing, use all the allegories, metaphors and super awesome words you like, but keep common things common for the general audience, and let the intellectuals be amused with your scentence structure and word play.

Now, cool the subject down. BD if Lian doesn't want to accept what you, I or anyone else thinks then there's no reason to press the matter because her oppinion won't be changed any time soon since she mentioned that she's had this argument before.

Lian... Keep on keepin' on, I suppose =p And before you accuse other's of being close minded, be sure to open yours.

[Sensei Kimiko]

Ok folks, I've been willing to let this go for a while because there were some interesting points, but the last few posts have taken a turn away from debating and gotten more toward attacking the opponent. One more post and it won't matter if it is magic or technolgy, this thread will be locked.