 Hemetics cost to much |
  |
 Apr 26 2005, 11:38 PM
Post
#176
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525  |
Explicit examples indeed. Blakkie review those mentioned points. Also review the definition of subjective more closely, your syntactical arguement is silly enough I do not feel it needs addressed. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Apr 27 2005, 12:42 AM
Post
#177
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
But you said magic wasn't subjective? :P The BBB does mention attempts made to locate the genetic markers and/or biological source of the awakened abilities. It has failed. It would appear that magic is simply beyond the current understanding of technology. That it remains, you know, "magic" seems to suggest this. Ellery gave examples of trying to measure the physical effects created by magic. It is reasonable to expect this has been done in the sixth world several times, over and over. That is akin to a caveman noticing that when you let go of a rock it heads downwards. He could then try bash coconuts, seeing how high you have to hold the rock to crack the coconut most of the time. Then showing this discovery to his friend Grog. He is using the rock to bash the coconut. But he is ignorant of gravity, the difference between mass and weight, the celluar structure of the coconut, the crystaline structure of the rock, the atoms that make up either of those, the air resistance (WTF is 'air'?), the reason why he cares, etc., etc. In time the desendants of the caveman might come to learn these questions, and maybe even the answers. But are they guaranteed to know of all the questions? In the sixth world it all looks clumsy and illogical because, well, because they don't even know the questions. So if you don't know the questions it's pretty damn hard to try find the answers. EDIT: BTW that strain gauge link was purposely chosen as an example of what Ellery's examples can be expected to bring. Trying to interpret backwards from an effect to a process you have no freakin' clue about is usually of limited value and fraught with the possibility of faulty conclusions or conclusions so vague as to be unusable. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 27 2005, 12:57 AM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
BTW why exactly do you feel that my "syntactical arguement" is silly enough you not feel it need to address it? What exactly is the silly part, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2005, 01:07 AM
Post
#179
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Agreed. Such sentiments show nearly as much lack of understanding of the scientific method as the opposite. If you are comfortable with applying the scientific method, it's usually pretty obvious where it can't be used.
Since we don't know the state of appropriate technology, or what experiments were tried and were inconclusive, it's hard to know what to make of this claim. You'll note that I did list this under the category of most-difficult-to-scientifically-answer questions, due to the lack of ability to manipulate the system, and slow timescale of the process. That doesn't have a major bearing on whether more rapid and repeatable aspects of magic can be understood.
And perhaps this is what a particularly inspired but not particularly scientifically motivated Renewed Hermetic might do.
So, how did Newton get so much farther in understanding mechanics than others (including Aristotle, who was no slouch intellectually)? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 27 2005, 12:12 PM
Post
#180
|
|||||||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Time for a reality check here, this is fictional game world. You expect the SR authors to list out technical details of tests? As if such a list (which you and I shouldn't likely even understand without hours, or even days of reading) would mean much. These are the same people that came up with the other tech in SR. ;) Instead, realising the silliness of doing that, they did some handwaving like using the current prestige of MIT to suggest, by the name change to MIT&M, that people with really, really big brains were working on the problem. :) Also remember the other technology of this era; cultured bioware, DNI, and nanoware. Given the huge finacial benefits from understanding magic better to harness/bottle/use it more effectively how exactly can you expect that there hasn't been enormous co-ordinated research done? Are you so self-assured to think that a suggestion that you managed to come up with an in a few minutes hadn't occured to an entire planet full of people that's had over 40 years to think think this stuff up?
I'm suggesting that you are underestimating the task by many, many orders of magnitude. Remember that just because we are given a number of dice, attributes, dice pool rules (prior to SR4), and such to help play the game doesn't mean that all these things are obvious IC.
What, drop rocks or perform your suggested experiements?
Yet he fell short of relativity and quantum mechanics, or even that what propelled the apple earthward wasn't inivisble particles crashing down onto it. Also he was unable to use an ATM, which I can. I roxxor n3VV+0N!!! |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Apr 27 2005, 02:00 PM
Post
#181
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
At both of you: :please: Newton was so successful as a scientist because he invented integral calculus. Well, not really; Archimedes had actually come up with the idea of splitting a figure up into an infinite number of "slices" and adding them all together, but he didn't actually trust that this worked all the time, and only used it for preliminary investigation into things that he would later prove geometrically. Newton was the first to just trust that limits in fact were valid *without* proving them and, using limits and thus integration as a postulate, proving a great many things true. And that, in the end, is science: assuming something is true (hypothesis), then running with it unless you discover a contradiction (experimentation), in which case you drop the hypothesis and try another (conclusion). THis whole side of the argument is silly. In reality, Newton--like all other scientists--succeeded because he stood on the shoulders of giants: centuries of research by the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, etc all through his own contemporaries like Galileo and Copernicus who, despite never formalizing the process of science were still able to make great strides in understanding the world. Magic, on the other hand, has been around for forty years; the only shoulders you can stand on is the various religous works on the ancient past (supplying hypotheses), which you can attempt to apply to the modern day magical world (experimentation), rejecting those hypotheses which don't work, and promoting the ones that do to Theories (drawing conclusions). In that way, Renewed Hermetics are scientists. However, they are also not scientists. They are working in a field that cannot be reliably quantified, getting results that many times cannot be reproduced or, if they can be reproduced, usually not by anyone other than the experimenter and certainly not by the public at large. They constantly try to set up experiments with such things as Jungarian psychology as hypothesis, and in many cases don't do a good job of opening themselves up to the possibility of being wrong (although that last point can actually be applied to some of the real-life "scientists" I know, but I digress.) Like everyone in the Sixth World and elsewhere, they're still people, and as such have emotions and prejudices which color their work; this is where the "No religous dogma" rule comes from. So yes, I'd agree with Ellery that the majority--even the vast majority--of Renewed Hermetics are not "true" scientists. Of course I contend that almost nobody *is* a true scientist, even out of those people with doctorates who spend their careers doing scientific research. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 27 2005, 02:36 PM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Er, that was my point Eyeless. That Newton stood upon the work of others. It is actually interesting that a contemporary of the time also further developed calculus in parallel (roughly). It actually lead to a big fight that hampered communication between intellectuals of England and continental europe for a long time.
I guess instead of the ATM comment i should have mentioned that it took Newton well into his twenties to get a handle on calculus, where as i learned it much earlier. :) Also Newton was helped by the -questions- from his contemporaries. One particular example is the question about the shape of the path of an orbitting body that was held in place by a force that was inverse square of distance. Newton used his math skills and techniques to determine this was an elipse. P.S. In the sixth world there are some giants, IE and dragons. But they tend not to talk too much, plus their knowledge is based primarily on a different time and they are so far above magically ability wise that extrapolating details would be difficult at best. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2005, 03:25 PM
Post
#183
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well naturally. *My* point was that your side and Ellery's side really aren't all that different. In fact, I'm kinda wondering what the actual debate is about now, as you two seem to be arguing parallel paths. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2005, 03:52 PM
Post
#184
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Usually there are more sides than two, and not all are fully opposing. :P Ellery would seem to suggest that bringing to bear sensors to measure the path of a brick flying around would unlock the mysteries of the sixth world magic. I suggest that doing that is likely more like pissing into the wind. It is closer to Aristotle, trying to prove that all matter is composed of earth, air, water, and fire, than Newton (who himself was still a "natural philosopher" at heart). As for Raskolnikov I couldn't resist poking a stick in his "well said" piece. That and his assertion that SR casting isn't subjective in nature, even when he defines the terms. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 27 2005, 04:05 PM
Post
#185
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
Blakkie, you quote a section of text and then address something entirely different. To the point that magic can be measured, that its effects are reproducable, and that the mechanics, manadraw, etc can be studied you answer that a genetic link to magic has not been proven.
When beacuse of the above arguement you didn't address, it is stated that the practice of magic is not subjective, you reply that it is and wave your hands, shouting wildly when when you try to present an answer. Here is a tip you may have missed in highschool: repeating yourself is not a chain of evidence. Since it is becoming apparent that I am soon to be doing nothing but repeat the actual points already made by other people, I will leave you to actually look at the thread. If you have real questions and pose them I would address them. I expect you will just make snide comments and repeat groundless claims. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2005, 09:47 PM
Post
#186
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 16-January 05 Member No.: 6,986 |
Looking at the rules in Shadowrun 3rd Ed for a minute, we can see that work clearly has been done to quantify the effects of magic in the setting.
Spells, Spirits, Foci and Wards are all rated by Force, and both the law and market prices reflect the idea that this is a commonly understood aspect of Magic. So, the question should be asked: who did the quantifying? We can assume three possible sources: (a) Dragons. (b) Immortal Elves. © Mortal researchers who don't follow Renewed Hermeticism. (d) Renewed Hermetics. Options (a) and (b) can safely be dismissed, I think. So which of © and (d) is the case, or mostly the case? Well, there are certain facts we know about the Shadowrun universe. North American universities are dominated by Renewed Hermeticism. They are a strong force in European universities as well. Renewed Hermetics are hired by corporations and the UCAS in preference to Shamans (and possibly other types of magician not mentioned in the main rulebook). Now, we know that in the real world most research is carried out by corporations, universities, and governments, so here are some assumptions: Paradigms that are successful in terms of original research are likely to be both prestigious and profitable. Paradigms that apply the scientific method to magical research, insofar as this is possible, are likely to be more successful in terms of original research. Corporations are influenced by considerations of profit and prestige. Universities are influenced by considerations of corporate sponsorship and prestige. Governments are influenced by corporations. The statement in the main rulebook that Hermetics have a scientific approach to magic is intended to convey information about the world of Shadowrun. Should my assumptions hold, and my reading of what is presented as fact in the rulebook be correct, I think the conclusion is inescapable that either Renewed Hermetics are (comparatively) successful magical researchers, or that North America is a backwater in terms of magical research by virtue of hidebound adherence to an ineffective paradigm. As corporations are multinational, I think the latter is significantly less likely than the former. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2005, 11:08 PM
Post
#187
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 1,525 |
Indeed Dexy, we argue that magic can be approached scientifically, and that the fact it does lend itself to quantification suggests it is by-and-large a repeatable, reliable phenomena.
As presented in the SOTA64 book however, Renewed Heremticism has, at least, some major flaws in their approach if they truly wish to be doing hard science. I and others maintain that hard science can be done however, regardless of the tradition of the mage/shaman. It is possible that in SR the renewed hermetics hold a very powerful position in magical research and shut those who do not conform to their paradigm out. As it is written, this may be the case. I would prefer, as would others, that in the SR story, there exist a larger number of magicians practicing hard science on their nature instead of a handful of persecuted scientists against a tradition of quackery. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 28 2005, 12:41 AM
Post
#188
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
I think both C and D are the case, because I think (for reasons that I've previously explained) that labels like "Renewed Hermetic" and "Dog Shaman" and such can largely be left behind when doing hard research.
But I'd expect a lot of soft "research" to be done as well. In fact, I expect the academic landscape to look rather like psychology and cognitive science departments do now. Some are very soft, some are very hard, and many have a mix of both. I expect Renewed Hermetics to be more prone to be in academia than followers of most other paradigms, but I wouldn't necessarily expect them to occupy the harder side as opposed to the softer side. The point I was trying to make about Newton was not simply that he built on others' work. He was willing to throw out others' work too, when it didn't work. Lots of people had a chance to build on Aristotle's ideas, but it took around two thousand years for people to gather the courage to admit that Aristotle's ideas didn't match reality. When you can reliably measure and quantify an effect, and you're willing to challenge your ideas with evidence immediately, you can make progress pretty fast. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th January 2025 - 11:08 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.