Two Assholes · 8:29pm May 26th, 2012
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
but the way those atoms are put together.
The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff.
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Across the sea of space the stars are other suns.
We have traveled this way before and there is
much to be learned.
--Carl Sagan
Well friends, it's that time. I just have to get something off my chest. Yes that's right. A list of pet peeves. Now I should qualify this, before I start getting hate comments. Every single one of these is just my opinion, opinions are like assholes as the saying goes... or is that excuses?
In any case, it still applies.
These are things about fandoms in general that irritate me enough that I want to bitch about them. If your story contains one of these, I hope I don't offend. Just note that I don't list things here without having reasons for them. You can disagree with me, that's fine. I won't be offended.
1. Anyways.
I hate this word with a passion. Why? It's not a word. The word, when properly used, is anyway. "Anyways" is a colloquial corruption that has crept into fandom, and every time I see it, it annoys the crap out of me. I can sometimes tolerate it in dialogue, if the character would be in character to use it, since it has become more common in the current vernacular, but when a character like Twilight Sparkle or Rarity uses it, it really chaps my ass. I don't really who why this one friggin' word bothers the crap out of me so much, but it does.
2. Magic man hates science man. They have a fight, magic man wins.
They Might Be Giants corruption aside, what I mean by this statement is the idea that magic and science are forces that are diametrically opposed. In order for this to be the case, science would have to a force in the first place. It is not. Let me throw up a qoute here.
"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
"The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."
"Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance)."
Ok, now that the big text block is out of the way, what does this mean? How often does this happen. You're reading a story, and the author has scientists and magicians butting heads. The scientists are trying to explain things, and start making excuses for why the magic is just a trick or what have you.
Stop there. Science is a method of observing and building an understanding of the universe. A physcial model is an example of this. Science, when done right, is inherently self correcting. It examines evidence objectively, and discards those conclusions which are proven to be false. Now take MLP for example. Here we have a universe in which magic can be demonstrated. In which it produces repeatable results. This means that it obeys rules, even if we don't know what those rules are. Yet again and again, what does the scientist in Equestria do? He freaks the fuck out. Even if he has demonstratably entered a NEW UNIVERSE. A good scientist, once he has stopped freaking out about the "impossibilities", will began examining the evidence and coming up with hypotheses that will eventually correct his physical model so that it includes the phenomenon that we refer to as magic.
What annoys me even more is when the obviously scientific characters like Twilight Sparkle differentiate between magic and science, like they are opposing forces. As if the Equestrian Scientists are just ignoring an entire part of their physical model because... I don't know, they don't like magic's face or something.
But wait? You say. What about Dresden Files. Magic fucks with science there all the time! Are you saying that Jim Butcher is wrong?
No, and I will clarify this statement. To be fair to the fantasy genre, it is such a common trope for scientists to be the bad guy that arguing against it is often a matter of pissing into the wind. However, I should point out that in most cases, what authors mean isn't that science and magic are mutually exclusive, but that magic and TECHNOLOGY can be. This actually makes sense, because usually in series where this happens, magic is something that's kept on the down low (Like in Dresden files). It isn't always present, and is rare enough that a normal person can live their whole life and not come into contact with it. In this case, it makes SENSE that magic would play holy hell on technology. Afterall technology is applied science. By necessity it requires a well examined physical model. If there's an entire section of your physical laws that are called into question by a force you don't know about, then technology, especially modern technology which is extremely vulnerable to small unexpected state changes, will generally fall apart.
In the Dresden universe, magic fucks with technology hard, especially modern electronics. However, it stands to reason that if one approached magic scientifically, and used the scientific method to figure out WHY it fucks with technology, it would stand to reason that you could overcome this problem.
Which leads to the invention of things like technology which uses magical principles in its construction or operation, or magitech.
At some point I'm going to write a story that has Earth and Equestria colliding, and instead of having everyone become ponies, I'm going to demonstrate how earth and equestria can grow together and become greater than the sum of its parts.
In THAT world, you are going to have magitech like a MOTHERFUCKER.
Sorry, I'm just too tired to read the whole thing.
136955
Give me three hail Lunas and an Our Princess Celestia you are forgiven my son.
You know, now that you point that out...I cannot really think of many shows/franchises that have been popular in the last few years, involving magic that is, that have really done a good job of reconciling the two concepts...
It should be interesting to see a story where the two societies come together and have to learn to adapt to one another as well; tired of this Conversion theme I see all the time...
Anyways...well, with that I should go. *hides in his bunker*
Just kidding! (Don't hurt me please.)
Anyways? I don't think anyways is such a bad work. Think about the fact that you can use it any way you want! Anyways, while this is a facilitating discussion I could see how someone could abuse it by using the word "anyways" over and over in a short period of time.
That was a lot of words though for you don't like how some people portray magic being a more abstracted and subjective force than objective.
136963
Part of the problem is on the heads of scientists, too. We get very defensive when people start throwing around words like magic, because usually when they say it they are giving scientists "what's this asshole going to do to ruin our fun this time" sort of look. Magic raises the hackles of scientists because the term is used a lot to describe things that CAN'T be observed or recorded, or repeated in experimental conditions.
My least favorite idea is the idea that understanding how something works lessens its beauty somehow. That mystery is an inherently noble thing.
Bullshit. Mystery is something we don't understand yet. Just because we have a pretty good idea of how the human reproductive system works doesn't LESSEN the awe inspiring complexity and beauty of the mechanisms of conception, or in some way make babies less magical.
Solving scientific mysteries ALWAYS leads to new mysteries. The act of discovery is beautiful, not the shadows that it illuminates. Again, just my opinion. I'll get off my high horse now.
136968
That's me in a nutshell. Never say in five words what you can rant about in a hundred or so.
Actually me in a nutshell would be... "What the fuck am I doing in this nutshell? How did I get here? What can I do to avoid being in a nutshell in the future?" But I digress...
136981
Take this, you'll need it to break out of your shell...
dylan.tweney.com/images/nutcracker.jpg
136963
Teasing DT aside, since there is no real 'magic' it becomes more often than not a literary device rather than a deep mechanism of the world. Partially because few authors want to put the time and effort into fully thinking out what is essentially a new force of nature. To properly give it a logical nature takes a TON of work, which for a lot of stories it just isn't relevant or the focus of enough stuff to justify that kind of effort.
If look into game design (Pen & Paper, and to a lesser extent video games) you see a lot of good examples of logical, well fleshed out descriptions for magic due to the systematic nature of those media.
Having done it a couple of times myself it does give a great foundation if you want to really explore magic. Downside, if you want it to not suck you better be prepared to spend a lot of time and effort on it.
I love you guys. I never get this kind of discussion out of sites like fanfiction.net. If I haven't told you guys this yet, you rock.
136991
Be warned I can be...verbose...when I talk about topics I like
. I have an outline for a story I'm slowly working on that's over 15k words long and it's just an outline. Don't even get me started on designing a logical magic system that could be intertwined with technology. You'll get a 30 page dissertation with mathematical references and limitations. 
136991
And be warned about me as well...I love linking pictures to express myself...
images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111015171825/mlp/images/1/1e/Twilight_Sparkle_crazy_S02E03.png
You know, for some reason the thought of getting a group started to discuss and catalog ideas for how magic works in this universe just popped into my head. A place to give authors ideas they could use in their work. Would be interesting. Though...that could be because of the Irish Whiskey at the moment...
Not too sure...
137022
It's not a terrible idea, but I don't know how much time I'd have to devote to it. This weekend is atypical for me, because I'm usually with my gaming group on weekends but it kinda fell through today.
Still, it might be interesting to have a forum to discuss such things.
137027
Ha! Only another gamer would ever obsess over a magic system not making 'sense'.
137036
What game if you don't mind me asking?
137045
Pretty much anything I can get my hands on, but lately a lot of Mutants and Masterminds, since it is very easy to adapt it to do other stuff.
Some of my favorites include Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings, New World of Darkness (my favorite is split between Changeling the Lost and Hunter the Vigil). DnD 3.5, 'cause I can't seem to tolerate 4th ed. Call of Cthulhu, and it's modern supplement Delta Green.
If I can RP in it, chances are I've tried it.
137031
Well...yeah...
137059
I see. Well, so that means since you are free this weekend...you can get a head start on chapter three?
Maybe....
137059
Ok you just got some gamer respect from me for that list.
I like your Idea go fore it
I agree with (almost) all of those statements. I never truly understood why scientists would be so opposed to the idea of magic, except for perhaps the fact that according to the laws of our world it shouldn't exist. But, if it's a constant in some other environment, then it makes perfect sense, and is in and of itself science. The only excuse for scientists even having any opposition towards magic, is ... I got nothing. Maybe their basic nature, and believing that magic doesn't exist for years and years. But even then, you don't see pastel colored ponies that can talk everyday either.
The science of magic. Now that's something many people would freak about. It's probably why I love fantasy books that have a good base for magic. The Wheel of Time is one of my favorite book series ever, and the magic system is part of the reason. Mainly because it's rather unique.
Anyways, I fucking love the word anyways. I use it all the damn time. It isn't the best when used for anything but casual slang, and I don't really see ponies using it myself. It would seem... out of place coming from a pony. Probably because they aren't human, and the word anyways is kinda a human thing in my mind.
Maybe I'm just odd.
137946
If a scientist was a good scientist, and someone claiming to do magic was able to demonstrate it reliably in a "laboratory" setting, then the scientist would have to create a hypothesis which took into account this new evidence.
Part of the problem people have, I think, that people get theories and laws mixed up a lot. Laws do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. As such a law only applies to situations which have already been observed, and may be found to be false when taken in a wider context. People hear "law" and think, well that means this can't be broken. This isn't the case.
Good example, newton's Law of Universal Gravitation only applies in weak gravitation fields. Newton's Law was sound given the data he had available at the time.. Later work shows that Relativity more closely models how gravity effects light in a physical model, and modern Quantum Theory basically shows that relativity works until you get to really really SMALL phenomenon. Laws are merely extrapolations, or observations, based on collected evidence. They do not attempt to posit WHY or HOW.
Patently, that means that since we have yet to reliably observe magic in action in our universe, in a universe where it exists (which could be our own, for the sake of argument) the current physical model, which is essentially a body of evidence we have gathered about how the physical world operates would be hopelessly unable to cope with the existence of magic in its current state. However, scientists would immediately begin revising this physical model by gathering data about magic.
Part of the problem is the word, magic. Authors tend to use it as a catch all when they don't want to explain how something works.
However, as a good example, in Dungeons and Dragons, any edition you choose to look at, mages can create repeatable effects using tricks they've learned about how the universe works. They call these spells. Sound familiar? That's because a mage is essentially a scientist operating from a divergent physical model. He has made observations about his universe, and put them to practical use in the form of spells, instead of or in supplementation of technology.
In the outline I've been playing with for the worlds collide idea I have that I mentioned in the blog above, scientists DO get into a hissy fit about calling it magic, and the first conferences brought together to discuss the subject are full of infighting between Equestrian Unicorn mages and Human scientists. However, the scientists and mages eventually agree to call it a discipline of scientific investigation, Thaumitology. From the greek, thaum meaning miracle, and tology meaning study of. Thus putting mages on the order of high level theoretical physists.
I understand that this is largely a question of semantics, but since, as pointed out by fiction, a lot of scientists think magic is a bad word, in order to get past the prejudice associated with something, it is sometimes necessary to call a duck a waterfowl.
Besides, any story I write with a scientific study of magic is going to lean heavily on Terry Pratchett, because I've always wanted to use the term, Gigathaum, or millithaum.
Laws are observations that can be proven constant given the current evidence. Nothing more. Now, theories are where the why and how come in. In any case, science itself is built upon revisions. Were magic to reveal itself to be a universal constant that we had no knowledge of before, scientists would find out how to fit it in, discarding or revising those laws or theories that contradict it. That's their job, after all. Would it contradict our current observations? Hell yes it would, but it also just proved that it exists, and you can't argue with that.
I think people have a misconception of "magic" being some force that cannot be explained. This is probably sprung from the fact that it doesn't exist in our world, or if it does we have no proof of it. If that was the case, then science and magic wouldn't fare well around each other. Magic itself wouldn't be a reliable source if it didn't have constant effects. That makes it some form of science. If it were unpredictable, no one would want to use it, for fear of adverse effects. Thus, it can be observed, and studied.
Thaumitology sounds like a good word for the study of magic. Magic would probably seem like a miracle to most of us.
And when you write that story, I will be there to read it, because the fandom is sorely lacking a story following that exact premise. And because I have thorough enjoyed your other work n this site.
As a side-note, based on your optimistic attitude, I would like to bring to your attention:
Humans Aren't Bastards
Our official motto is: "You can love ponies without hating people."
140048
Hell yes, I support that. I'm there with bells on.
Can't believe I missed this before.
I freaking love Magitech, and conversely, Techomancy.
You have just gained a follower.