Hydra and Unicorn

This week I had the opportunity to admire this splendid copy of the Atlas Coelestis star atlas, by the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, published in 1729.

That page, featuring the lesser-known unicorn and hydra constellations, made me think of this scene.

Season 1 now seems a long time ago. I think it's time for Twilight to meet the hydra again.

Comments

[zimmerwald1915]

Could we not? She didn't exactly acquit herself well in that episode, and her track record has only gotten worse since.

[iisaw]

What a beautiful old book!

[Fluttercheer]

Season 1 now seems a long time ago. I think it's time for Twilight to meet the hydra again.

Is somepony teasering a future fic here?

[Walabio]

¡Atlas Cœlestis is beautiful! S01E15 Feeling Pinkie Keen Dave Polsky 2011-02-11 is a very antiskeptical episode. A much better episode with a Leap of Faith is S04E20 Leap of Faith Josh Haber 2014-03-29.

[Pineta]

5070388
Here are a few more:
pbs.twimg.com/media/D8Kw6YQXUAAiCrJ.jpg pbs.twimg.com/media/D8Kw6YRXsAAwpbv.jpg pbs.twimg.com/media/D8Kw6ZZXUAECIwO.jpg

5070467
Now I need to think of a way to bring a hydra into my next story without it seeming like a totally contrived plot twist

5070540
I've now read so much critical discussion about that episode that I am completely numb to its flaws and just watch it for the fun bits.

What would a brave pony like Rainbow Dash do?

[Walabio]

5070621

> "What would a brave pony like Rainbow Dash do?"

Miss Rainbow Dash would antagonize the hydra like she did the dragon in S01E07 Dragonshy Meghan McCarthy 2010-11-26.

[Fluttercheer]

5070540 5070621

The anti-scepticism plot is what makes this episode so great. It's only called "a flaw" by people who feel stepped on their sceptical personality and who don't like their views on the world getting challenged.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, polarizing with episodes since Season 1. It's a great episode!

[Fluttercheer]

5070622

I'm wondering how Rainbow Dash would react if she would meet an undead, skeletonized hydra. As she went down into Starswirl's caverns under Canterlot Castle with the others to study Starswirl's mirror portals, she wasn't too keen when they saw that dead hydra that apparently starved down there.

[iisaw]

5070621
You actually got to take a look at these?! I am suffused with jealousy!

What would a brave pony like Rainbow Dash do?

That line is an underappreciated gem!

5070626
Twilight was quite correct to require an extraordinary claim to provide extraordinary evidence, but then she kept ignoring the evidence! The Aesop shouldn't have been, "Believe in nonsense to get along with your friends," but , "If all the evidence points to a conclusion, then accept it, even if you don't like or understand it."

Oh and, "Then apply for a major grant to study this new and critical field of predictive magic."

[Walabio]

5070626

You do not know what skepticism is:

Skeptics want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. To do this, skeptics use skepticism:

The skeptical method is not accept claims without evidence, but when one has clear and compelling evidence, to accept the claim.

You seem to confuse skepticism with cynicism or denialism:

Denialists refuse to accept claims despite the confirming evidence. Because HolocaustDeniers gave deniers a bad name, deniers often claim to be skeptics —— ¡they are not!

The episode is fractally wrong (wrong in every way on all scales):

Miss Twilight Sparkle jumps straight to the conclusion that PinkieSense Does not exist and then uses CargoCult Science to try to prove her believe:

A Skeptic must 0thly determine whether a phenomenon exist. Otherwise one might carryout ToothFairy Science (one assumes that the ToothFairy is real and tries to calculate how much money she leaves on average). She should have started with a simple experiment like this:

Take light objects such as crumpled balls of paper and either drop them or not on Pinkie every minute, using a coin for randomization. After an hour, it should be obvious whether Pinkie has PinkieSense or not. If she does not have PinkieSense, then Twilight is done. If she does have PinkieSense, then Twilight can figure out how to study it. Instead, Twilight engages in CargoCult Science:

CargoCult Science is something looking superficially like science (labcoats, scientific instruments, et cetera) but is not. For disproving the existence of PinkieSense, Twilight put an upsidedown saladbowl with blinking lights on the head of Pinkie. that is as silly as a YoungEarthCreationist wearing a LabCoat. Then, we have the FriendshipReport:

Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned that we should not investigate our world. Indeed, we should go back to living in caves and pooping in our drinking water.

I paraphrased a bit.

5070727

Fluttercheer

> "Twilight was quite correct to require an extraordinary claim to provide extraordinary evidence, but then she kept ignoring the evidence! The Aesop shouldn't have been, 'Believe in nonsense to get along with your friends," but , "If all the evidence points to a conclusion, then accept it, even if you don't like or understand it.'"

> "Oh and, 'Then apply for a major grant to study this new and critical field of predictive magic.'"

Indeed

[Fluttercheer]

5070727 5071043

I don't think either of you remembers that episode properly enough to judge it right here and there. And neither do I remember it enough to counter your statements. I'll watch that episode again in the mid-season hiatus and get back to you once I refreshed my memory on it.

[iisaw]

5071132
Additional information won't do you any good if your underlying assumptions are incorrect.

You seem to think that skepticism is a tool for hanging on to favored beliefs when it is the exact opposite. It's a tool for finding out what is true. That means that a lot of things that are presented to a skeptic get immediately dissmissed, but that's because a claim that goes against supported facts, without any evidence of its own, should be ignored.

On the other hand, if a good skeptic is presented with a lot of evidence that one of their assumptions is wrong, they should change that assumption. Evidence is everything. That said, learning to tell good evidence from card-tricks and hearsay is a whole other subject that I won't get into here. Suffice it to say, being a good skeptic requires a lot of work and thought, and the willingness to let go of cherished ideas when they're proven to be unsupported.

Not being a skeptic is easy. You just hold onto whatever you've decided is correct and ignore all evidence to the contrary. That was the mistake Twilight made. She wasn't being skeptical, she was being an ideologue.

[Fluttercheer]

5071270

That means that a lot of things that are presented to a skeptic get immediately dissmissed, but that's because a claim that goes against supported facts, without any evidence of its own, should be ignored.

That's a statement I have to counter immediately, though, even before rewatching the episode.

What you said here is the reason why I dislike sceptics just as much as I dislike deniers. While that approach is fine in a lot of cases, there are other cases where it isn't fine, because exceptions exist for everything.
Science can prove a lot of things today. But not all of them. I use nature spirits as the example, because that's what I believe in myself:

https://www.kosmosjournal.org/news/nature-spirits-the-celtic-tradition/

To cut right to the chase, some people say they can see them and talk with them. These people aren't able to prove they can. They can't deliver any evidence for what they say, simply, because there is no evidence. If these spirits exist, then they are too powerful to get discovered. They stand above any technology or scientific method. Their presence can't be measured in any way. So those who say they can see them, cannot offer any evidence. If they meet a sceptic, then that sceptic will always stay a sceptic, because of the lack of evidence.
And that's now where the weakness of sceptics and why I don't like sceptics comes into play.
The only way the existence of nature spirits can be proven to a sceptic is if the sceptic develops the ability to see nature spirits themselves. And it is said that you can only learn to see nature spirits if you open yourself to their existence. If you start believing in them. And that's what a sceptic can't do, because the moment they would do that, they wouldn't be a sceptic anymore. They would be a believer then.
Sceptics only accept what can be proven with hard evidence. But some things can't be proven with hard evidence, because for some things, evidence is impossible to get. Sceptics doubt the existence of nature spirits, but they can't prove the claim that nature spirits don't exist, either. There is no evidence either way. There is simply no evidence at all.
And because sceptics are sceptics, they reject everything that can't be proven and refuse to acknowledge that something so much higher than any human understanding, any technology and any science can exist and that belief is the only way to experience it and to find out the truth.
The lack of belief in (and maybe fear of) something vastly more powerful than humanity and something so enigmatic that the human species will likely never fully understand it, is the weakness of sceptics.
And the reason why I don't like sceptics is this inherent arrogance that sceptics have, when they claim that something doesn't exist because there is no verifiable evidence to prove its existence. They can't see beyond the "facts" that humanity as a whole has established for itself and the world it lives in.

[Walabio]

5071307

The evidence must scale with the clam:

If you state that you had oatmeal for breakfast, I accept that without evidence. If you claim that you had oatmeal for breakfast on Pluto, I require very convincing evidence.

> "The lack of belief in (and maybe fear of) something vastly more powerful than humanity and something so enigmatic that the human species will likely never fully understand it, is the weakness of sceptics."

This is a mischaracterization:

Skeptics know that thing greater and more powerful than humans exist and are fine with it.

> "And the reason why I don't like sceptics is this inherent arrogance that sceptics have, when they claim that something doesn't exist because there is no verifiable evidence to prove its existence. They can't see beyond the "facts" that humanity as a whole has established for itself and the world it lives in."

Again, another mischaracterization:

Skeptics do not claim that NatureSpirits do not exist . We do not believe that they do not exist. We simply do not believe that they do exist. It is time to talk about Burden-of-Proof:

The one making the claim has the burden of proof. If you claim that black swans exist, we ask for proof. At that point, you point to a cage with black swans you caught in Australia. This also brings up the principle of falsifiability:

I cannot prove that a crow with purple polka-dots does not exist. If we find 1, that proves that it does exist. Basically, this means that one cannot prove a negative.

[iisaw]

5071307
TL:DR
As soon as you started in on "belief," you left the realm of logic and evidence behind, and I have no interest in reading about your fantasies.

[Fluttercheer]

5071384

And yet, nothing what you just said changes anything about it that sceptics can't prove the non-existence of nature spirits just like those who believe in them can't prove their existence, that you sit in the same boat with the believers because of that, and that it is hypocritical of you to say you don't believe in their existence and to demand evidence from the believers while you can't deliver evidence for your own stance.
You can give this a name and call it "false negative", but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of that logic.

Edit: But, despite what you said, I'll give you points for it that you don't outright reject the concept of "belief" rather than "knowledge", like iisaw did.
You still didn't understand that there are things for which it is impossible to get evidence, and therefore not fair to say that it can't exist because there is no evidence, but you take this subject with a certain seriousness, at least.
Maybe you can believe yourself one day.

[Fluttercheer]

5071426

And confirm all I said about sceptics in this comment and why I don't like sceptics. "Out of sight, out of mind, what I can't touch doesn't exist, what I can't see, hear, smell or feel isn't really there (and, yes, I know this applies to radioactivity, but humans are still able to measure it).
And radioactivity is actually a good argument for what I said and what you so readily rejected and well-suited to make your own argument fall. Radioactivity existed long before humans were able to measure and detect it. They didn't know about it before science discovered it, but it was there regardless.
If, say, humanity would now develop a technology that can detect nature spirits or maybe even make them visible to the human eye, sceptics would acknowledge their existence (because they have no other choice anymore). But what was before that hypothetical technology existed then? Just like with radioactivity, nature spirits were there before it did. The only thing that changed was that this hypothetical technology forced sceptics to accept the existence of nature spirits.
With that said, only acknowledging the existence of something after technology/science made it accessible isn't anything special anymore, as that makes it really easy to do so. You can't even decide to not acknowledge it anymore then, unless you want to go into denial.
While believing in something that science hasn't proven requires a lot more confidence and a stronger mind.
Only "believing" in what is already verified knowledge anyway, it's quite insecure if you think about it. I didn't say for nothing that the lack of actual belief is a weakness of sceptics.

[Walabio]

5071434

You are right, we cannot prove that NatureSpirits do not exist. We also cannot prove that Russel's TeaPot does not exist (an hypothetical teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars), The purpose of Skepticism is to allow one to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. We certainly end up not believing in true things because they have not been demonstrated as true. I would like to emphasize a subtle point here:

We do not believe that things not demonstrated do not exist. We simply do not accept the claim that they do exist.

If one makes a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant:

It is not fair to go up to random people on the street and ask them to prove that at 50 degrees North and 40 degrees East on Mars, a pebble made of Olivine does not exist. One making the claim must support the claim.

5071448

Unfortunately, what iisaw wrote is true, but very undiplomatic.

5071426

iisaw, you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar. Let me try to show you (I am not a wordsmith, so this will not be great prose):

> "When one brings up spiritual believe, skepticism has nothing to say on the subject, so long as one makes no testable claims. In other words, in the absence of testable claims, skepticism is agnostic about spiritual belief."

[Walabio]

5071132
5071426

I rewatched the episode. It is very hamfisted. Twilight, rather than trying to determine whether the phenomenon exists or not, immediately dismisses it. She stands on a literal soapbox to do so. The episode is Twilight-Torture, with the Universe punishing Twilight for not accepting PinkieSense. It has a literal leap of faith. The FriendshipReport is antiskeptical and antiscience too.

[Fluttercheer]

5071586

We do not believe that things not demonstrated do not exist. We simply do not accept the claim that they do exist.

And this doesn't come down to the same thing? The claim that nature spirits exist is what makes one aware of their existence. If no one would talk about nature spirits, not even those who can see them and talk with them, then they might as well not exist. If no one talks about them, then sceptics can't demand a proof for the claim, because then they haven't even heard about nature spirits.
But if they do hear a claim about their existence (which can be as simple as "I know they exist", it doesn't need talking about an actual sighting for that), then this is likely the only hint for their existence that they will ever receive, since a proof is impossible to get in this case.
In the complete absence of any chance for a proof, the claim of existence is synonymous with the existence itself.
So if a sceptic rejects a claim about the existence of nature spirits, they reject their existence too. Your second sentence is contradicting your first one.

[Walabio]

5071773

We do not believe that they do not exist, we just do not believe that they do exist. Let me use an analogy:

The number of marbles in a jar is either odd or even. Ana says that the marbles look even to her. Betty does not accept claims without evidence. Betty does not accept the claim. If Betty would believe that the claim is wrong, she would believe that the number of marbles is odd, but Betty simply does not accept the claim without evidence. Betty is agnostic about the number of marbles in the jar.

It is true that we do not believe in NatureSpirits, but it is impractical to believe in every hypothetical thing. Instead, we believe in things demonstrated to exist.

[iisaw]

5071586
True, but after decades of seeing the devastation that credulity and superstition can cause to people, animals, and whole ecosystems, I have run very low on honey, and would rather spend it where it is likely to do some good. People who construct straw men to use as examples in ad hominem attacks on my character (and that of skeptics in general), get no sweetness from me.

I also am wary of the broad application of skeptical agnosticism. An unfalsifiable claim can be harmless or harmful to varying degrees, as well as plausible or implausible to varying degrees. Claims that are highly improbable and harmful should be considered as untruthful until solidly proven. Believing in tree spirits is not the same as believing that having sex with a virgin will cure one's AIDS, or that ground pangolin scales cure arthritis. True, there is a broad gray area between those two extremes, but erring on the side of "do no harm," is a fairly defensible position to take.

[Walabio]

5072163

Yes, I agree with you. I am not flawless myself (I have been called out for calling creationists creatards out of frustration). Skepticism in medicine and money (the medicine being an extension of money) is very important —— ¡I am certain that some credulous people drink chlorine dioxide for curing cancer, while letting the Prince of the Republic of Nigeria sneak money out of the country through their bank-accounts under the understand that the Princess of the Republic of Nigeria will leave a few million dollars in the accounts as I write!

[iisaw]

5072260
We do the best we can.

[Walabio]

5072265

Indeed. We do what we can. Interestingly enough, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe brought me to the show with its review of Bridle Gossip. Then can Feeling Pinkie Keen. The show is a mixed bag. The Antithesis of Feeling Pinkie Keen is Leap of Faith, which seems to be the writer Josh Haber sticking it to the writer Dave Polsky. It is good that we can contributors like Pineta on this site.

[iisaw]

5072269
Neat! The SGU is how I found the show, too!

As much as some people deride fanfic, episodic shows like MLP are fanfic. Every episode that isn't written by the show-runner/creator is someone playing around in someone else's fictional universe. A strong story editor can keep things coherent and thematically unified, but in kid-vid such efforts are usually derided. MLP (and most cartoons) don't even have a writers' room, so the writers don't really know what the rest of the season's episodes are like unless they make an effort. A mixed bag, containing the occasional gem, is the best we can expect.

And yes, Pineta is a gem. That's why I follow this blog!

[Walabio]

5072374

i tried reading your stories, but when I went to comment, I could not. ¿Did I do something to offend you? It you tell me what it is, I shall try not to do it again. I am sorry, although for what, I know not.

[iisaw]

5075017
Well, that's weird... I looked and I had you blocked? I have no idea why that wold be, but then I also seem to be following some people I've never heard of, so... ?

Anyway, that's fixed!

[Walabio]

5075021

Like I wrote, I am not perfect. I can think of many times I got carried away:

I support Genital Integrity and Intactivism and sometime insult mislead parents for sexually mutilating the genitals of their poor defenselss boys intersexed, or girls The true enemy is the greedy physicians and religions).

Sometimes, when I come across people pushing IRV (Instant Runoff-Voting), I forget that they are probably mislead and accuse them of pusing false reform:

In IRV, one choices one's 1st choice 1st, but those on the right choice Republican for the 2nd choice and those left choice Democrat for their 2nd choice out of simple name-recognition. Votes tend to transfer to the Republicrats and Democans. The result is that 3rd parties and Independents have about as much chance of winning as under plurality (vote-for-1 AKA 1st-Past-The-Post). A true reform, which can be done on existing ballots, after removing the overvote rule, is easier to count too, and allows 3rd Parties and Independents to win is Approval Voting.

When I hear Bullshit and prostitution and sextrafficking from prudes, I see red. Most prostitutes are consenting adults, what they generally want is decriminalization of prostitution. What the studies show is that decriminalization of prostitution is the best thing too. Just look at decriminalization of prostitution in New Zealand. When I see red, I write very mean things to those who might be deceived victims of the lying prudes.

Maybe, 1 of these outbursts of similar 1s are why you banned me. Well now, If I can be mistakenly banned, I might have banned mistakenly:

I just lifted all of the bans of people toward me and my groups. Those mistakenly banned can participate and message me again. Those who were banned for reason, but learned the errors of their ways can interact with me and my groups too. Those who were banned for cause who have not learned the error of their way will abuse me and disrupt my groups, but not for long, before they reearn a rightful ban. You are free to do what you like, but you might want to try unbanning everyone and letting the trolls reearn their bans too.

[iisaw]

5075190
None of that is anything I would block someone for. Pretty much the only reasons I've hit the block button have been for people who indulge in vicious personal attacks, promote racism or religious bigotry, are Nazi apologists, or are... well let's just say it, delusional.

Oh, and being fumble-fingered when it comes to tiny buttons on my kindle screen. I can't count the number of times I have wreaked havoc with fingers that cover the width of three icons in a row.

[Walabio]

5075255

> "…, Nazi apologists, …"

People accuse Intactivists for being Nazis all the time. I can sum up the difference in 2 lines:

• Nazi hate sexually mutilated people, but love sexual genital mutilation because it allows them to identify whom to murder.
• Intactivists love sexualy mutilated people, but hate sexual genital mutilation as a violation of human rights.

Maybe, you mistook me for a Nazi.

[iisaw]

I don't think so. Cards on the table; I think any informed, sober adult should be able to hack off bits of themselves as they choose, but doing it to a child who has no say in the matter is evil.

[Walabio]

5075461

> "I don't think so. Cards on the table; I think any informed, sober adult should be able to hack off bits of themselves as they choose, but doing it to a child who has no say in the matter is evil."

¡Ah!

The thing is that the religions tell parents that they and their children will go to heaven if they, the parents sexually mutilate the genitals of their children. The tell the parents that if they the the parents do not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, they, the parents and children, will burn in hell.

Greedy doctors tell parents that if they do not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, their children will masturbate, leading to blindness insanity, hairy palms, et cetera.

Conned parents can be won over. Unfortunately, some parents are the enemy:

In 2010, Joshua Haskins was born. His ignorant parents believed that Christians are suppose to sexually mutilate the genitals of their babies —— ¡it seem to me that the only true Scotsman does not eat porridge with sugar and the only true christians are the WestboroBaptists! Well now, one does not need to read the bible to be a christian. The trouble is that he had a severe heartdefect. He had about a ~50%/50% chance of living to adulthood and required any surgeries, They could not sexually mutilate Joshua because they could not find a physician willing to take on the liability of almost certainly killing him.

Jill Haskins went onto the Internet and complained that she could not sexually mutilate her son as all good christians should. Intactivists gave to them these 8 facts:

• The sexual genital mutilation would almost certainly kill him.
• Christians are supposed to have intact genitals —— ¡not sexually mutilated genitals!
• Sexual genital mutilation is medically unnecessary.
• Sexual genital mutilation is a violation of human rights.
• Sexual genital mutilation inflicts unnecessary pain.
• Sexual genital mutilation inflicts unnecessary suffering.
• Sexual genital mutilation reduces sexual function.
• Sexual genital mutilation reduces sexual function.

Their reactions was that they made up their minds; so now, do not wish to be bothered with the facts.

According to the mother Jill Haskins, they found an unnamed Doctrix stupid and greedy to sexually mutilate the genitals of Joshua Haskins. Everyone pointed the Haskins to the list, especially the 1st item. They did not listen. Because Jill Haskins live blogged, we know that this happened (she deleted the blog afterward):

The Doctrix sexually mutilated the genitals of Joshua Haskins. Joshua Haskins somehow managed to survive the sexual genital mutilation. Then, he started to hœmorrhage through his sexually mutilated penis —— ⸘who could have predicted that an infant of bloodthinners for a heartdefect could possibly hœmorrhage‽ The medical staff poured blood in through an IV while trying to stop the hœmorrhage throgh his sexually mutilated penis. Then he died. The mom concluded that despite managing to not die for over an hundred days since birth, having been sexually mutilated hours before death, and hœmorrhaging through his sexually mutilated penis at the time of death, that sexual genital mutilation had nothing to do with his death.

Afterwards, Intactvists planned to protest the hospital allowing the sexual genital mutilation. The Haskins lied to the media and claimed that Intactivists plan to protest the funeral of Joshua Haskins The West Boro Baptists probably inspired that lie (whatever else one says about the West Boro Baptists, they at least bother to read their bibles)).

Intactivists encouraged the Haskins to sue the doctrix and the hospital, not because those sacks of shit deserve any money, but as away of making sexual genital mutilation unprofitable. Attorneys for the Rights of the Child volunteered to do the lawsuit pro bono. They figured about a 99% of winning (the doctrix had to be very stupid or greedy, or both to sexually mutilate an infant with a deformed heart on bloodthinners). The Haskins refused to sue, even though they had a 99% chance of getting tens of millions of dollars and a 1% of losing nothing. We cannot know what goes on in their heads, but, during the lawsuit, they would have the fact that their own stubbornness killed their son. They did however try to sue the intactivists:

The Haskis dropped their lawsuit quietly. Their lawyers probably pointed out these facts:

• one cannot sue "the Intactivists".
• The intactivists wanted to help with their good advice which would have saved Joshua Haskins that day (he still had only about a ~50%/50%-chance of lining to adulthood).
• It is not a crime to point out that the actions of the parents lead to the death of the son.
• It is not a crime to point out that the parents could have with a 99% certainty and no risk of losing money tens of millions of dollars.
• The Intactivists never intended to protest the funeral of Joshua.

In other words, the Haskins have no case against the intactivists.

I feel great sympathy for most parents who sexually mutilate the genitals of their parents because religions and physicians con them into believing that it is necessary, but fuck parents like the Haskins.

I shall put this response on my blog and the forum for Intactivism & Genital Integrity.

[iisaw]

5075496
We should probably take this off of Pineta's blog and into PMs!