Nnelg wrote:Reason says we do not know everything. Therefore, reason dictates that there's always a chance to see something new. Therefore it is Unreasonable to reject a thought merely because it is an "out-of-the-box" idea.
Please. Just stop. It's ridiculous. Here's your argument in a practical application, hopefully this will illustrate to you how silly it is:
Nnelg_Illogic wrote:The sun has never risen before and been blue. So my wild-ass theory is that it'll rise blue tomorrow. After all, "reason" says that we don't know everything, therefore it must be possible.
It is completely reasonable to reject what you're calling an "out-of-the-box." They aren't "out-of-the-box", they are way past Pluto.
Oh yes, it is
technically possible that the sun will rise blue tomorrow. What's more, it's actually possible within the known laws of physics! Of course, seeing as it's remained the same color for thousands of years of human history, I'd give better odds of myself spontaneously vaporizing at exactly 3:00 on a Sunday.
But of course, the actual theories I was talking about are nowhere near as unlikely. They may be highly
unlikely, but so too is winning the lottery, or being struck by lightning. You wouldn't call either of those
too improbable to be called possible, would you?
Nnelg wrote:And this being a story written for entertainment, it's probable that the author will throw new things at us regularly.
New things, sure. Just not stupid things, like Maggie being Charlie in disguise.
To the contrary: I've seen plenty of things in this comic that I think are somewhat 'stupid', but which (presumably) the author didn't.
Nnelg wrote:Anyways, tri-caster links are within the boundaries of what has been seen before.
Not in the context with which we've seen an entire two tri-mancer links to date. Not even close.
So we've seen not one, but two.
Nnelg wrote:Define "energy" and "irreparable harm".
Look up Occam's Razor and deus ex machina. For Occam, specifically pay attention to "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Then look up the word sufficient, and think about how that word applies to a tri-mancer link vs. say, a simple interrogation. Especially one with a very many similarities to an interrogation we've already seen which had absolutely nothing to do with a tri-mancer link. And then ponder the impact on the plot and story line if the author decided to introduce tri-mancer links as the force behind a simple interrogation and many other rather mundane activities of the characters. Suckage ensues.
But for Erfworld, mental interregation by a tri-caster link is
a perfectly natural explanation. And while I agree using a tri-caster link again would be cliche, I've seen far too many decent works fall into similar traps.
And it wouldn't be Dues ex Mechanica, not by a long shot. It isn't even close. For one, this is the middle of the story where plot twists are in fact necessary for story development, for the second the mere fact that this discussion exists precludes its unforseeability.
Nnelg wrote:That's because usually people don't care enough to take the time to specify properly. When someone says "I think X", that could mean "I think definitely X" or "I think maybe X". It's just a flaw of language in general, so there's no need to assume the worst.
No, when someone says "I believe that Maggie is Charlie" or "Seems I am buying in to the theory of Maggie either being Charlie or aligned with Charlie somehow", there isn't any ambiguity or poor choice of language to hide behind. Those are very clear statements.
In your mind. But another flaw of language is that nobody's ever on exactly the same page. For instance, I can't imagine how you could interpret "buying in to" to mean the same thing as "completely convinced".
Nnelg wrote:Ah; so close, but so far... Yes, I (mostly) agree with your line of logic of why the author will probably not do such a thing. But the correct conclusion is not to reject the possibility, let alone without first logically refuting it.
Ah; so close, but so very, very far... No one can prove a negative, so by your standard no "possibility" can ever be rejected.
Correct: no "possibility" can ever be completely rejected, unless it conflicts with things known
to be true (the axioms, and logical conclusions formed thereof).
(For example: in a scientific setting, the known laws of physics have to be accepted as axioms for practicality's sake. In a mathematical one, the rules are well-defined and immutable: 2+2 does not equal 5 because "every arithmetic operation has exactly one result" and "2+2=4" were taken as axioms.)
You are again saying:
Nnelg_illogic wrote:The sun will rise blue tomorrow. Maggie is Charlie. Prove these cannot be/happen, or accept that they can be/happen.
Logic escapes you.
Replace "will" and "is" with "might" and "may be", and that "illogic" becomes completely logical and self-consistent.
Nnelg wrote:For instance, in the example you gave someone might disagree with you that Maggie being Charlie would make the story suck. In the absence of that axiom, your entire argument falls apart -in a completely logical and intelligent manner.
My apologies for not over explaining my point. I assumed that you had some knowledge of the story so far. Here we go: The story would suck, because we have on several occasions seen Maggie either incapacitated or otherwise engaged at the same time Charlie was speaking to someone. And we have also seen that Maggie is a member of a group actively opposing Charlie. Thus, if Maggie turns out to be Charlie the logical consistency of the story falls apart. And if the logical consistency of the story falls apart, the story would then suck. Clear enough now?
Ah, I see you've started to take my advice...
Well, frankly I'm of the opinion that it is highly
unlikely that Maggie is Charlie, but I think I'll play devil's advocate on this one.
To answer your points: what better way to take out one's rivals than from the inside? As for Maggie and Charlie being active at the same time... The Arkendish could very well be able to use the subjective time of Erfworld to allow its attuned to literally be in two places at once. Or, one of the powers of the Arkendish could be super multitasking, another might be the ability to keep acting mentally while physically incapacitated. These all may be considered to be Dues ex Mechanicae -but so too with the uncroaked volcano. And precedence in the comic gives credence to the possibility.
Not that any of it is exactly likely
; but still, it's out there.
Anyways, you seem to be responding to the less important parts of my post. To clarify, this
is the point I was trying to get across:
Nnelg wrote:...no one should be called 'stupid' for bringing up an idea, no matter how far-fetched. If far-fetched ideas are never brought up, they can never be logically disproven and -more importantly- those few far-fetched ideas which do turn out to be more correct than the leading theories would never be discovered.
A further clarification/extension of this is "Belief that any given far-fetched theory is correct does not imply stupidity. There are a number of other possible reasons why one would hold such an opinion."