1189 replies to this topic

[Ilithi Dragon]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

@Waladil

Regarding Schlock Mercenary, it sounds like an interesting franchise worth some discussion. I'm in and out today here and there, so I lack the time for any real research, but since you already know a fair about about them from the sounds of it, maybe you can give a rundown of examples of weapon yields, either in stated numbers, or examples of destruction?

This. I'm around pretty much all day, but I'll be off and on myself working on my book and other things, and I wouldn't know where to even start to get reliable information on the performance and capabilities of Schlock Mercenary tech. If you could give us a rundown as Catamount asked, that would be awesome.

[Shredhead]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Magic, silly technology, it doesn't really matter what one calls it, and yeah, Wars did start getting pretty dogmatic and black and white after awhile, though in fairness, that's mostly in the prequel films. I found the originals to be far more just a light-hearted space adventure that didn't try nearly so hard to push Lucas' rather...interesting... philosophies on their viewers.


@Shredhead

Thank you, your own definition shows that magic fits the basic definition of technology. It's the knowledge to manufacture tools (wands, staves, what have you), and techniques to achieve a task. Even without the tools, it's still knowledge of techniques to achieve a task, ergo, magic is a form of technology.

You've also still failed to answer the basic objections to trying to use this distinction to define the difference between scifi and fantasy.




No, it's broken down to the elements you think define science fiction, and you've failed utterly to answer any of the objections to using said definition. Boiling your subjective definition down doesn't make it less a subjective definition. You think science fiction is defined by a couple aspects of setting, rather than core story elements, and fail to answer the objections to that definition.

Ok, this is not only my "opinion" it's a quite clear definition, and yes, the setting defines the genre.

Quote

science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

Source:http://www.thefreedi...science+fiction
And I quote myself again: Science Fiction is a subgenre of Fantasy. So all SF stories are Fantasy. Got it?
And leaving out the "science" thing you sure can define magic as technology, but it's a strawman argument. I hate it when people do this. In order to craft a tool with technology you have to learn the scientific bases, be it mechanics or electronics or, at the very core, mathematics. To cast magic (it still irks me to discuss this in such a serious way) you only have to cast a spell, or make a gesture.
@Dragon: What are you saying there? The scientific base of mills and forges was made in ancient Greek, monks and Muslims kept those books and translated them, so things like watermills were reintroduced in medieval times after being extinct for centuries in the dark era of christianisation.

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Magic is just another form of technology, in stories often involving mystical incantations and forces and energies that don't exist in the real world, but it is just another form of technology, and if you took your house and its contents and a generator back to 908 CE, you'd be a high wizard.


Also, you're committing a fallacy of inconsistency in your usage of definitions. In defining technology, you are requiring that for anything to be considered technology, it must conform to ALL the definitions of technology (such as having been derived from the use of scientific knowledge, which cannot be said for all technology that has existed; windmills and watermills and medieval forges were not developed using the Scientific Method or knowledge derived from said method), but then when trying to claim that Star Wars is futuristic, you require that it only conform to ONE definition of futuristic (having a futuristic appearance or being advanced ahead of its time (the latter of which is a rather arbitrary definition that doesn't work for a civilization that existed thousands of years ago)).

This is a logical fallacy of a double standard. If something must meet all of the definitions of a term to be classified under that term, then Star Wars is not futuristic, and so is not Science Fiction. If something only needs to meet one of the definitions of a term to be classified under that term, then magic is just another form of technology, and there is no difference between "invert the polarity of the quantum phase inducer matrix" and "replace the good life force powering the heart stone gem with an evil soul" (and, indeed, there is no functional difference between either - they are nonsense phrases that have no real-world or scientific meaning, and are both describing inverting the polarity / changing the life force energy from good to evil of the quantum phase inducer matrix / heart stone gem), and your definition of Science Fiction falls apart.

Star Wars is of course futuristic, as it has technology far ahead of ours. It also meets the criteria of social development, as we don't live in an interstellar community with dozens of sentient species.
Also, I hate to be "cripplequoted"! I already answered your accusation, but you decided to quote only a part in order to make me look uninformed.

Edited by Shredhead, 16 June 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Shredhead]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Windmills, plows, the bow and arrow, the crossbow, the sword, early medicine (alchemy was the precursor to chemistry, but was not scientific in method), the sailing ship, the firearm, gliders, poisons, the catapult and trebuchet, once could go on and on with technologies that weren't created using the scientific method.

Furthemore, who's to say magic, such as in LOTR wasn't derived from a scientific methodology, but an impulse engine in Star Trek was? We have no idea how LOTR discovered/developed specific magical techniques, anymore than we're ever given the back story on how the impulse engine came about (for all we know it was whisked into existence by a mystical being; it's not likely, but it's never been said that this isn't true).

Besides, the whole "one uses tech while the other magic" fails as an absolute definition for a whole host of other reasons, failings, none of which have been explained.

The use of LOGIC is a scientific method, also the use of MATHEMATICS. It was called "PHILOSOPHY" in ancient greek. Also, Alchemy was in fact a science and used scientific methods. Only the goals were a bit high stacked. Why are you saying such bullsheet? You better inform yourself before posting.

Edited by Shredhead, 16 June 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Catamount]

So award winning science fiction author says science fiction is defined one way, shredhead cites some random dictionary written by who knows who, but he's right, because he says so, because his arbitrary classification (as all classifications are) is objective truth (because that's not remotely arrogant), because he says so, because he's right, because he says so, even though he can't answer the most basic questions about that definition, and still can't come up with a single reason why LOTR, with all its aliens and advanced technologies, isn't science fiction.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

The use of LOGIC is a scientific method, also the use of MATHEMATICS. It was called "PHILOSOPHY" in ancient greek. Also, Alchemy was in fact a science and used scientific methods. Only the goals were a bit high stacked. Why are you saying such bullsheet? You better inform yourself before posting.

So if any form of logic, of any kind, is used, that's scientific methodology? First off, as a hard science student, I'm going to call you out and say no it's not, because science is a specific methodology using a specific set of logical steps, and secondly, as one can surmise that some form of logic was used to come up with LOTR's magical techniques (and for all we know, some measure of mathmatics), your arguments fail as abjectly as ever, and of course, you're answering fewer and fewer of the objections to it with every post.


Not only is your arbitrary definition, based on arbitrary standards, not an objective definition, it's not even a sensible definition, and you've failed at every step to substantively support it.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Aegic]

So many good options.

[Shredhead]

Catamount, on 16 June 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

So award winning science fiction author says science fiction is defined one way, shredhead cites some random dictionary written by who knows who, but he's right, because he says so, because his arbitrary classification (as all classifications are) is objective truth (because that's not remotely arrogant), because he says so, because he's right, because he says so, even though he can't answer the most basic questions about that definition, and still can't come up with a single reason why LOTR, with all its aliens and advanced technologies, isn't science fiction.

Yes. In fact, I think "award winning science fiction authors" often tend to boast their egos by such bullshitbingo. That's in fact true for many artists and critics.

Quote

So if any form of logic, of any kind, is used, that's scientific methodology? First off, as a hard science student, I'm going to call you out and say no it's not, because science is a specific methodology using a specific set of logical steps, and secondly, as one can surmise that some form of logic was used to come up with LOTR's magical techniques (and for all we know, some measure of mathmatics), your arguments fail as abjectly as ever, and of course, you're answering fewer and fewer of the objections to it with every post.


Not only is your arbitrary definition, based on arbitrary standards, not an objective definition, it's not even a sensible definition, and you've failed at every step to substantively support it.

Who do you think invented those "logical steps"? Huh? Your professor or what? You only show how uneducated you really are...
Also, there is only one kind of logic, you know?

Edited by Shredhead, 16 June 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Sarah Dalrymple]

You forgot Babylon 5!

[Pax Noctis]

The Culture beats them all, at the same time, handily.

The VFP Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints could potentially solo many of the civilizations on the list.

[Serpentine]

EVE Online... jeez, how come so few know about this game?

[Ilithi Dragon]

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

And I quote myself again: Science Fiction is a subgenre of Fantasy. So all SF stories are Fantasy. Got it?

Again, that Science Fiction stems from Fantasy is not being denied, nobody is claiming otherwise. However, Catamount and myself, and every major science fiction author I have ever seen comment on the subject, hold the position that Science Fiction has since become a distinct genre from Fantasy. Fantasy gave birth to Science Fiction, but Sci-Fi grew up, and is now its own genre, not merely a sub-genre of Fantasy. There is some overlap and parallels, they are related, after all, but Sci-Fi is not fantasy, beyond the sense that all fiction is a fantasy/made-up story.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

And leaving out the "science" thing you sure can define magic as technology, but it's a strawman argument. I hate it when people do this. In order to craft a tool with technology you have to learn the scientific bases, be it mechanics or electronics or, at the very core, mathematics. To cast magic (it still irks me to discuss this in such a serious way) you only have to cast a spell, or make a gesture.

@Dragon: What are you saying there? The scientific base of mills and forges was made in ancient Greek, monks and Muslims kept those books and translated them, so things like watermills were reintroduced in medieval times after being extinct for centuries in the dark era of christianisation.

As Catamount said, ancient technologies were NOT developed using the Scientific Method. We're both hard sciences majors (him biology, me physics), and we can assure you that the Science is a specific method that only came about in the last few centuries. It had its precursors, and there are many methodologies that led to Science and that form the foundations of Science, but Science has only existed for three or four hundred years.

Also, not all descriptions of magic require a simple waving of the hand or uttering of random gibberish. Depending on the myth, or the story, magic can be very complex, requiring fairly high levels of math and logic and testing to develop, and some stories depict magic being studied and developed with the same methods that modern technology was developed with, even scientific methodologies. David Weber and Linda Evan's Multiverse series features one civilization that does not have technology beyond swords and crossbows, but has magic that is studied and researched and developed into technological tools just like any 'real' technology or facet of the universe. Your definition of magic and technology fails to properly classify the magic in Weber and Evan's Multiverse series.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Star Wars is of course futuristic, as it has technology far ahead of ours. It also meets the criteria of social development, as we don't live in an interstellar community with dozens of sentient species.
Also, I hate to be "cripplequoted"! I already answered your accusation, but you decided to quote only a part in order to make me look uninformed.

First, I was not 'cripplequoting' you, I quoted you to indicate that I was addressing you, and to have the link back to your post that I was addressing, but I did not see the need to repost your entire post, so I clipped it down to the basic premise of your argument (that magic is not equal to technology), in brackets to indicate that it was not a direct quote from you, to save space.

Second, you missed the point that I was making entirely. You were pulling up dictionary definitions of technology and futuristic, and requiring that magic fit all the definitions of technology, while requiring that Star Wars fit only one, low-down definition of futuristic. That is a double-standard, as I pointed out. You are using two different standards of definition, the standard of absolute definition when it favors your argument, and then switching to partial definition when that favors your argument. It is a double-standard, and is a very common logical fallacy, but it makes your argument logically unsound.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Yes. In fact, I think "award winning science fiction authors" often tend to boast their egos by such bullshitbingo. That's in fact true for many artists and critics.

Shredhead, you are making an ad hominem attack against the character of an expert reference that disagrees with your position. This is another logical fallacy, and often a desperate one.

Whether you, personally, think that award-winning science fiction authors tend to boost their ego with BS is completely irrelevant. Your personal, unsupported opinion is not sufficient grounds upon which to throw out an expert reference. If you want to throw out the references to Dr. Brin, you must provide substantial evidence to show that Dr. Brin routinely makes a habit of padding his ego with BS articles, or at least does so often enough to cast doubt onto the reference made. You have done no such thing, and merely made baseless and unfounded aspersions against the character of a critically-acclaimed science fiction and non-fiction author, scientist, and futurist consultant.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Who do you think invented those "logical steps"? Huh? Your professor or what? You only show how uneducated you really are...
Also, there is only one kind of logic, you know?

Well, as noted, the Scientific Method did not exist until the 17th Century. It had a lot of foundations in history, especially the great Greek philosophers and the works of some Christian scholars, but Science did not exist until the 1600s, less than 400 years ago. All other technology before that was not developed using Science. Many of the means by which those technologies were developed later became a part of Science, but the Scientific Method was not employed in their development. Science is the source of most if not all of modern technology, but it had little to nothing to do with the development of older technologies. Science is not required for the development of technology.


Oh, and in my Logic 101 class last semester, we were taught that there are multiple types of logic. Wikipedia lists a few.

Pax Noctis, on 16 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

The Culture beats them all, at the same time, handily.

The VFP Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints could potentially solo many of the civilizations on the list.

Yeah, we all agreed long ago (and again multiple times) that the Culture pretty much beats everything, and so they are generally excluded from this debate.

Serpentine, on 16 June 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

EVE Online... jeez, how come so few know about this game?

Um... EVE Online IS listed in the poll above, and has been discussed at length at least three times over the course of this thread.

[Waladil]

For those of you who requested technical readouts for Schlock Mercenary:

I think I have to say, sorry, I can't provide any. The best I can do is links to the webcomic and surprisingly complete wiki:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com
http://schlockmercen..._Mercenary_Wiki

I think that the problem with getting technical data is that this is a webcomic that is "only" about twelve years old. (Compared to Star Trek and Star Wars which started in what, the '70s? So they'd be 40 years old or so.) There have been no crossovers with other sources and only one author, so comparability to external forces has never been an issue for the author. (It's been an issue for the fans in this kind of discussion, of course.)

In terms of power, they use neutronium held stable with gravity, which is then converted to energy. The author has never provided a clear number as to how efficient this conversion is, except to tell us that there is "enough" energy, and to show that bigger generators (annie-plants) create more energy.

One aspect of the Schlockiverse is that the author has a strong backing in science and generally stays within the rules. (But only generally. He has been known to break the rules, and has also on occasion mentioned it. His officially cited reason for the fact that gauss handguns go "BLAM" is because comic book handguns go "BLAM.") The point is that in the Schlockiverse, if you can throw enough energy at it, it can usually be done.

The best examples of massive-scale effects in the Schlockiverse come from the Gatekeepers, who are traditionally "bad guys." But since I've seen other people citing Borg capabilities...
The Gatekeepers are the "ancient smart race" archetype and have:
1.) Created six Dyson-sphere-esque living areas. Not true Dyson spheres, but giant spheres of solar sail surrounding a star, with habitats "hanging" in towards the star. One has since been destroyed, in a war effort that was a retaliation to...
2.) Created a network of wormholes across the galaxy, that seemingly did nothing but provide fast, cheap transportation before the teraport. It also allowed them to perfectly clone anyone or anything that passed through these gates. These gate-clones were interrogated and executed, to keep the galaxy from discovering the teraport. These gates were powered by singularities in the stars within the "Dyson spheres," which could also...
3.) Be forced to release all the gathered mass and energy at once, causing the star around the singularity to go nova.

An extra benefit to the wormhole cloning mechanism is that so long as you could provide the mass, you could make as many copies as you had output gates. The upper limit shown in the comic is 850,000,000 copies at once. Of a person. To use the words of the author, "[he] became his own wierd demographic."

This particular function does seem to rival or even beat Star Trek replicators, largely because it can clone things (seemingly, at least) with a greater complexity or scale than replicators. First you have one Enterprise... then you have two Enterprises... then you have four... eight... so long as you can keep feeding Enterprise-massed rocks to the singularity, no reason that the Enterprise going back and forth through a gate couldn't make dozens, hundreds, or thousands of perfect copies. Right down to the memories of each crewmember. (Yes, it can be awkward when gate-clones meet. And if a second version of your wife shows up, do not mention anything that rhymes with "gleesome." At this point I'm blatantly quoting scenes from the comic.)

[Atomfire]

I may have voted EVE online, but I would also think that the Hiigarans would win, especially if broke out the salvage corvettes. Most of the internet agrees that the Hiigarans are "lootyer" then orks.

[Shredhead]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Again, that Science Fiction stems from Fantasy is not being denied, nobody is claiming otherwise. However, Catamount and myself, and every major science fiction author I have ever seen comment on the subject, hold the position that Science Fiction has since become a distinct genre from Fantasy. Fantasy gave birth to Science Fiction, but Sci-Fi grew up, and is now its own genre, not merely a sub-genre of Fantasy. There is some overlap and parallels, they are related, after all, but Sci-Fi is not fantasy, beyond the sense that all fiction is a fantasy/made-up story.



As Catamount said, ancient technologies were NOT developed using the Scientific Method. We're both hard sciences majors (him biology, me physics), and we can assure you that the Science is a specific method that only came about in the last few centuries. It had its precursors, and there are many methodologies that led to Science and that form the foundations of Science, but Science has only existed for three or four hundred years.

Ok, there is a real flaw in your language here that I wasn't aware of, as in german there is no such thing as "the scientific method". You refer to Kepler, I think, but scientific methodology dates way back into ancient Egypt, Greek and China.

Quote

Also, not all descriptions of magic require a simple waving of the hand or uttering of random gibberish. Depending on the myth, or the story, magic can be very complex, requiring fairly high levels of math and logic and testing to develop, and some stories depict magic being studied and developed with the same methods that modern technology was developed with, even scientific methodologies. David Weber and Linda Evan's Multiverse series features one civilization that does not have technology beyond swords and crossbows, but has magic that is studied and researched and developed into technological tools just like any 'real' technology or facet of the universe. Your definition of magic and technology fails to properly classify the magic in Weber and Evan's Multiverse series.

As I don't know these books, I can't answer properly. I have yet to see magic using mathematics and physical laws and abiding to both.
Also, you're aware there was a real blackmagic university in Prague? That really doesn't make it science, nor technology.

Quote

First, I was not 'cripplequoting' you, I quoted you to indicate that I was addressing you, and to have the link back to your post that I was addressing, but I did not see the need to repost your entire post, so I clipped it down to the basic premise of your argument (that magic is not equal to technology), in brackets to indicate that it was not a direct quote from you, to save space.

You could have at least quote the whole sentence instead of reposting the other half of it without quotation marks ignorant that I already answered your accusation within this very sentence.

Quote

Second, you missed the point that I was making entirely. You were pulling up dictionary definitions of technology and futuristic, and requiring that magic fit all the definitions of technology, while requiring that Star Wars fit only one, low-down definition of futuristic. That is a double-standard, as I pointed out. You are using two different standards of definition, the standard of absolute definition when it favors your argument, and then switching to partial definition when that favors your argument. It is a double-standard, and is a very common logical fallacy, but it makes your argument logically unsound.

No it doesn't, as the definition of the word "futuristic" allows multiple interpretations. The word "bank" also can either be a credit institute or something you can sit on.

Quote

Shredhead, you are making an ad hominem attack against the character of an expert reference that disagrees with your position. This is another logical fallacy, and often a desperate one.

Whether you, personally, think that award-winning science fiction authors tend to boost their ego with BS is completely irrelevant. Your personal, unsupported opinion is not sufficient grounds upon which to throw out an expert reference. If you want to throw out the references to Dr. Brin, you must provide substantial evidence to show that Dr. Brin routinely makes a habit of padding his ego with BS articles, or at least does so often enough to cast doubt onto the reference made. You have done no such thing, and merely made baseless and unfounded aspersions against the character of a critically-acclaimed science fiction and non-fiction author, scientist, and futurist consultant.

I'm sorry but I can't follow you. Just because he is all this, he isn't unfailable, and his opinion has not yet become part of a humane sciences textbook, and it won't become one. He stated his opinion in an essay trying to mark out his favourite genre as something special. Not more.

Quote

Well, as noted, the Scientific Method did not exist until the 17th Century. It had a lot of foundations in history, especially the great Greek philosophers and the works of some Christian scholars, but Science did not exist until the 1600s, less than 400 years ago. All other technology before that was not developed using Science. Many of the means by which those technologies were developed later became a part of Science, but the Scientific Method was not employed in their development. Science is the source of most if not all of modern technology, but it had little to nothing to do with the development of older technologies. Science is not required for the development of technology.

And in that you are entirely wrong. It was maybe not called "science" back in ancient Greek and Egypt, but it really doesn't matter if they called it "Logic", "Mathematics" or "Astronomy", all this comes from people who invented methodologies to research the functions of the physical and metaphysical world. Ergo science.
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

Quote

Oh, and in my Logic 101 class last semester, we were taught that there are multiple types of logic. Wikipedia lists a few.

No, there still is only one kind of Logic:

Quote

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)^[1] is the study of valid reasoning

There are several forms of Logic, dividing further into different topics.

[Groundstain]

40k defiantly, the vast amounts of emperors ships alone will destroy a galaxy in the blink of an eye if he so chooses. This is not even counting the space marines where a 5 man devastator squad can take out a small mech. There are millions of the emperors troops.

[Waladil]

I wouldn't be so sure about 40K. I mean, all those Space marines can also be killed by a single Fire Warrior.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ok, there is a real flaw in your language here that I wasn't aware of, as in german there is no such thing as "the scientific method". You refer to Kepler, I think, but scientific methodology dates way back into ancient Egypt, Greek and China.

Shredhead, I think we might be running into a bit of problem of translation. You seem to be missing some of the nuances of what Catamount and I are saying, and you are using some words that don't seem to quite fit with the context, which is probably causing confusion on both sides (though I have to give you huge props for knowing a second language well enough to engage in a discussion of this level, as I failed my second year of Spanish (correspondence courses suck)).

First of all, the Scientific Method does exist in Germany, it is a specific process or method that was developed in the 17th Century, and all Science is done using the Scientific Method. Prior to the 17th Century, Science was not done. There were alternative methods of reasoning and deduction, many of which formed the foundations of the Scientific Method, but they were not Science.

The Scientific Method (with capital letters) is a formal process for deduction that goes as follows:

1. Formulate a Question about an Observation

2. Formulate a Hypothesis to explain the Observation

3. Formulate a Prediction based on the Hypothesis

4. Test the Prediction to see if it holds true (or, more appropriately, try to prove the prediction false)

5. Analyze the Result of the Test, and how the Observation of the Result compares to the Hypothesis and the original Observation

6. Repeat

Modern Science also includes the Peer Review process, where the Results are presented to other experts for review and testing, and if found to be sound and proper and not flawed or erroneous, are published in peer-reviewed journals. After sufficient Tests and Peer-Review, and also the Repetition of the Result by others, a Hypothesis can then become a Theory.

THAT is the Scientific Method, and prior to the 17th Century, it did not exist. Prior to the 17th Century, technologies were developed using other methods of deduction, but they were not developed using Science. As such, Science is not required to develop technology (though it is the best method for doing so, because it's the best method of deduction we have yet developed), and so magic developed without Science can be technology.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

You could have at least quote the whole sentence instead of reposting the other half of it without quotation marks ignorant that I already answered your accusation within this very sentence.

I do not understand what you mean here. I made a snipped quote referencing you and your argument, and they you complained of 'cripplequoting'.

I'm wondering if the MWO forum's placement of the faction icon in the place of the traditional poster avatar may be contributing to some of the confusion, since I know I usually rely on forum avatars to differentiate posters much more than forum names, and the odd way that MWO does things has thrown me off quite a bit at times.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

No it doesn't, as the definition of the word "futuristic" allows multiple interpretations. The word "bank" also can either be a credit institute or something you can sit on.

Again, though, you're still missing my point. I'm not arguing the definition of futuristic, I'm pointing out that you were using different standards of definition for what could be classified as futuristic than you were using for what could be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as technology, you required that magic meet all the listed definitions of technology, otherwise it could not be classified as technology.

When defining what could be classified as futuristic, you required that Star Wars meet only one of the listed definitions of futuristic in order to be classified as such.

This is a double-standard. Either something has to meet all definitions to fit a classification, or it doesn't. You can't use both whenever it best suites your argument.

So, either magic only has to meet one of the definitions of technology, and as such is a form of technology, or Star Wars has to meet all the definitions of futuristic, and as such is not futuristic. One or the other, you can't have both.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I can't follow you. Just because he is all this, he isn't unfailable, and his opinion has not yet become part of a humane sciences textbook, and it won't become one. He stated his opinion in an essay trying to mark out his favourite genre as something special. Not more.

I never claimed that Dr. Brin was infallible, I noted that he is an expert on the subject of what Science Fiction is, as he is an acclaimed Science Fiction writer. That makes him a qualified expert to speak on the nature of what Science Fiction is, and we referenced him as such. If you think he is just spinning BS on the subject, that's your opinion, but his qualified expert testimony on the subject outweighs your personal opinion. If you want to render his argument invalid, you must demonstrate why it is invalid, or demonstrate that he is not a reliable expert. Simply stating that you think he is spinning BS to pad his ego is not sufficient to do that, it's just stating your own, unfounded opinion, and is an ad hominem attack, which is a logically invalid argument.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

And in that you are entirely wrong. It was maybe not called "science" back in ancient Greek and Egypt, but it really doesn't matter if they called it "Logic", "Mathematics" or "Astronomy", all this comes from people who invented methodologies to research the functions of the physical and metaphysical world. Ergo science.
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

No, I am not wrong. It was not called Science back then because Science did not exist as a method of deduction back then. As previously noted, there were other methods of deduction back then, many of which later formed the basis for the Scientific Method, but those methods were not themselves Science.

Shredhead, on 16 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

No, there still is only one kind of Logic:

There are several forms of Logic, dividing further into different topics.

Logic is a broad subject covering valid and deductive reasoning. There are many forms/types/topics of logic, what you call them is semantics.

Groundstain, on 16 June 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

40k defiantly, the vast amounts of emperors ships alone will destroy a galaxy in the blink of an eye if he so chooses. This is not even counting the space marines where a 5 man devastator squad can take out a small mech. There are millions of the emperors troops.

Galactic destruction is just a little bit over-stated, don't you think? } ; = 8 ) Millions of troops isn't that big a deal for a major interstellar power. There are tens to hundreds of millions of troops on Earth right now, across all militaries. The Cardassian Union, a relatively minor power in the 24th Century of Star Trek, lost over 7 million troops in less than two years of a war that they were generally winning at the time, and that only counted the dead, not wounded or crippled casualties, and only the casualties from one nation on one side of a massive war.

A five-man squad may be able to take out a mech, but a single Federation side-arm can talk out half a building with one shot.

[Atomfire]

Just did some reading in the thread and there is one problem, Miles, the nova cannon is not a nuke, its a railgun that fires a shell that produces a temporary black hole after flying out to a set distance programed into the machine spirit before it is launched. The black hole only lasts a sec but that is enough for it to crack a shield and make a good section of hull vanish.

[Skadi]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Galactic destruction is just a little bit over-stated, don't you think? } ; = 8 ) Millions of troops isn't that big a deal for a major interstellar power. There are tens to hundreds of millions of troops on Earth right now, across all militaries. The Cardassian Union, a relatively minor power in the 24th Century of Star Trek, lost over 7 million troops in less than two years of a war that they were generally winning at the time, and that only counted the dead, not wounded or crippled casualties, and only the casualties from one nation on one side of a massive war.

A five-man squad may be able to take out a mech, but a single Federation side-arm can talk out half a building with one shot.

I dont think he meant just spacemarines and number of troops, those emp class battleships do **** like this

[Ilithi Dragon]

Skadi, on 16 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I dont think he meant just spacemarines and number of troops, those emp class battleships do **** like this

Oh, I'm aware of that. That's still hardly anywhere near the scale of galactic destruction, and Star Trek and Stargate have both demonstrated similar or greater capabilities for planetary-scale destruction from much smaller platforms.

Edited by Ilithi Dragon, 16 June 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[Skadi]

Ilithi Dragon, on 16 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Oh, I'm aware of that. That's still hardly anywhere near the scale of galactic destruction, and Star Trek and Stargate have both demonstrated similar or greater capabilities for planetary-scale destruction from much smaller platforms.

Nvm, confused it with something else, although they still have weapons more powerful than the one seen in that imagine.
"
Two-Stage Cyclonic TorpedoesEdit

Two-Stage Cyclonic Torpedoes, which are a more exotic form of the standard Cyclonic Torpedoes, are the most common of a special class of rare Exterminatus weapons, designed for use against atmosphere-less or biologically-void worlds (Necron Tomb Worlds being the main example). These torpedoes possess two-stage warheads: The first stage is an unusually powerful Melta Charge that bores straight through a planet's surface all the way down to its core. The second stage is a modified Cyclonic Charge that destabilizes it, in most cases physically destroying the planet from the inside out."
(PS, dropping a stargate into a sun totaly dosnt count )

Edited by Skadi, 16 June 2012 - 01:24 PM.