Godo wrote:With you being a man of science, ever heard of the term "hypothesis"?
It's assuming a reaction, before exploring if it's true.
Oh, I'm very aware of what a hypothesis is. A scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis are two completely different things. A theory is something that at the time of proposal cannot be proved, or may never be able to be proved, through scientific research. If you propose a hypothesis, you also have to propose a scientific research plan that will support your hypothesis, basically a solution that will resolve it as no longer a hypothesis, but fact. None of these discussions have any sort of hypothesis, they are all theories, therefore there is no way any of it can be proved in any facet. That is the issue I have. Is it worth discussing if there is no way to prove one person is right, and another is wrong?
Godo wrote:When there are no data, you are free to make assumptions. I think that's mostly what we do on these forums when we have no info.
When there's no data available, you're not just allowed to make assumptions and put those in place of the data. You have to go get some data! You can make assumptions based on experience and previous research to reduce equations, and making them simpler. However, whenever you make such assumptions, you have to state them clearly and justify why they made them. You also have to state how these assumptions may effect the final results in what the data represents.
Godo wrote:As I said, in the part of the quote that you missed: "Given, it's not the same thing by far".
I didn't miss it. I left it out, because I was at least trying to make you look a little more credible. You made an argument, and then said your argument was meaningless in this debate because your two points aren't relative to each other? Then why make the argument in the first place?
Godo wrote:And let me explain what I know about fiction:
From what I understand, fiction something that's derived from our reality, something that puts twists into our reality.
[*snipped*]
Thus, reality and fiction can indeed be linked, and although you haven't got much data from the fiction, observation can help a lot, and in the end, assumptions, which makes the whole thing fun.
But I think you're missing the whole point. Whether or not it is based on our own reality, there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction. I think we can all agree that
DragonBall is fiction. You can't pick and choose at will what to take from this fictional world to compare to our own reality. And you most certainly can't say that the physics in both worlds are the same, especially in comparison to
DragonBall.
Godo wrote:But you are trying to separate reality and fiction as two whole different things, when they acually have a link with eachother.
Why can't reality and fiction be seperated when they're so inherently opposite? They are twol "whole different things". There is a reason one is called reality and one is called fiction, because they're not the same thing. There's a reason there's fiction and non-fiction. Can I make this any clearer?
Definitions:
Fiction - "An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented." -or- "A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact."
Reality - "The quality or state of being actual or true."
Just think about your dreams; they seem real, they're typically based on things you've experienced or things you want to happen, but are they reality? No, they're fictional. They're dreams. This makes you wonder, are these type of arguments actually based on scientific theory, or simply dreams that your favorite character could survive some extreme realistic situation. And frankly, I'm fine if people want to have these arguments, but don't drag science into it to support your crazy pipe dreams about a fictional character. That's just wrong, and as a science nerd, you should know that. Don't call it what it isn't, science.
Godo wrote:Evolution is dependent on many different factors, and it just happened that we (the Homo Sapiens species) became what we are.
Going by the theory, if the events were beneficial for a certain species, they would eventually be able to evolve both their physical form and their intelligence.
So, talking animals isn't such an impossible thing per se.
If you remember, we are animals too, we speak, and we wear clothes.
Okay, you know that is not what I was saying, implying, or even suggesting. Yes, evolution comes out of necessity and it also takes thousands of years for anything significant to become obviously apparent. But again, what does that have to do with this discussion. Sure, in
DragonBall, a fictional series, animals may have evolved to speak and wear clothes, but I'm saying that in our reality that didn't happen. We've never had a dog as the "King of the World", people and animals living and working together in harmony, etc... That's all fantasy, fiction, or whatever you want to call it. But it is most certainly not reality.
Godo wrote:Also, I would recommend that if it makes you uneasy to see your two worlds collide, the best thing to do is to refrain from reading these threads and to make us other people that are fine with it proceed with our "work".
And why do we have to mix them? Because of that it's so damn entertaining for us.
Like I said, frankly, I'm fine if people want to have these arguments, but don't drag science into it to support your crazy pipe dreams about a fictional character. That's just wrong, and as a science nerd, you should know that. Don't call it what it isn't, science. And you may be fine with it, but I'm not. This is just so degrading to science, it's sad. And on top of that, I'll be around to set the record straight as long as these threads continue. You can make all the "Wouldn't it be cool if Goku could do such and such?" threads you want, but if you start using equations and numerical values to equate strength or durability of a fictional world or character with reality, then I'm probably gonna jump in with the "Bullshit Flag". That said, if you're so fine with it, then I think you better revoke your "science nerd" status and just go with "nerd", because this isn't science.
