What's to stop us from using the same techniques on Spot or Fluffy or any other animal? Once again, has nothing to do with being human.
Except that poor Spot and Fluffy won’t be the ones choosing and controlling their situation, will they? (As for the term, didn’t mean to sound like I was campaigning for it. Out of curiosity though, does “human nature” strike you the same way?)
. . . I know what I am talking about when I claim that Relativity and Quantum theory are not reconcilable. I'm sorry but no, You're wrong. . . . What physicists are attempting is to discover a quantum mechanical theory which matches the predictions of relativistic gravitational theory by using the principles of quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity.
Hence . . . reconciliation! I just don’t see anything wrong in saying that and it certainly doesn’t undercut what you’ve described in greater detail. I very much respect that as a physicist you might be more circumspect, and would be more knowledgeable, about which descriptive terms fit best in a formal discussion, but I was talking informally (akin to any number of other physicists who have indeed spoken of “stitching together” or “unifying” the two theories), and my only aim was to undercut your analogy involving WC, which I did.
As for "normal science" working in the explanation of false predictions or otherwise erroneous data, this is simply not so.
My guess is you’re not as knowledgeable about the philosophy of science as you are about science or physics. Your statement is a fair description of the so-called static view, but it’s been pretty badly pummeled over the last several decades. And it’s safe to say that most historians of science would disagree with you too. (“Hey, buddy, can you paradigm?")
You say in your remark "reason we should disgregard the movie" - I made no such claim.
I think your intent was ambiguous until your latest posts. But I do happily agree with you that each person is free to embrace or reject the quest for canon. Still, if one chooses to embrace it, there are and must be certain constraints regarding how it is pursued. And an important one flows from . . .
I don't see the difference between Holding the Line and False Colors. Both were written by a human being with an interest in literature, focus on concepts outlined in the WC games, and are great pieces of literature. To make the point that one is more valid than the other just because person A wrote it and not person B is not logical.
But it is logical and
necessary given that “person B” in this case is a licensee of EA/Origin. If one takes the idea of canon seriously, then it is simply not practical to have “multiple Gods” ruling the WC universe. The “reach” of the WC licensing rights is a most sensible measure of, and limit on, the “reality” of that universe.
Otherwise, the situation would be like . . . hmm, yes . . . the current state of string theory! Too many “solutions” to the equations. No wonder all this talk about canon vs. non-canon strikes a raw nerve.
I'll just sit here on my flat earth and concern myself with REAL physics. Lets see who's done the most worthwhile thing in 20 years.
For those who end up discovering, creating, enhancing, or at least sharing “good stories” about life, the universe, and everything, it’ll be a dead heat.
