Spoilers The Flash - Season 4

[Christopher]

Just because magic has rules, that does not mean those rules are compatible with nature's rules. The conceit of most stories involving magic is specifically that magic is what is used to go against or even break nature's rules.

If it is within the universe, it is within nature's rules, because nature is the universe. It's just another word for the same thing. The laws of nature are not absolute; how they manifest depends on the specific conditions that apply. The way time and space behave deep in a black hole's gravity well seem to break the rules of nature as we know them, but that's because we understand those rules as they apply in more ordinary conditions. The way subatomic particles behave on a quantum level seems to break every rule of matter and causality and nature as we know it, but that's because what we know is the particular subset of rules that apply on a macroscopic scale. In a universe that includes magic, then magic is part of its rules -- just a part that's distinct from the more familiar, everyday rules we're used to. But if science could expand to encompass those seemingly "rule-breaking" phenomena that happen at the quantum level or in extreme gravitational conditions, then it could expand to encompass the "rule-breaking" phenomena that happen when magic is involved. Learning new sets of rules is something science has been doing quite successfully for hundreds of years now.

And seriously -- no depiction of magic in any fiction I've read is anywhere near as bizarre or defiant of conventional logic as quantum physics is. And yet quantum physics does follow a very structured set of rules that we have deduced and learned to work with. There's a difference between breaking the rules we know and following no rules at all. It's pure arrogance and ego to assume that the limits on what we currently know are absolute limits on reality.

You're arguing that because it "exists", science can be extended to it, but the whole point of having a different name for it in fictional stories is to stress that science can't be extended to it, and that it exist outside of the realm of "regular" rules which govern the universe.

Yes, I know that's the common premise in a lot of stories, but my point is that it's a deeply ignorant and wrongheaded premise, because it fundamentally misunderstands what science is and how it works. The assumption that science cannot be extended to something beyond its current limits is a contradiction in terms, because that is the whole purpose of science. So yes, obviously I know that a lot of stories make that assumption. What I'm saying is that I don't buy it for a second, any more than I'd buy the premise of a story that said humans and dinosaurs lived together or that men are smarter than women.

 

[dahj]

If it is within the universe, it is within nature's rules, because nature is the universe. It's just another word for the same thing.

You're supposing that "universe" is one consistent system, but stories with magic just say there's two(at least) different systems at play, and that rules of one can't explain the rules of the other.

Yes, I know that's the common premise in a lot of stories, but my point is that it's a deeply ignorant and wrongheaded premise, because it fundamentally misunderstands what science is and how it works.

I'd have to disagree that it's somehow wrongheaded or ignorant to make such a playground. We're talking about fiction here, after all, the point of fiction is to be imaginative, and I really don't see how imagining a different system on top of the existing one is being disrespectful to science. It's not like they're denying science, in fact even wizards go to schools and employ (quasi)scientific methods to gain knowledge and explain the rules of their system.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I feel that the storyline dragged on for two long. I think Flash may be better served with 2 arcs of 11 episodes, than one arc, with one villain, for an entire season.

This, this, this. From your lips to the producers' ears. Agents of SHIELD has been quite good at breaking their full-size seasons into multiple, distinct arcs with tighter storytelling.

 

[Christopher]

You're supposing that "universe" is one consistent system, but stories with magic just say there's two(at least) different systems at play, and that rules of one can't explain the rules of the other.

Except we're talking about a franchise that already postulates a multiverse. "Universe" is just a word for "everything there is." If there is more than one thing that we call a "universe," then technically none of them really is the Universe, just a subset of it. The entire system is still observable and knowable. Even if different parts of it have different laws, science can still codify that. Existing cosmology already allows for the possibility of alternate universes, or unimaginably distant parts of our universe (functionally the same thing), that have different laws of physics from our own. It doesn't matter if they're different; we can still postulate how they're different and figure out how they would work differently from our laws.

Again, the whole point of science is to expand knowledge beyond what we already know. How often must I reiterate that? Science has repeatedly devised explanations for things that seemed inexplicable before, because it's specifically designed for that exact task. If the existing rules don't cover something, science observes and studies it and adds new rules that codify how it works.

We're talking about fiction here, after all, the point of fiction is to be imaginative, and I really don't see how imagining a different system on top of the existing one is being disrespectful to science.

Again: because science is not fixed or finite. It's a process whose entire and explicit purpose is to continuously expand our understanding to encompass new things. The problem isn't the existence of a different system, the problem is the assumption that science is incapable of learning how it works, i.e. incapable of doing its actual goddamn job. The problem is thinking of science as a closed system rather than one specifically intended to grow.

As I said, science already has the means to imagine laws of physics far more exotic than any kind of magic that fiction writers have dreamed up. Science can reach much farther than imagination, because imagination can just remix what it already knows, but science can use math and logic to extrapolate to new possibilities nobody ever imagined. If you study cosmology, if you see all the weird ideas that have been posited for the physics of alternate universes, you'll see that the idea of anything as simplistic as magic being beyond what science can encompass is laughable.

More to the point, we've already seen a "magical" alternate dimension in the Arrowverse, namely the Speed Force. It works in a way that defies normal physics, much as any of the magical dimensions that Constantine can access. And yet we routinely see Harry, Cisco, and Caitlin using science to figure out the physics of the Speed Force and how to exploit them. If that can work with a dimension as alien to normal physics as the Speed Force, why wouldn't it work just as well with a demon dimension?

 

[dahj]

Again, the whole point of science is to expand knowledge beyond what we already know. How often must I reiterate that?

I think everybody understands what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that fictional stories must treat magic as reachable by science, nor that they're wrong or disrespectful not to do so.

In a way, what I'm saying is wizards and muggles shouldn't mix.
#VoldemortWasRight

 

[Spot261]

I'm pretty sure the whole point of "magic" in it's cultural origins was to explain that which the known (and knowable) rules cannot explain. It comes from a different place mentally, one where people generally didn't see science and human reason as tools to understand reality, or even believe that reality could be explained.

I see no reason really to get quite so angry about the idea fictional portrayals, in a fictional universe no less, might reflect that heritage. It's hardly like the distinction actually, y'know, matters and the DC universe has a long history of using "magic" which is at no point subject (or indeed subjectable) to scientific analysis. Why get worked up over something so trivial so late in the game?

 

[Guy Gardener]

In the future, a hundred years from now, Tony Stark is the Sorcerer Supreme.

 

[Spot261]

In the future, a hundred years from now, Tony Stark is the Sorcerer Supreme.

Whereas Stephen Strange is a mechanic?

 

[Guy Gardener]

In Guardians of the Galaxy comics from the 90s, Stephen goes by "The Ancient One" in the 30th century.

 

[Christopher]

I think everybody understands what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that fictional stories must treat magic as reachable by science, nor that they're wrong or disrespectful not to do so.

It's not that they "must," just that they're getting basic facts wrong when they do. There's nothing that says a story "must" avoid showing cavemen living alongside dinosaurs, but it's still a dumb and wrong cliche and hardly something to admire. I'm entitled to dislike stories that use such a wrongheaded cliche. There's enough misunderstanding about science as it is, without fiction compounding the problem.

 

[Spot261]

In Guardians of the Galaxy comics from the 90s, Stephen goes by "The Ancient One" in the 30th century.

Ancient Mechanic? Or maybe he was still revered till the 31st?

It's not that they "must," just that they're getting basic facts wrong when they do.

That's kind of the point of fantasy.....

 

[dahj]

I'm entitled to dislike stories that use such a wrongheaded cliche. There's enough misunderstanding about science as it is, without fiction compounding the problem.

You're certainly entitled to dislike whatever you wish, but I really don't think dragons and fireballs and elves contribute much, if anything, to those misunderstandings.

 

[Spot261]

You're certainly entitled to dislike whatever you wish, but I really don't think dragons and fireballs and elves contribute much, if anything, to those misunderstandings.

They aren't real?

The world was not formed by Eru Illuvatar?

People can't actually alter their molecular density and fly?

I've been making a fool of myself all these years trying to walk through walls?

 

[dahj]

They aren't real?

I've encountered all kinds of silly and stupid anti-science arguments over the interwebs, as I'm sure unfortunately everyone has, but I've never seen anyone bring up a fantasy novel as "evidence" that science doesn't work.

And I doubt I ever will, because I strongly suspect those kind of people don't really read anything.

 

[Christopher]

You're certainly entitled to dislike whatever you wish, but I really don't think dragons and fireballs and elves contribute much, if anything, to those misunderstandings.

As I've already repeatedly explained, none of those are the problem. The problem is portraying scientists as dogmatic, closed-minded, and unwilling to consider new ideas that don't fit their preconceptions, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. That's an insulting stereotype (and one that isn't limited to stories about the supernatural -- it's also found in far too much sci-fi about aliens, mutants, superpowers, etc.). True, there are some scientists who do get overly dogmatic and resist new ideas; scientists are as fallible and human as anyone else. But the scientific method is designed to counteract such human folly, to prioritize evidence and testing so that objective data will eventually win out over personal bias. If something exists, science will eventually acknowledge it and strive to encompass it.

So once more, I'm not saying I have anything against stories about magic. I'm saying that in a fictional universe where magic existed, it could be studied and understood by science, just as science has expanded to encompass other seemingly fantastic realities like relativity and quantum physics. So I like stories that portray science as being capable of encompassing supernatural phenomena. Ghostbusters is a great example. Ghosts and the paranormal are real there, but they aren't inexplicable to science; they're just part of how that universe works and the scientist heroes use their intelligence to figure out how they can interact with it and manage it technologically. That's a good example of a fantasy story that treats science, not as a fixed, wrongheaded dogma, but as a dynamic, expanding system that can incorporate new ideas and solve new problems. Legends of Tomorrow is a fairly good example too. You have characters like Amaya saying that magic is something distinct from science, but you also have Ray successfully using technology to harness and manage mystical phenomena, e.g. inventing the anti-magic nanotech gun and using a high-tech device to reforge the shattered Fire Totem. So while magic may be distinct from known science, science is capable of learning new things.

 

[Spot261]

The problem is portraying scientists as dogmatic, closed-minded, and unwilling to consider new ideas that don't fit their preconceptions, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. That's an insulting stereotype (and one that isn't limited to stories about the supernatural -- it's also found in far too much sci-fi about aliens, mutants, superpowers, etc.). True, there are some scientists who do get overly dogmatic and resist new ideas; scientists are as fallible and human as anyone else. But the scientific method is designed to counteract such human folly, to prioritize evidence and testing so that objective data will eventually win out over personal bias. If something exists, science will eventually acknowledge it and strive to encompass it.

What stereotype is that? I've personally never noticed such a trend, on the contrary most TV and movie portrayals of scientists have IMHO been far more open minded than many of the researchers I've known in real life who base their reputations and egos on not being wrong. Why wouldn't they? The scientific method is distinct both from the scientists who use it and the funding streams which keep them in work. Objective evidence and "the truth" may not care about your credibility, popularity or the financial payoff of your work, but employers, funding panels, ethics committees and journal editors certainly do.

The image of science as a purely rational pursuit of objective truth is far from the reality of how research is carried out and it is often the human beings, politics and bureaucracy of the very community dedicated to pursuing those goals which hinder that progress.

So once more, I'm not saying I have anything against stories about magic. I'm saying that in a fictional universe where magic existed, it could be studied and understood by science, just as science has expanded to encompass other seemingly fantastic realities like relativity and quantum physics. So I like stories that portray science as being capable of encompassing supernatural phenomena.

Which is nice, but not everyone agrees with you. Feel free to write your own work as you see fit but ever noticed how much the Tolkien estate is worth? Funnily enough plenty of the people who read those novels are very rational and intelligent human beings who you needn't worry will get confused about the concept of "suspension of disbelief" when winding down to a relatively unchallenging pop culture tv show.

And I doubt I ever will, because I strongly suspect those kind of people don't really read anything.

Except the Bible?

 

[dahj]

Except the Bible?

Only if you count the cliffnotes version.

 

[Spot261]

Only if you count the cliffnotes version.

Is that the one with pictures?

 

[Spot261]

Ten and counting

 

[YLu]

What stereotype is that?

Oh, it's definitely a stereotype. The skeptic among the cast who refuses to accept that what's going on is real. A character type who is often, though not always, the scientist or at least "intellectual" among the cast. TV Tropes refers to it as the Agent Scully: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AgentScully

Anyway, there seem to basically be two approaches to magic in fiction. One where it has its concrete rules and formulas and rituals. Mix potion x with eye of y and you'll get spell z, or whatever. Where basically it's science by another name. And the other where it's some dangerous, wild, unpredictable thing. Where, if we think of magic as an animal, the magician is less zoologist and more some poor sap desperately trying to herd a mercurial lion into a pen, and he's probably not going to get maimed for his efforts but who can say really. (There's a nice analogy used in Lev Grossman's novel The Magicians, which describes magic as the one system in the world that's "turtles all the way down", in reference to the urban legend about the woman who insisted the Earth was flat and stood on the back of a turtle. So the legend goes, when asked what the turtle stood on, she said it was another turtle, which in turn stood on top of another turtle, etc., forever.)

I prefer the latter approach precisely because it differentiates magic from science.