Spoilers The Flash - Season 4

[Spot261]

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

But my point is in reality people are far less open minded in the scientific community than their fictional counterparts. Scully might be sceptical for forty minutes out of the episode but for the majority of scientists in the real world being as overtly willing to consider some of those phenomena and document her doubts would be career suicide.

Far from being an unfair stereotype which portrays scientists in an unflatteringly ignorant light, in my honest opinion sci fi tends to show people far more willing to stake their professional identities on esoteric and unlikely speculation than is evident in the real world.

 

[Christopher]

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

But that's not skepticism, just denial. Skepticism is questioning claims and demanding that they be tested and verified with evidence before you accept them. Too many so-called "skeptics" in fiction are just closed-minded fanatics, rejecting hard evidence of paranormal or other exotic phenomena out of hand because it doesn't conform to their inflexible prejudices. It is a gross mistake to confuse that with scientific skepticism. That's the way religious dogmatists think. It's the way Flat Earthers and climate-change deniers think. Skepticism doesn't mean denying reality, it means not blindly believing anything without proof -- and that includes one's own preconceptions. Skepticism demands questioning what you already believe as well as what someone is trying to convince you of. It demands putting them both to the test and seeing which one is a better fit to the evidence.

That's why, in a fictional universe where magic is real, it stands to reason that a genuinely scientific, skeptical mode of thought -- as opposed to the blind fanaticism that too much fiction mistakes for skepticism -- would come to accept its reality, because it is actually there to be observed.

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

But that doesn't work as a distinction, because science recognizes the reality of a lot of things that are literally unpredictable, like radioactive decay and other quantum phenomena. That's where laws of probability come into play. You can't predict exactly what will result in a given case, but you can describe that unpredictability and codify the degree of uncertainty involved. Science demands recognition of uncertainty.

Besides, most things only seem unpredictable because we don't have enough information to understand the factors that shape their outcomes. Science is about observing the outcomes and figuring out the rules that underlie things that seem random. Look how good we've gotten at predicting the weather, something that most people throughout history assumed was unknowable. One should never be so arrogant as to mistake the limits on what we currently know for an absolute limit on what can be known.

Most laypeople have a very limited and wrongheaded idea of what the word "science" means. They think it means technology and invention and machines and test tubes. No. Science means asking questions and figuring things out. It means observing and learning about everything that exists. Nothing is excluded from scientific exploration just because it's chaotic or unpredictable. There are a ton of chaotic, unpredictable things encompassed by science. There is literally a branch of science called chaos theory.

This is another case where fantasy fans and creators are being arrogant in assuming that the magic in their stories is somehow more exotic or more bizarre than the kinds of things modern physics and cosmology deal with every day. Whatever crazy, impossible chaos magic you can imagine is downright mundane compared to the behavior of matter at the quantum level or the state of the cosmos in the first billionths of a second after the Big Bang.

 

[YLu]

You can't predict exactly what will result in a given case, but you can describe that unpredictability and codify the degree of uncertainty involved.

The idea, with a lot of magic in fiction, is that no, you literally can't do that. That it inherently defies any comprehension, which is why it's magic.

Anyhoo, I also like the way this bit by Gaiman, explaining how magic works in the DC Universe. Though I'm pretty sure you won't care for it at all.

 

[Christopher]

The idea, with a lot of magic in fiction, is that no, you literally can't do that. That it inherently defies any comprehension, which is why it's magic.

Except that science is very, very good at figuring out how to comprehend things that everyone assumed were beyond comprehension. That's the real magic, if you ask me. Any lazy person can whine about how something is impossible to understand so there's no point in even trying. Scientists just see that as a challenge and get to work. People used to think weather was magic, stars and comets were magic, disease was magic. Now science understands all of it, because people actually did the work of figuring stuff out rather than just assuming they couldn't. Science eats magic for breakfast.

And like I said, the stuff that fantasy writers pretend is incomprehensible is penny-ante stuff compared to hardcore physics. Try taking a quantum mechanics course in college. No fantasy magic system will seem anywhere close to incomprehensible after that.

 

[YLu]

Except that science is very, very good at figuring out how to comprehend things that everyone assumed were beyond comprehension. That's the real magic, if you ask me. Any lazy person can whine about how something is impossible to understand so there's no point in even trying. Scientists just see that as a challenge and get to work. People used to think weather was magic, stars and comets were magic, disease was magic. Now science understands all of it, because people actually did the work of figuring stuff out rather than just assuming they couldn't.

Exactly my point, actually. In science, what seems incomprehensible is ultimately comprehensible. Whereas magic is genuinely impossible to comprehend. Which it gets to be because it's fiction.

And no doubt science is wondrous and amazing in its own way, of course. But it's a different kind of wonder that I turn to fantasy fiction for.

 

[Christopher]

Exactly my point, actually. In science, what seems incomprehensible is ultimately comprehensible. Whereas magic is genuinely impossible to comprehend. Which it gets to be because it's fiction.

Yes, a work of fiction can claim whatever it wants. That doesn't mean I'm required to find the claim convincing. And I've explained why I'm skeptical of the idea that anything is "genuinely impossible to comprehend." Certainly nothing in fantasy fiction really can be, because it's the invention of human minds (the authors), and thus is ultimately grounded in concepts that the human mind can grasp. The claim that it's beyond comprehension is just a handwave. But a lot of stuff in physics really is beyond what the human mind can easily grasp, because it doesn't come from our imaginations and myths, it comes from actual realms of existence that are beyond what our brains are evolved to cope with, so that we can only understand them approximately through analogies and pure mathematics. When you've studied modern physics, the bar for what's beyond comprehension is much, much higher than anything the authors of fantasy fiction can make up.

 

[YLu]

That doesn't mean I'm required to find the claim convincing.

I'd say that's like not finding a talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood convincing. 'Convincing' isn't really the point.

Certainly nothing in fantasy fiction really can be, because it's the invention of human minds (the authors), and thus is ultimately grounded in concepts that the human mind can grasp.

Sure, but the right kind of writing can make it *feel* beyond mortal ken, even if it in fact isn't. And that's what makes it fun. I mean, that's Lovecraft's whole bag, isn't it?

 

[Christopher]

I'd say that's like not finding a talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood convincing. 'Convincing' isn't really the point.

As I keep saying, the problem is not whether there's a talking wolf in the story, it's whether there's a "scientist" in the story who refuses to admit to the existence of a talking wolf standing right in front of them. The way that far too much fantasy fiction portrays scientists is just as great a fairy tale as any dragon or vampire. But it's worse, because it's denigrating an entire category of real people and misrepresenting what they do.

I mean, that's Lovecraft's whole bag, isn't it?

Ugh, don't get me started. Lovecraft was a virulent racist, even by the standards of his time. He saw anything he didn't understand as loathsome and terrifying, and his fiction is built around that xenophobia. I prefer fiction that sees the unknown as a learning opportunity rather than an existential horror.

 

[YLu]

As I keep saying, the problem is not whether there's a talking wolf in the story, it's whether there's a "scientist" in the story who refuses to admit to the existence of a talking wolf standing right in front of them.

I was responding specifically to your point that you find the claim of a genuinely incomprehensible system to be unconvincing.

 

[Christopher]

I was responding specifically to your point that you find the claim of a genuinely incomprehensible system to be unconvincing.

And the reason I find it so is because it's rooted in the same misunderstanding of how science works and what it's capable of. Science is good at finding ways to comprehend the incomprehensible, at least well enough to delineate the limits on what we can know about a thing. Like I've said, nothing I've ever read in a fantasy story is remotely as close to incomprehensibility as the things I studied in quantum physics in college. It's obviously impossible for a work of fiction imagined by a human mind to contain any concept beyond the imagination of a human mind.

Besides, you can't prove a negative. Just because something isn't comprehended yet doesn't prove it never can be. A lot of things that used to be considered incomprehensible are now well-understood. And if we don't have enough information about a thing to understand it, then by definition we don't have enough information to rule out the possibility that it could become understood in the future. It's as big a logical fallacy as "immortal." You can never prove that someone or something will never die, just that it hasn't died yet.

Now, science actually can define whether a problem is permanently unsolvable, i.e. if it's an NP-complete problem, provably impossible to solve in a finite amount of time. But it can do that because it knows enough about the problem to calculate what it would take to solve it.

 

[dahj]

Now, science actually can define whether a problem is permanently unsolvable, i.e. if it's an NP-complete problem, provably impossible to solve in a finite amount of time.

Unless there's some alternative scientific term also called "NP-completeness", that is not the case.

NP-complete problems require at most exponential running time to solve, which is still finite, though often impractically long. There's also the P versus NP problem which remains unsolved, which essentially means there is no current proof that says with certainty that those problems can't be solved in polynomial time.

This is also math, not science. And while the natural sciences sure use math a lot, you can't really explain mathematics with natural sciences, so math is basically magic. QED.

 

[Christopher]

The point remains, math and science know a lot of stuff that's a whole lot wilder than any so-called "incomprehensible" thing you've ever read in a fantasy story.

 

[YLu]

It's obviously impossible for a work of fiction imagined by a human mind to contain any concept beyond the imagination of a human mind.

Sure, just as it's impossible to imagine what a song so beautiful everyone who hears it is driven to tears sounds like. Or what a text so horrifying it drives all its readers mad reads like. Doesn't mean those things don't have their valuable place in fiction. The key is that you don't have to *actually* depict these things directly. That makes them even more powerful in a way, as the reader/viewer's imagination does the heavy lifting.

That's another reason I don't like it when writers try to pin magic down with rules, or when they make it all about memorizing the right rituals and knowledge. It just makes it so... mundane. That's one of the things I found disappointing about the Dr. Strange movie, where the key to being good at magic was... a photographic memory.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, just as it's impossible to imagine what a song so beautiful everyone who hears it is driven to tears sounds like. Or what a text so horrifying it drives all its readers mad reads like. Doesn't mean those things don't have their valuable place in fiction.

For the umpteenth time, my objection is not to the existence of fantasy elements. It's to the insulting portrayal of scientist characters as closed-minded dogmatists incapable of encompassing anything new. The argument "Science can never comprehend magic because it's beyond human comprehension" is ignorant of how science works, because science deals with many things that are beyond human comprehension. Science (and math) is the only tool that helps us comprehend things beyond our comprehension, because it's structured in a way that lets us extrapolate from what we do know to what we don't, and because it's based on the observed evidence of what actually is rather than just what we imagine.

There are a lot of quantum physicists who will tell you that they don't fully understand the physical laws they're working with, because so many things about them contradict our common-sense understanding of reality. But they know from observational evidence that those laws are real and that they work, and they know the formulae they can use to harness and predict those phenomena, insofar as it's possible to do so. Is that really so different from how magic is portrayed in fiction?

 

[YLu]

For the umpteenth time, my objection is not to the existence of fantasy elements.

I know. That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to you assertion that a fantasy writer can't actually come up with something beyond human comprehension, as if that were some kind of problem.

It's to the insulting portrayal of scientist characters as closed-minded dogmatists incapable of encompassing anything new.

Well, for the record, I don't care for that, either. It's not what I'm talking about.

Is that really so different from how magic is portrayed in fiction?

Depends on the fiction. In my favorite depictions of magic, yes it is. In those depictions, I wouldn't expect a scientist to have any particular advantage in understanding it, anymore than I would expect a scientist to have a particular advantage for understanding spirituality or religion. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the soft sciences here; those aren't the ones that get shown as contrasting to magic in fiction, anyway.) Which isn't to say they'd be less capable of understanding it than your average person -- 'cuz they're a varied bunch just like any other profession -- but the skills of their job wouldn't give them any particular edge.

 

[Christopher]

I know. That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to you assertion that a fantasy writer can't actually come up with something beyond human comprehension, as if that were some kind of problem.

I'm not saying it's a problem in itself. I'm just saying it's wrong to assume that science can't encompass things as weird as, or weirder than, the sort of stuff you see in fantasy.

Depends on the fiction. In my favorite depictions of magic, yes it is. In those depictions, I wouldn't expect a scientist to have any particular advantage in understanding it, anymore than I would expect a scientist to have a particular advantage for understanding spirituality or religion. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the soft sciences here; those aren't the ones that get shown as contrasting to magic in fiction, anyway.) Which isn't to say they'd be less capable of understanding it than your average person -- 'cuz they're a varied bunch just like any other profession -- but the skills of their job wouldn't give them any particular edge.

But that's an invalid comparison if we're talking about a universe where magic actually, tangibly exists. As I've pointed out over and over, the entire purpose of science is to observe things beyond current knowledge, figure out how they work, and incorporate them into science. Spirituality and religion are just abstract belief, with nothing to observe or test. But in a fictional universe where magic is physically real and has observable effects, where it can affect the structure and behavior of matter or exert energy or force or make a measurable change in a thing, then those are phenomena that can be documented, measured, and tested in a way that abstract spiritual or religious beliefs cannot. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to write a story in which magic has a physical effect on the universe, then you don't get to say it's beyond what science can observe and codify.

 

[YLu]

I'm not saying it's a problem in itself. I'm just saying it's wrong to assume that science can't encompass things as weird as, or weirder than, the sort of stuff you see in fantasy.

Okay, I understand what your perspective better now.

I think a lot of this kind of fantasy is predicated on the implication that its weirdness that we do see is just the tip of the iceberg, that there's a lot unspoken to and unseen by the reader that's at a whole other level.

But in a fictional universe where magic is physically real and has observable effects, where it can affect the structure and behavior of matter or exert energy or force or make a measurable change in a thing, then those are phenomena that can be documented, measured, and tested in a way that abstract spiritual or religious beliefs cannot.

What if truly observing and measuring those effects isn't even possible in the first place without the right spiritual understanding? John Constantine once talked about this:

 

[Christopher]

What if truly observing and measuring those effects isn't even possible in the first place without the right spiritual understanding? John Constantine once talked about this:

I dislike that idea because it's too much like the sleazy dodge that fraudulent psychics and mystics use to deflect criticism: "The power only works for those who already believe." Which is utter BS. It's no impressive feat to convince people of things they're already convinced of. The test of whether something is objectively real is if it can be observed independently of prior belief.

That Constantine page is an example of exactly the kind of condescending, insulting, ignorant portrayal of science that I'm denouncing, the idea that it's a rigid dogma closed to new knowledge. The problem with a character like Doctor Thirteen is that he was created at a time when different DC characters didn't share a reality. In his world, magic and psychic powers didn't exist, so debunking them made sense. But folding him into the larger DC universe where the supernatural is an unambiguous reality just makes him look like an idiot, a fanatic. And that's slanderous to science and scientists, and to the people in real life who do debunk frauds. It's the people who believe fraudulent psychics and mystics who are the closed-minded ones, unable to consider the possibility that their preconceptions could be wrong. Scientific debunkers design unbiased tests that can be passed if anything real is happening. And nobody's ever passed them.

Like I keep saying, science's whole deal is expanding its understanding to encompass things it didn't understand before. When existing science can't account for something, scientists invent new fields of science that can. That's what makes science such a uniquely powerful discipline. Religion and spirituality reject things that don't fit their existing rules as heresy or error. Science actively seeks out things beyond its existing limits, changes itself to encompass them. My whole point is that if there is a fictional universe where mystical or supernatural forces exist, and if there is any way for human beings to observe, understand, and harness them, then the science of that universe can and will expand to encompass them. Because that is what science does. Its purpose is to learn about everything that exists, no matter what new methods or mindsets have to be invented to understand it.

 

[YLu]

I dislike that idea because it's too much like the sleazy dodge that fraudulent psychics and mystics use to deflect criticism: "The power only works for those who already believe." Which is utter BS.

Admittedly, part of me dislikes the idea for the same reason. But another part likes the potent metaphoric power of belief = reality, the rich vein that stuff like Peter Pan mines.

In the end, if I'm not bothered by the use in fiction of Greys, astrology, psychics -- all of which some real people believe, who real world hoaxers take advantage of -- than I'm not going to be bothered by this idea either just because it's strikingly similar to what hoaxers claim.

That Constantine page is an example of exactly the kind of condescending, insulting, ignorant portrayal of science that I'm denouncing, the idea that it's a rigid dogma closed to new knowledge. The problem with a character like Doctor Thirteen is that he was created at a time when different DC characters didn't share a reality. In his world, magic and psychic powers didn't exist, so debunking them made sense. But folding him into the larger DC universe where the supernatural is an unambiguous reality just makes him look like an idiot, a fanatic. And that's slanderous to science and scientists, and to the people in real life who do debunk frauds. It's the people who believe fraudulent psychics and mystics who are the closed-minded ones, unable to consider the possibility that their preconceptions could be wrong. Scientific debunkers design unbiased tests that can be passed if anything real is happening. And nobody's ever passed them.

I think you're letting your experience with the stereotype color your impression of that page. If anything, it's one of the more respectful Dr. Thirteen portrayals out there, in that it depicts him not as a fool who claims 'hoax' despite all evidence but as someone who genuinely has only encountered hoaxes and only ever will. As Constantine says, as far as Thirteen's own experiences goes, he's right. The idea is that all those cases he investigated really are fake because magic will never intersect with his life, just as it won't for all the millions who aren't like Tim Hunter and Constantine.

There's metaphoric power in that. Like spirituality, it's something that's not real to everyone else and will never effect them... but yet has great meaning and real effect for those who believe.

 

[Spot261]

And the reason I find it so is because it's rooted in the same misunderstanding of how science works and what it's capable of.

Science does not equal scientists, idealising the humans who conduct science as being living embodiments of it is always a mistake. To borrow your favourite phrase "as I already said" science in the real world requires surviving in an incredibly cutthroat and competitive career path where being shown to be wrong is effectively professional death, not to mention a blow to the ego. Funding streams, reputations and publishing quotas drive the direction of research far more than an idealised and open minded search for understanding.

Your posts are highlighting your lack of experience of actually working in research environments. Real science is characterised far more by closed minds than you would believe and that is more than a misrepresentation of the professional scepticism required by the scientific method.

The point remains, math and science know a lot of stuff that's a whole lot wilder than any so-called "incomprehensible" thing you've ever read in a fantasy story.

Maths and science don't know anything, but do feel free to define how you are measuring "wild" here.

It's to the insulting portrayal of scientist characters as closed-minded dogmatists incapable of encompassing anything new. The argument "Science can never comprehend magic because it's beyond human comprehension" is ignorant of how science works, because science deals with many things that are beyond human comprehension.

No, it doesn't. The fact we can form hypotheses and models which allow that process to work means those concepts are within the bounds of human comprehension. We may have to use mathematical models to conceptualise those ideas but by doing so we are bringing them into the realm of human comprehension.

I'm not saying it's a problem in itself. I'm just saying it's wrong to assume that science can't encompass things as weird as, or weirder than, the sort of stuff you see in fantasy.

Again (sorry couldn't help it), define "weird".

Science comes to the conclusions it does eventually despite decades of bureaucracy and ruined careers. Research funding is denied far more often than it is granted, seminal papers get ignored and go unpublished, theorists become pariahs for expressing an unpopular opinion or attempting to publish against the interests of funding bodies. Scientists do not just suddenly develop and refine paradigm changing models in a few days like Data without resistance. Whole careers are spent trying to push new ideas, people are mocked and ridiculed for work which is sometimes only appreciated posthumously. For all these reasons and more scientists are very very cautious, far more so than the scientific model requires and frankly most TV and film portrayals do exactly the opposite of what you suggest. They are typically portrayed as more open to new ideas than the real scientific community.

Of course, you won't reply most likely because you struggle to acknowledge the idea you aren't actually the font of wisdom to dispense to us mere mortals and there might just possibly be (ie are) lots of people here just as well and better educated.