Auld Wulf wrote...
@MB957
What's really sad about this though is that any good scientist knows that science is 99% theory and imagination, you're tossing around imaginary numbers all the time. It's amazing sometimes that people don't realise why peer review is necessary; it's because science involves such large quantities of imagination. If you can't imagine, then you're not a good scientist. So the funny thing is is that a proper scientist would be more at home with ME3 than those who aren't.
This is correct in some ways, but wrong. You can't assume the opinions and views of any scientist. You also can't draw any conclusions about the ME3 audience by comparing them to the creativity involved with making actual science.
Auld Wulf wrote...
I have a smart engineer friend who spends most of his time working on classified stuff, and he had no problems with ME3 at all. His favourite ending? Control or Synthesis, he sees Destroy as a waste, and just shakes his head at the ridiculousness of 'space magic.' I think the more accustomed you are to creative thinking, the less prone you are to luddite thinking. And not in absolutes, but on a sliding scale. The more you slip down into ludditism, the less creative and more conservative you become at the same time.
If your friend wants to come on the BSN and discuss his ideas, then he is welcome to it. Until then, we can qualify this person as we would any other imaginary friend that anyone else has.
You also use the word luddite as a general term regarding people who you think are closed minded? I don't think you know what this word means. Did you know that there are actual people in the world who reject technology? Are you implying that in order to have creativity, you need to embrace technology? I disagree with this association.
Auld Wulf wrote...
The issue I have is that people use magic and mysticism as a negative connotation, essentially trying to pull a Harry Potter on it. You know, the usual 'magic is bad' line of **** and bull. Somehow pretending that science doesn't have any creative thinking to it. That's why I tend to shy away from it. I still call it science, but I call it science fiction. It's creatively taking what could be a potential, and turning it into a reality within the scope of a story. What could potentially exist? Well, the mileage may vary depending on the imagination of the person viewing.
No one is using magic and mysticism as negative connotations.
Auld Wulf wrote...
From a human psyche point of view, it's worth actually letting those sink in for a while, and realising the truth in them. Since "magic" and "science" can essentially be the same thing, but "magic" carries negative connotations, and people point, scream and use the "magic" label against forms of science that they dislike. That's the sad part; in this context, both "magic" and "mysticism" have essentially come to mean "science that I don't like, for whatever ridiculous reason."
No, there is very much a difference between magic and science. If there wasn't, then the differences between fantasy and science fiction genres wouldn't matter because they would be the same thing. Furthermore, I don't believe people are making negative connotations to the subject of thematic magic. What they are doing is drawing the conclusion that ME has more fantasy and mystical elements to it than science fiction. Since they want science fiction, they either like or dislike the creative direction the game took.
Auld Wulf wrote...
What the OP is actually saying is that the science-fiction of ME3 became more symbolic, romantic, and fantastic, and something designed more to inspire imagination and creative thought. And the OP doesn't like that, because the OP doesn't like being challenged in that way. So thus the more fantastic science-fiction becomes "magic" because science-fiction that challenges them too much is bad.
I think the OP pretty much says what he/she means when he/she presents the topic as a descent from science into mysticism. Mysticism, by definition, has to do with "divine" or "spiritual"
Auld Wulf wrote...
From an anthropological standpoint, this is interesting. You essentially have people demonising science-fiction which is simply too fantastic for them to accept as a possibility. This is borne of a lack of creative thinking - the sliding scale of creativity and ludditism. I don't think you can truly be free of one or the other, we're talking about human nature here, after all. So the breaking point for people is different, and that's actually fascinating.
No one has demonized science fiction. Please post an example of someone doing within this thread.
Auld Wulf wrote...
You have people who think that the Lazarus project amounts to being too impossible when, actually, the Lazarus project is damned close to hard sci-fi. It's something we could almost do today. And in 200 years, after all those developments, and the resources of The Illusive Man? Easy! But see, this is where the sliding scale comes into play, those people are nearer the extremes. And then you have those for whom the reapers themselves, or the Catalyst and Synthesis represent something which is impossible to believe/accept.
No, the Lazarus Project is not possible. If LP is possible, then PLEASE post one example of it being possible. Or atleast post one bit of scientific research being done into the direction of it being possible. I say it is not possible. You say it is possible. I can link articles that show it is not possible. Can you do the same? If so, prove it.
Auld Wulf wrote...
Going by the ludditism/creativity sliding scale, each person has a breaking point.
Name calling is pointless and since you make a clear connection between ludditism and creativity, you clearly have no idea what a luddite is. Let me give you the definiton of Luddite and a historical context.
From meriam-webster:
Luddite: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest;
broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change
Historicaly, these were workers were losing their jobs over technology. Creativity had nothing to do with being a luddite. It was ANGER over things like. . . A person losing their job and being unable to feed their family. A consequence of technology. But not a protest in regard to creativity.
Auld Wulf wrote...
Edit: I have to say, though. Being fortunate as I am to know some truly intelligent people, this is why I've ended up with the mindset I have. I suppose from a sociological standpoint, part of how open-minded you are depends upon the company you keep. And if you have friends who're obsessed with science, even fringe science, then that's going to make you very open-minded. I love the conversations my friends have about some of the more weird things that tend to come up, especially the 'what ifs.' When you listen to scientifically inclined people go off on crazy what ifs, Mass Effect 3 is really not that far-fetched at all. At all.
Claiming to be open minded and making negative posts such as this puts your claim in direct contradiction. Calling people luddites and questioning someones intelligence as a point for counter-argument is the tip of the scale when it comes to being closed minded. If you want to be open minded, then you should read what people have to say and then make constructive feedback in regards to their opinions. That IS being open-minded. Insulting people just because you don't agree with them is, in contrast to this, being extremely close-minded.
Modifié par mvaning, 19 février 2013 - 04:19 .
Retour en haut
