Speaking of demon powers.

When Tom was first summoned they commented about how it was confusing as to why he didn't use any level IV tricks, what kinds of things were they talking about?

Also when Tom confronted the lone soldier on his way back from delivering the message to the other wizard, the soldier attacked him with a whip and it went through him but when he tried with a sword it didn't - Why?

Wow. Wizards are paranoid. Even if they said they are 'scientific' they are still very much suceptible to heresay. So much for science.

Have wondered about the whip too but was looking forward for it in book 2. Well, it isn't that big anyway. Not a very big spoiler.

Not that. The spoiler is the explanation, the mechanics of how things works. With the advance knowledge that we have, the sense of discovery and exploration is reduced. This sense of wonder and discovery is a typical fare in Fantasy. This is the very charm in Alice in Wonderland. We meet all those wacky characters and Wonderland's curious logic for a great read.

I was kinda waiting for book two to explore the nature of demon bodies, their anantomy so to speak.

So maybe I should repeat and expand on what I said a little bit ago in another topic....

Tizzy is a demon. He is also insane. I hate to burst his bubble, but he is not omniscient and there is no guarantee anything he says is true.

In fact, if you want a "real spoiler" a lot of characters, in the book(s), in the Library Documents/Appendices, and in the forum are going to tell you what they know to be true, or what they believe to be true. That doesn't make it so.

So for example, if one character says one thing as fact, and another character says something else that is contrary...that's not a plot inconsistency just like in real life you have to judge which one to believe by weighing the evidence. The same is true for all the articles/documents you and or Tom have been reading. They are some scholars writings/beliefs/knowledge. They could have some stuff wrong, or all of it.

That's actually something of why I have so many different points of view. I know from some reviews the large number of different points of view drive some people nuts. Truth is mutable.

Also, remember Tizzy is a likable demon. he will tell people things to get them to like him. So, who knows? he could just be agreeing with Maou to get him to like him, and pulling stuff out of his pipe storage....

So one moment you are bummed because you are getting too much information and it is spoiling the next book for you

And the next you want to leave because you might not be?

And they say I'm insane?

This is life...this is how you find truth...you experience it, you collect information from various sources, not all of which are accurate, some of which might be deceptive, you then have to put the pieces together and figure out which ones you believe and which ones you don't.

That's how science works, that's also how religion should work...that's actually how all good stories work. (Of course, DoA being non-fiction, this isn't applicable here but...)

That being said...this author guy is the one who's lying. Remember, I am telling him the story, he lives in your world, not mine, nor Astlan. He's never actually been to Astlan. So I don't know how he thinks he knows more than I do. He's just a guy with a hell of a lot of ego.

I wouldn't believe anything he says.

Trust me. I am the truth, I am the way and the light! I am Tizzy!

Actually, science does work that way.

Evidence is given to you, you have to examine it and see how the pieces fit together, formulate a theory and then test it, collect more evidence and revise it. Repeat forever.

That is what the Scientific Method is. That's why people talk about "Scientific Theories" and not "Scientific Facts" Scientific knowledge is not handed to us on a silver platter, it must be ferreted out and tested for veracity, repeat-ability and one must see what can then extrapolate to make predictions on, and test those predictions. It's often wrong, and subject to revision...science is a process of continual revision of what we know. At any point in time what lay people call "scientific fact" is simply the best theory/estimate that the scientific method has produced at a particular point in time.

In this case, what the author guy is talking about is that like in a trial, the readers are presented with various pieces of evidence, including testimony, the jury (reader) has to determine what to trust, whose testimony is credible and whose is not. All characters and participants have a point of view, a story to tell, "their side" it is your job as reader/jury to evaluate the testimony and evidence you are given and come up with a theory as to what has really happened.

Same with all those CSI TV shows: Forensic Science as we know it: the police don't usually "know what happened" they have evidence and maybe some stories from various people, but they have to put it together, the police and prosecution then put together a theory and they test it and tweak it and then present it to the jury for them to determine "the facts of the case"

it's the job the jury to determine the facts of the case and render a decision as to culpability of the defendant.

The books, this site have pieces of evidence and T-A-G, Lenamare, Wylan and myself are giving you testimony.

You have to put all the pieces together to solve a puzzle.

But again, let me reassure you, I've been at this for millenia, I know what I am talking about. You can just trust everything I say as 100% true. Ignore that very disreputable T-A-G

T-A-G is just trying to unnerve you. he's the real demon....

I definitely agree with that.

I'm very good at writing myself into a corner...

However, to restate my point: Tizzy, Wylan and other characters, when they post here, it's no different than a reader posting. Albeit a reader that happens to live in either Astlan or the Abyss, which gives them more knowledge than the typical reader. They are stating their own opinions and beliefs, based on their knowledge.

I am not saying they are necessarily lying (although we all know demons do that) but they may not have all the information. None of the characters are omniscient (not even the gods in the book(s)).

In other words, Tizzy's answers are not to be considered 'ex-cathedra' he is not infallible, he is not omniscent nor omnipresent, he's a person and he can be wrong.

The only person that can speak, or maybe/might possibly speak 'ex-cathera' is me. And I will try very hard not to speak about the plot/history/background in that manner due to a) spoilers and b) writing myself into a corner.

Scientific Method and science, don't confuse the two?

You do know that doesn't make any sense to me? Science is defined by the Scientific Method. Period. If a field of study doesn't use the scientific method, it's not science, by definition. In fact, those "sciences" that get hand wavy with the scientific method are called the 'soft science" in particular because they are soft on the use of the scientific method. Hard Sciences are hard because they apply the Scientific method rigorously. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and most of their sub disciplines. Most psychology and social sciences as well as archaeology are considered soft, typically because there are too many unknowns to rigorously apply the scientific method, so they get as close as they can.

There is no such thing as science fact. There is empirical evidence, which is by definition measurable and repeatedly measurable under the same conditions, but that is not a fact.

One of the very few things that T-A-G told me that made any sense (from him) was the following:



Also, I know a lot about my anatomy, other demons have different anatomies. I have made a concerted effort to study the anatomies of willing female demons, but unfortunately, that is not very many. Like Freud I have a very limited sample set.

The non-quoted content on this site are excerpts from books in the Council Library. If those books are correct, then the information is correct. Things like the Aetos have wings and live in the mountains is generally factualy, although I suppose there might be one or two to be found in a city on the plains.

Writing on the Calendar and Astrology, that's generally accepted fact that someone has written, there isn't much disagreement on this.

But when it comes to speculating on the number demon princes, archdemons, the concordenax, or how the various planes interact? Those documents are by sages that have been studying and thinking about it. But there isn't a huge body of empirical evidence to back this stuff up.

So anyway, stuff in the Library is stuff Maelen/Tom found in the Council Library etc Maybe they aren't the best books, or there are newer or better ones out there somewhere else.

Stuff that I say, is stuff that I say, it's what I know to be true based upon my experiences, and while I have never EVER been wrong about ANYTHING, I am only demon, and it is theoretically possible that I may at some point in the far distant future say something that is "technically" inaccurate.

???

How exactly do you define science, if not through the use of the scientific method?

The scientific method is a method for studying observable phenomenon, measuring, quantifying, developing theories, testing theories with predictions and comparing results of future measurements to predicted measurements and then revising the theory.

That is science...that's the definition. What do you call science?

And why I am bring it up is because we were talking about mutable reality, and whether "facts" are subject to revision or correction.

Here is a "Scientific Fact" that I can torture you with:

In the 1980's, students taking classes in Astrophysics would have learned the "fact" that the observable universe was about 18 billion years old, 17-18B years.

Now today, you would expect that the current generation of such students would be taught the observable universe is 17 to 18 billion years old, plus 30 years.

However, they are instead given the "scientific fact" that the universe is really around 13 to 14 billion years old!!!

How is the universe getting younger, while the rest of us are getting older?

Well--obviously, it wasn't the universe's age that changed, it was human's measurement techniques and their theories and estimates of the expansion of the universe.

So...my point is...I don't believe in "Scientific Facts" there are no facts in science. There is simply empirically measurable evidence.

When the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (as in certain courts of law) points to a particular conclusion, then people generally accept that conclusion of as a "fact."

See "Global Warming" as a text book case for what I am talking about.

However, if the evidence changes, then the "facts" can change. Like the age of the universe.

Now that makes determining "facts" rather difficult, and this is what I think you don't like.

But I will say, that while determining "facts" is difficult, determining "non-facts" is pretty easy. It's much easier to rule out possibilities than to settle on a single truth.

Earth scientists may not be exactly sure on the age of the Earth. But they do know for a "fact" that it is NOT 5,000+ years old. There is a more than overwhelming preponderance of evidence and extremely well tested theory to categorically disprove the idea that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

How old it really is, can be a matter of some debate, but we have narrowed it down and excluded a lot of ages. 1) It's not older than the Universe, 2) It's not older than the Sun--probably--not if current accretion models of planetary development hold and 3) It's definitely a lot more than a billion years.

Most likely 4.5 billion give or take.

So anyway...you shouldn't freak out about things on this website not being "hard facts" When you get to the core of reality (at the Quantum level) there are very few immutable facts. Reality is how we measure it, how we perceive it. Perceptions can change...



PS

You know that bit about the universe being 13 to 14 billion years old?

Nah, that's a bad measurement. It's really 17.8695468 or so billion years old.

After all, I do know (roughly) how old I am.

Just a little google would came up with a lot of difinitions of science and non of them pin it to scientific method. In fact the body of science has existed before scientific method is developed (around 17th century). Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, and other wellknown people of science exist long before that.

Of course you can't disqualify such things as the three states of mater (solid, liquid, gas), organic and inorganic, properties of metal, and other scientific stuff which have been known and understood since prehistory which enable them to create such things as the pyramids, clocks, firecrackers, medicine, clothing and other stuff.

Scientific method have been a break through, a revolutionary development in science but never for once think scientific method need to exist for science to be born.



You define scientific method but again we are discusing science not scientific method. Please stop pulling this straw man at me.

And my point about scientific facts is... this is not what we are arguing. What your point about it can be debated but since I had made no stance about it, I can just choose to agree with you and be done with it. I really have no interest in following this red herring.