Mea quidem sententia wrote:@Both
I'm on my phone so I'll try to go after the relevant points.
My human hypothesis (not movie) was to show that we can only assume this man is human, but assumptions aren't evidence. They're the very opposite. Another example I could use is the idea that at a distance you see sheep. What you don't know is that these sheep are actually dogs covered in wool. Your assumption would be wrong to justifiably believe they are sheep. Since we can only work with direct or circumstantial evidence, the appearance of something isn't sufficient. This means any inference can be made. This doesn't make debating impossible. It simply makes it difficult, and understandably so.
If you recall, I posted the scene of Cloud and Sephiroth fighting in falling debris some time ago (I had only recently joined- which is probably why it sticks in my head so well), YOU in particular said 'maybe gravity is just lower on the planet so things falls slower'. That wasn't Kitten or anyone else- it was you. I can show people falling over in real-time and at correct velocities yes, but one could easily argue that the slow-falling building means gravity must be messed up in some way. And here's the thing- I can't prove you're wrong. That's why we have a set, "Fiction works as it does in our world" rule- this allows us a standard ground to make comparisons.
Mea quidem sententia wrote:I have mentioned counterfeit products. Even if a developer used a model of a firearm, you would have to assume its inner workings function the same. If you had information that said the firearm shoots bullets at Mach x, supersonic, or even x m/s, then it would be definitive. I don't want just bullets to have this criterion, since I don't see any reason to separate this from any other projectile. This could include any speeding object. As for circumstantial evidence, if you can corroborate it, then you could say with all likelihood that these firearms are like our real-world counterpart. It wouldn't be definitive, but it would be reasonable enough to treat said firearms like ours.
There's a very good reason to separate this from other projectiles, we have guns, we have specific appearances and types of them to describe exactly what they are and how they work. In the future perhaps we'll have guns that fire lasers, sonic waves, and lightning- but we do not now and so we can't use the standard we have for guns on them. The two don't have the same circumstances no matter how much you might wish so.
An additional idea of why this works- alien craft in fiction. We do not have them and so whatever the series gives us for data, we will use. If they're space-faring then they should be able to reach escape velocity at least.
However, if an unnamed jet appears in the same series but is dead-on for a F-15, we have stats available for that which we can use because they made the jet look extremely similar to exactly like a F-15.
Now, what if the F-15 lookalike outpaces the alien craft? Do we say the F-15 can reach escape velocity? Or do you just say the alien craft wasn't going fast enough? One of these things we have hard numbers available for- the other we do not. Why then would it be more accurate to use the hypothetical numbers when the 'hard' numbers for the F-15 are known and accessible?
When an exact speed is given, no arguing, I agree.
When an exact speed isn't given and the weapon has unique qualities about it that doesn't match up, then it's time to look into the case and debate whether it counts or not. It's time to see whether the bullet moves at bullet speeds, the lightning moves at lightning speeds, the laser moves at laser speeds, etc.
However, since you have to look at the surrounding lore and mythos, making an overall rule doesn't work quite well- because each case is so specific. That's why these debates exist in the first place. Because two guys looked at the same thing and came to a different conclusion.
Mea quidem sententia wrote:And another problem with rule 12 is that everyone has different assumptions, so you all need to justify your assumptions anyway.
Rule 12 specifically states you use our universe. That's not an assumption.
If the gun looks like an Ak-47, it functions like an Ak-47, because that's our universe.
If a cup falls and hits the floor, the cup fell at 9.8m/s/s, because that's our universe.
If a human is decked and thrown across a city block, the human weighed as much as humans do, because that's our universe. However, if his human-sized decker doesn't go flying, then we have to disregard select portions of Newton's law, because we have a clear contradiction between the two universes. If we all agree on the contradiction on the feat and the results, we have a unified answer, that's what debates are for.
Mea quidem sententia wrote:Anyway, no one is making their own criteria, so whatever. Don't take my silence as concession.
You realize people agreeing in parts with your criteria means their criteria incorporates it? In essence people are using your criteria as an example and are pointing out which parts they agree with and disagree with.
The problem being the agreement is based on hypothetical evidence that changes based on the fiction, which is why overall rules usually don't work, because we have to work on a case by case basis. That's why the usual rulings are rare and quite general.
"Souls exist." "Use our physics until something counters them." and so on. These are general rules that apply equally as well to every fiction.