Projectile dysfunction

[Mea quidem sententia]

The burden of proof doesn't work like that. Rule 12 is in violation of this as it already assumes something to be so until it's disproved. That's illogical.

We had a discussion on this subject before. Anything and everything is possible in fiction, and it is technically an unproven assumption to say that "humans" in a setting have biology similar to ours; even if they were shown to have blood, for example, it would be an assumption to say that blood carries oxygen or is otherwise similar to our blood.

Everything in a fictional setting could be taking place at just above absolute zero; the planets could be smaller than atoms; physics could have different constants; birds might be unable to fly despite looking exactly like real-life birds; etcetera.

Rule 12 is absolutely necessary if we are to have any sort of meaningful debate of fictional items. Without it, virtually no argument could ever be made regarding fictional items without someone being able to point out a plethora of assumptions that would render said argument entirely futile. That's why it exists, and I don't see why it would be questioned.

"X has bent steel with his bare hands before, so he's stronger than Y, who has not."
"But steel in that world could be as weak as paper in ours, and flesh in Y's world could be 10 times tougher than steel, so we can't determine who is stronger."
"Oh. Well, bye then."

Instead of indulging that fun-seeming scenario, we function with the assumption that everything is similar to real life, as does every other fiction-debating site.

Assumptions aren't proved, so it's redundant to call something an "unproven assumption". The problem with everything you said here is that it's mostly false. If you read my first post, which I have updated, you would see some criteria I threw out, which no one has even bothered with. Well, except this one thing from Friendlysociopath. No one has offered their own criteria, which is the point of this thread. Anyway, you'll see I've already mentioned that if a projectile like a laser states that it travels 299,792,458 m/s, then we can work with that. It's direct evidence. When you have something that is a replica of something else, you can't assume (well, you could, but it'd just be an assumption) that it comes with the full package deal.

[Friendlysociopath]

Assumptions aren't proved, so it's redundant to call something an "unproven assumption". The problem with everything you said here is that it's mostly false.

'False' is a matter of proof. For example- you've seen Link lift that giant spire of rock with the Golden Gauntlets? Putting any attribute to that rock, at all, is an assumption since you can only directly gain so much information about it. In order to debate, assumptions must be made at certain points, which is why we have a baseline of our universe unless something contradicts it.
To use your man ripping a door off example, we assume that man is only a normal man until something proves otherwise. As such, he could only rip that door off using 'normal man' abilities unless something indicates he isn't a normal man. That's within normal human abilities- albeit with adrenaline and a quite strong man to begin with.
As for the assumptions you mentioned- it'd be a somewhat shit movie if the dude was an android and the movie never mentioned or alluded to this facet of his character. In fact it would be impossible to prove he was such. However, without assuming reality coinciding with ours, you also cannot prove the door is as hard to remove as it is in our reality.

Anyway, you'll see I've already mentioned that if a projectile like a laser states that it travels 299,792,458 m/s, then we can work with that. It's direct evidence. When you have something that is a replica of something else, you can't assume (well, you could, but it'd just be an assumption) that it comes with the full package deal.

Nobody has ever argued AFAIK against a direct statement of something traveling at a certain speed.
What would this 'replica' be? If it looks like an AK-47, then it's perfectly logical to ascribe attributes of an AK-47 to the weapon, the artist had to deliberately look at various guns and decide that was the one they wanted to draw after all.

[Soulerous]

Assumptions aren't proved, so it's redundant to call something an "unproven assumption".

I know, but I often write that way for extra clarity.

The problem with everything you said here is that it's mostly false.

No it isn't, but I'd be open to hearing why you think it's false. I made basically two claims: Firstly, that anything is possible in fiction, and secondly that we can't compare and debate with fictional things if we have no frame of reference for them. The second point is a reality because of the first, and both points are true.

No one has offered their own criteria, which is the point of this thread.

And I'm not trying to derail it, just to explain why Rule 12 is needed. You seemed disapproving.

Anyway, you'll see I've already mentioned that if a projectile like a laser states that it travels 299,792,458 m/s, then we can work with that.

In which case we're operating under the principles of Rule 12. There is no reason to assume that meters or seconds match their counterparts in real life or in other fictions, in either relative or in absolute quantity. Being told that a laser travels 299,792,458 meters per second actually tells us nothing about how fast it is. Not unless we equate measurements to what they are in reality.

As far as your criteria goes, you're stating what we've done all along. I see nothing to disagree with, save perhaps your statement on firearms. If a handgun, for instance, looks like a real-life model, that's not good enough. That's not proof. But if we're actually told the exact model, then we should use it's low-end fps, because the gun is meant to be that model. Any reasonable cause to doubt it's speed would make it questionable, and of course you're right in saying "all projectiles in media travel at the speed they are portrayed unless otherwise stated or inferred."

[Friendlysociopath]

As far as your criteria goes, you're stating what we've done all along. I see nothing to disagree with, save perhaps your statement on firearms. If a handgun, for instance, looks like a real-life model, that's not good enough. That's not proof. But if we're actually told the exact model, then we should use it's low-end fps, because the gun is meant to be that model. Any reasonable cause to doubt it's speed would make it questionable, and of course you're right in saying "all projectiles in media travel at the speed they are portrayed unless otherwise stated or inferred."

Why would that not be proof? Are you saying even if manga/anime/comic shows something that's dead-on an AK-47, they have to say it's an AK-47 to use it's stats?
Also, by extension I have to ask, are you then saying virtually every instance of bullets being shown in the air as tracer-rounds means subsonic ammunition? Like- baseball speed bullets?

[Mea quidem sententia]

@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.

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.

[Kitten Lord]

If you had information that said the firearm shoots bullets at Mach x, supersonic, or even x m/s, then it would be definitive.

To pick up on what Soul said what if the fictions version of those measurements are different and we had no idea they were? That is the point of rule 12, so that meters, seconds and "supersonic" are terms we use so we assume this is true to our terms when in all possibility the writer may have no idea what he/she is talking about, may not actually care and is just using those words because they like the sound of them and may actually intend for the feat being described thus to be completely different to what reality would require.

This is all "possible" under formal logic. I can write a piece of fiction right now with the intention for 1 m/s to actually be more like 1 m/ hour but regardless of how daft it would be those could be my rules and I a may not even mention that being the case but some of the feats in my fiction may have certain oddities that the so called "real" measurements would not add up to.

Rule 12 makes sure we at least start off on the same page. Course, I think most people do this anyway otherwise anything goes even before the rule iirc, since its relatively new but this solidifies that reasoning as a requirement which makes sense if you want to get anywhere in a debate.

In regards to this thread i think all the evidence regardless of claims or comments on statistics of something should be considered to determine the evidence overall. Some fictions are large in scope and across multiple scans, pages or comics or series you could have inconsistencies like a person who was previously FTL getting shot by a human with a gun without issue or a super strong person who previously pulled up a building not being able to break into a car. Sometimes the author makes mistakes, does not think about previous work or maybe just changes their mind or, more likely does not care what a vs debate would make of their fiction as long as their selling something interesting to the target audience.

To use an anlogy, if timmy, who was described as a normal boy in a normal world was described as using his pa's wooden baseball bat to launch his baseball at 3 million times the speed of light, and it flew through his pa's window and broke his spectacles the text that claimed it was so fast may have just been a joke, even if it was stats to be literal it could be just another way of the author being satirical against their own favorite fictions or just wanted to write something that would be noticed but not taken seriously within the story.

Its all "possible" in fiction but some things do not make sense or add up in their grand scope of the fiction or events. Like some of those feats in that He-man thread recently like pushing the moon and lifting a castle.

[Mea quidem sententia]

I think a lot of you are missing my point. Numbers don't have any appearance. Numbers are abstract. Meters per second doesn't require assumptions. It's blatantly stated. I don't see how you could be deceived by the appearance of numbers, since abstracta lack physicality and materialism. Try counterfeiting numbers and distance.

Kitten Lord, I would have expected you of all people to object to Friendlysociopath and Soulerous, considering when there is direct evidence, you try and try to go against it.

[Kitten Lord]

I counter evidence that I see holes in which is what I covered in the last section of my post. If a statement is made that is considered "direct evidence" but tons of things do not add up in the execution of that evidence in the series then I point out the holes. There are always holes that people generally try and avoid.

I argue more against interpretations more than anything recently.

[Mea quidem sententia]

@Kitten Lord
Most evidence in fiction is left to interpretation. And another problem with rule 12 is that everyone has different assumptions, so you all need to justify your assumptions anyway.

Anyway, no one is making their own criteria, so whatever. Don't take my silence as concession.

[Friendlysociopath]

@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.

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.

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.

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.