2011-05-19, 13:03 | Link #1061 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Battler's particular degree of incompetence in that context is not relevant in any factual or evidentiary sense, only in terms of how he is performing.
And by the way, a person having an abstract quality such as competence actually cannot be verified in reality. It's unfalsifiable; you can only demonstrate whether they competently handled a particular situation. The fact that a person failed to assemble a puzzle does not actually prove that they are incapable of solving any puzzle or indeed that they are even incapable of solving that puzzle. They could be feigning incompetence or just not interested. That one puzzle could just be really hard for them. Any assessment of their overall competence derived from that would solely be the opinion of the individual doing the assessment. That's incredibly pedantic, but a spade's a spade. Competence is not a binary state. Additionally, factual evidence suggests Battler possesses some measure of competence. It's simply more reasonable to believe Beatrice was joking or expressing an opinion than making a statement of fact. A statement of fact in that situation which is indisputable would be "The logic you are using cannot possibly lead to the correct solution." This is a fact statement properly tailored to the situation and cannot reasonably be construed as her opinion (it could potentially be viewed as such, but at that point the author would lose our confidence).
__________________
|
2011-05-19, 13:28 | Link #1062 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
Look back at my example with the knowledge of arc 1-2-3-4 but not 5-6-7-8. This is pretty much what the letter is talking about. Ryuukishi used the example of "the secret files of Watanagashi/Meakashi, that even a writer could not predict their own future. This inability to do so makes "the truth" something that can be redefined and changed after, making it even less absolute then in the real world. Edit: Think of Lambda Delta, the Witch of Certainty, who knows that it does not exist. Think of why she is needed for Beatrice's game to work. |
|
2011-05-19, 13:40 | Link #1063 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
We have statistic for that and tests based on statistic. If you think anything in the human knowledge can assume a level higher to a stastic probability except for things that humans themselves invented you are a fool. The fact that competence and incompetence aren't a binary state doesn't change my point. A lot of things couldn't be classified as true or false according to your logic just because they aren't a binary. According to your distorted logic I couldn't even say that I'm happy or sad or that a particular student has good grades or that people are free or prisoners. You also seem to forget that the nature of red truths is trascendental by definition. Most of them wouldn't be verifiable in any way in a real scenario. So your arguing about verifiability is completely pointless. Quote:
The fact that some authors don't know any better, doesn't mean that there's never been a a story with absolute truths. Most stories have them. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2011-05-19, 13:54 | Link #1065 | |||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Is that your position? Because as respects Umineko it's precarious. Why? Because it makes Beatrice's statement false. Battler is provably capable of performing some tasks, and doing so with great "competence." Therefore you would pretty much have to take one of two positions:
Quote:
Quote:
So... yes? That's not really distorted logic at all. Quote:
Quote:
It's a prediction. Predictions are not logical statements; at best they are hypotheses. A hypothesis only becomes a logical statement when it is tested and a conclusion is derived. In other words, a prediction cannot have a truth value until circumstances arise which actually prove or disprove the prediction. Worse yet: "These seals will not be broken [from this moment forward]" is a statement that you not only can't prove unless it happens, it's a statement you can never prove to be true. You can prove it false (by breaking them), but you can't actually confirm it (because as long as the seals exist, they may be broken in the future). Therefore, by simple logic, a prediction in red can never be true, yet could possibly be false. In other words, predictions in red aren't just worthless, they completely undermine red and Ryukishi should never have used red for that purpose. But he isn't breaking his rules to do so. EDIT: Note that there may be an implicit qualifier such as "until the end of the story," since a narrative has a discrete ending point. That doesn't actually make a prediction in red logically meaningful, but it would make the red retroactively true if we assume that all red text issued during the narrative will hold as true for the entire narrative at the end. The only problem there arises if the narrative can be altered while it is ongoing, and it's not actually clear that such a thing is even possible in Umineko's meta-fictional plane.
__________________
|
|||||
2011-05-19, 13:58 | Link #1066 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
I think your view on authors is a bit too extreme. One of the thing that generally interests me the most about any given story is how much it was "changed while being written". What you call an absolute truth is simply a "lack of new truth". If you personally believe an author won't do this, it doesn't mean they will follow your opinion. You can never be certain of that unless they are dead. I don't think that's a very good basis to declare anything as absolute.
Quote:
Spoiler for Bern said it before LD was even introduced.:
|
|
2011-05-19, 14:13 | Link #1067 | ||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
The specif statement of incompetence said by Beatrice is to be related to the game, and I think the context is quite obvious there. In this specific case I believe that Battler incompetence can be inferred even without the help of the red truth. His incompentence in that situation and in that moment is a narrative fact unless you imagine that what was described is false. Quote:
Quote:
You see your logic only works in a pure abstract philosophical context. In our real world it doesn't work. For non binary situaton there are well established tresholds when one can be considered in either side. freedom is not a binary condition, and yet there are laws that enforce freedom and abolish slavery. You should know that well. Quote:
As for Lambda you clearly said that "she knows". What you quoted is a Bern's monologue. As far as I know Lambda never admitted or thought that certainty doesn't exist.
__________________
|
||||
2011-05-19, 14:24 | Link #1068 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Battler didn't do something correctly. But he provably can, he just didn't at that time. Quote:
What I said was "the evaluation of grade quality is subjective." This is absolutely true. And universities have subjective criteria for what level of grades they consider acceptable to admit a person to their programs. Harvard has higher standards than the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan has higher standards than Essex County Community College. Essex County Community College has higher standards than Generic Online University. It can be objectively said that Harvard has higher grade standards numerically than Generic Online University. That does not prove anything except that one is more choosy with respect to a number that derives from various other factors, factors the universities may not even be aware of. It doesn't prove that Harvard always accepts better students. Confinement and slavery are facts, interpretations are not. I was not making any sort of moral statement as to whether it is or is not right to confine a person. I was merely making the argument that a person who is absolutely confined (that is, his ability to do anything he wants is in some way restricted) does not necessarily believe he is confined, and does not necessarily believe that confinement is a bad thing. As an example, say a man is born in an environment dome on the Moon. He is not aware that anything exists outside of his environment dome. The people who run the dome will not allow him to leave; however, since the man has no idea that it is even possible to leave, he has no negative emotional association of confinement as a bad thing. He does not know that he is confined, therefore he does not feel bad about it. Since he can do anything he wants inside the dome, and since the dome itself is his entire world, he believes himself to be free. And, from a certain perspective, he may indeed be free. That doesn't make it moral or immoral to keep him confined in the environment dome. That is a wholly separate debate. But it is possible to imagine a scenario in which a physically confined person is mentally and emotionally free without deception.
__________________
|
|||
2011-05-19, 14:46 | Link #1069 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
let's look at the definition of the word then, shall we? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/competence Number 1 is the only acception that we care about, there are two cases: In case "a" the statement has no meaning unless it's related to something In case "b" it clearly specifies that it must be specific. Quote:
Battler objectively lacked the required means to perform his role in a satisfying manner. The mere fact that he didn't know all the rules and what that game was really about is a definitive proof of his incompetence. Quote:
If I say "Mark is a sophomore" I take for granted that you aren't dumb enough to not realize that this statement is true at this given moment and not forever. As for what concerns the slavery argument, what you are saying is irrelevant for the discussion at hand. The fact that one might consider himself free because of ignorance is not relevant for the purpose of determining whether it is possible to consider him objectively free or not. Your logic assumes that only binary conditions can objectively defined as such. But you are forgetting that as well as there are conventions about definitions there are conventions about tresholds above and under which those definitions apply. So it doesn't matter if freedom and slavery aren't a binary. There is still a convention that defines how much freedom is required for someone to be considered free and how less of it one must have to be considered a prisoner or a slave. of course conventions can change with time, but that's true for every definition. And that means there is absolutely no difference between binary states and those who lie on a spectrum. The concept of incompetence isn't as well as defined as the concept of freedom, but I believe there is a treshold under which everyone or at least a good majority would agree that you can talk about incompetence. That would still be a convention. But ANY definition is a convention.
__________________
|
|||
2011-05-19, 14:51 | Link #1070 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
I was pointing out it's just not a very good critera. I don't think you wait for authors to die to enjoy their work in general.
Quote:
Then I guess replace my statement about LD with that Bern screenshot. I still believe there's a reason that point was bought up very early in the story. |
|
2011-05-19, 14:55 | Link #1071 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Ironically Ryuukishi seems to realize the importance of trust between reader and author. So why he decided to betray it is beyond me.
__________________
|
|
2011-05-19, 15:02 | Link #1072 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Competence is itself defined as "a particular or adequate amount of skill." As with the grade example, how much proficiency is "adequate" is subjective so long as it is non-zero. If Battler displays more than zero competence (and he does), the only fair assessment of his insufficiency Beatrice can make is her own personal subjective one. Battler is not competent enough for Beatrice. He is not objectively and absolutely not competent. In fact, he is exceptionally competent to solve certain types of mysteries, as he suggests answers that have actually appeared in other such mysteries. Quote:
Quote:
Beatrice-the-character can only speak of a non-absolute.
__________________
|
|||
2011-05-19, 15:14 | Link #1073 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Definitions themselves aren't objective, but once they are set, you can make objective statement using them. Of course your statements will be only objective using the preset definitions. Quote:
Quote:
I think we discussed before that red truths in order to work should use the most common definitions and when they do not, the new definitions should be clearly specified.
__________________
|
|||
2011-05-19, 15:43 | Link #1074 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-05-19, 16:21 | Link #1075 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
In the general expectations I have of literature to give foreshadowing enough to allow reasoning out the story, I don't really think Ryuukishi broke any trust. He did a lot of unconventional things, but he gave us plenty to guess at them. The only thing I think anyone can say is that Ryuukishi didn't explain to us what game we were playing at and what rules it used. However we were warned in arc 1 itself that the goal of the game was to figure out these rules. Explaining the rules of his game is the equivalent to giving the answer, so he can't do that. Trust however remains something that cannot be 100% certain, or else no one would ever fall to deception. Edit: Aura, I think Jan was saying something like you can objectively fit a consensus within that subjectivity. For instance "What is a christian?" would probably spawn an endless debate of subjectivity, but within a specific time and society you can reach a consensus as to that subjective definition. You can then assert wether someone objectively fits that consensus or not. The best example I could give of that is that you can objectively say that someone is a "kid" or an "adult" even tho that is a very subjective definition, as long as I refer to the social/legal consensus of what is an adult/what is a kid. Last edited by UsagiTenpura; 2011-05-19 at 16:34. |
|
2011-05-19, 20:28 | Link #1077 |
Blick Winkel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
|
Beatrice didn't say it to state a fact, she did it to troll the hell out of him and goad him.
What I think she was referring to: Battler was incompetent at that moment because he couldn't solve the First Twilight of Episode 2. Her criterion was "Battler is incompetent if he cannot solve the puzzle". However, once he solved the puzzle, he became competent so the Red Truth no longer applied. It did apply when she said it, because she thought he was incompetent. It is a subjective ruling, but as we have been shown the Red Truth's context must be considered. |
2011-05-21, 00:49 | Link #1078 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
I doubt it's canon and all (though 'canon' becomes a pretty lulzy notion when it comes to Meta-World shenanigans), but I do recall during the extra tip, "Beatrice's White Day", Battler made a predictive Red Truth “I will never ever, from this day forward, get you something for White Day!”
And Beato went all moe about it, and they bullshitted around it with the uncontested blue truth "White Day is the on the same day as Valentine’s Day, just a month later. So, tomorrow, when the man accepts your chocolate, he’ll reciprocate a month from the day it’s given.” I can't quote a specific source, but I think someone (possibly Lambda) mentioned, or maybe it was implied, that using the red truth in certain ways was "vulgar" or "unrefined", and thus looked down upon and avoided, like using it to predict the future. It sort of fits the whole author thing to the degree that "If you say something about the future of your series, you have to keep your word, and you might create a situation that's hard to write your way out of". Like, bad example, Miss Rowling had red truth'd early on Dumbledore will not die during the series. I mean, I guess you can, but why place that kind of arbitrary limitation on yourself, unless it's someting like the Decalogue, which serves to prove you're "playing fair" with your readers? I mean, I guess it's a little more nuanced than that, because Umineko deals with mystery, based on a ruleset, and fantasy, based on the lulz. I just sort of assumed that predictive red truths were true - Dlanor declared that certain things would NEVER exist, IIRC - they're just generally avoided as a rule, because they can make things awkward as the tale gets longer and more restricted by what came before. As far as the cackling, well, it's not like they were ... lies. So... It's not that I never think to question the red's validity, but, geez. I'm pretty sure Battler was certainly incompetent at that time |
2011-05-21, 17:23 | Link #1080 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
For example, if I write a story about a man who lives alone on an alien planet, and then a woman appears before him and they get married and settle down. I declare the following things to be red truth:
Quote:
However, if someone were somehow more powerful than her, her prediction would falter. Exactly what that means on a meta-fictional level is probably not worth worrying about, but as an example you have something like Asimov's robot stories, which feature a level of technology that can technically follow Knox's rules while also having things like starships and robots in them due to their setting. A clever writer could "write around" Dlanor's objections with the right kind of story, not actually breaking Knox but essentially trivializing the rules by incorporation. Or an amazingly skilled writer could outright break those rules intentionally to show off his or her mastery of the mystery genre. Some people have broken every convention of the mystery genre before (to varying success), so it's not unimaginable that on a meta-level those authors would have been able to "defeat" Dlanor even if she stood in opposition to them.
__________________
|
||
|
|