** spoiler omitted **
I assume from everyone constantly telling him to shut up.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh.
Rofl, nice avatar.
|
That's not RAW. In fact, RAW is completely silent as to whether that's the case or not.No it's RAW that commoners can't cast spells and that wizards can.
Commoner
Wizard
Or, perhaps, in the process of studying the wizard and replicating his actions, the commoner gains his first level in the wizard class.
There are several issues at play here, that stem from a broad 'scientific method' and the 'scientific method' as it actually exists in our world, and the two things are not exactly the same thing.
The 'Scientific method' presupposes several things philosophically. That the universe is Objective. That you can learn about the Objective nature of the universe through your senses. That information about the objective nature of the universe can be transmitted to other people, shared, and thus produce a more 'true' picture of that universe.
Now, there are a few things that make science, in the true sense, a bit hard in a 'pathfinder' universe. The existence of the gods and the planes of existance are the big bugaboo. The Astral and Ethereal plane both seem to exist in direct opposition to the first broad philosophical point up there. That there are being who can shape the universe and it's rules to their whim also makes the idea of science a little harder to put forward.
In our world 'science' as it came to be understood emerged because of repeatability and because most early science could be repeated pretty readily with a modicum of education and a relatively small measure of wealth. This only became more and more true as time went on. Fluctuation obviously, but some of the greatest scientists were just people who sought the answer to one or two questions and stuck at it for 20-30 years(Mendel is a good example of this). In our world, the broad day to day experiences of existance aren't randomly undermined by the intervention of other beings. Creating an underlying 'science' for a world might be possible, but it would always be sketchy, because ultimately, D&D worlds are story-worlds, not real ones. A simple rules based example of this is Experience Levels. They are connected to a game mechanic, yet have observable, in many cases, measurable effects on the world. Since experience points are somewhat arbitrary in their assignment as are 'levels' generally, there is no way for some-one within the ocnfines of the universe to figure out how come the Great Court Magus Darcon spent 30 years to be able to cast Major Creation but it took Kelop the Adventurer less than 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
great philosophical stuff fraught with insight and laced with whimsy
Everything you mention above is true, but may be misleading.
"Science as Science" in the context of our universe is, quite understandably, turned on its head by the Pathfinder universe. This is an expected result, as our Science is derived from our Universe, not the Pathfinder universe.
From the standpoint of a denizen of the Pathfinder setting, however, none of the philosophical notions you cite as underpinning the concept we call the "scientific method" are at all troubling or disturbing.
The Universe is Objective: the key thing to note is that, omnipotent or not (and most are not in the published campaign setting), the Gods of the Pathfinder Universe are nothing more than exceptionally powerful Agents. As such, for the purposes of determining if the Universe is Objective, their various antics can be ignored equally as well as our scientific method can ignore the fact that, by some method, I am able to effect an alteration in the world that you observe. Thus, the Pathfinder Universe is Objective, as Divine Intervention is the product of Agency.
You can learn about the nature of the Universe through your senses: the fact that most adventurers put ranks in Perception would seem to suggest that, in fact, they can learn about the nature of the Universe through their senses. That point aside, the need for magical assistance to perceive certain elements of the nature of the universe is not dissimilar from the need we have of microscopes, telescopes, and other sensory-enhancing tools (indeed, it's a different method to arrive at almost identical ends).
Sharing of information happens just as well, if not better (via magic), in the Pathfinder Universe, compared to ours.
Having said all that, I don't contest that the *means* to obtain the proper abilities and tools to perceive the Pathfinder Universe properly for the purposes of advancing Scientific Method are going to be different than the methods we use here in the real world.
(By the way, I don't know about you but *my* broad, day-to-day experience of existence was pretty well undermined, or at least altered, by the intervention of Congress (I believe that I'm being generous here in defining Congress as a collection of other beings). Note that I don't consider there to be much difference between the intervention of a level 1 commoner and a Greater Deity other than scale - both are still intervention.)
Finally, it's clear to me that *one* possible explanation for the disparity in the time it takes different wizards to develop the skills to cast higher-level magic is that Darcon was involved in substantially fewer potentially lethal conflicts than Kelop - much like it takes a great deal of time for nature to form a diamond, but very little time in comparison for one to be made in a lab, Kelop was subjected to substantially greater and more insight-granting stresses than Darcon, and thus mastered his magic faster. Look, it's even repeatable! Grab that commoner and teach him the rigors of magic, then send him out to fight for his life. If he's got any kind of brains, he'll develop faster than Darcon too!
I admit, to obtain Spectacles of True Sight one will have to shell out a great deal of gold, but how much did the Large Hadron Collider cost? Thus, while magic-users clearly have an advantage over non-magic-users, the realm of advanced perception is not limited to spellcasters, given a sufficient volume of resources.
All this is not to say that any particular character or class *must* be fueled by the Scientific Method, that's an entirely different matter.
^_^
Not trying to argue, just pointing out what seem to be flaws in reasoning.
Muuuch more difficult to get a research grant to do magic.
Muuuch more difficult to get a research grant to do magic.
Unless you're dedicated to developing a new application of low-level magic to the battlefield or to point-defense - then the government grants will be battering down your doors...
Mmmm, the implications for a potential Military-Spellcraftical complex...
mages know that there is someone who knows everything about magic, because that being created it.
scientists have no clue where the limits are, or if there are any.
|
I think that the big difference between our idea of scientific processes and fantasy world processes is that when you can't figure it out, you can summon something from the great beyond and have it explained to you, or point you in the direction you need for the answer you want.
That in turn is what can and does lead many a spell caster astray.
The difference between scientific method and magic research is rather sharp, I would say. First off, magic as it is described is very mutable. I have always assumed that one person's magic missile is not the same as another's. The gestures and words needed to cast a stinking cloud differ between mages. I believe the key word here is understanding. Every magic-user has power in relation to the understanding of magic that they have achieved - but every one of them thinks of magic in different ways. It still works, though.
Thus: Research is not about divining the Truth about magic, it's about applying your personal ideas of magic to a set problem. Certainly, someone else finding your notes could use them to make their own wall of force, but they'd find the process jarring and unintuitive compared to the spells they are used to.
Magic is also about SKILL. One of the central points of technology is that certain things no longer require (as much) skill to achieve. Most famous is probably the crossbow, compared to the longbow. Not so magic. It requires concentration, focus, patience and willpower far beyond what any untrained person could muster. Sorcerers are, perhaps, those who are born with the ability to reach that state of mind? Either way, an archmage could show the peasant how to cast the fireball, but it's like handing a Stradivarius to Joe Shmoe and expect a violin concerto. Where technology is inclusive and meant to spread, magic is exclusive and tends to result in wizard guilds.
Further, magic is in and of itself a tool for power. This is a very good reason for people NOT to share their findings - and a reason for the fractured ideas of how magic works.
All these things are fairly subtle, but together it means that a scientist and a research wizard would have very little in common.
|
|
+1
Or, perhaps, in the process of studying the wizard and replicating his actions, the commoner gains his first level in the wizard class.
A bit unrelated, but I've never liked how the 0-HD races have to have a class. Take Erzen, for example. His backstory is that he began his study of magic late in his life, in his 40s or so. And so at ~40, he became a 1st level wizard. So...what was he before? You would think commoner, but if that were the case he would be Commoner X / Wizard 1. And since there are no rules that I've noticed for humans (or other 0-HD races) without a class...
What the hell was Erzen at the age of 30?
Mendel was a Catholic Monk. He fully believed in God. So, to say that the existence of gods makes the pursuit of science difficult and then reference Mendel is a bit erratic.
Mendel lived in a world in which the gods don't come down and play on a day-to-day basis, in which there's no way to conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god. That's a far sight from the world of Golarion, on which the gods found nations and talk to people. For science to work in a world like that, it would require the greater gods to stop fiddling with the laws of reality every time they get bored (we can probably assume the lesser gods, demigods, etc. can't change things at that scale).
Mendel lived in a world where it was believed that God did come down and talk to people (these were called 'visions' or 'visitations') and where God, himself, had appointed the kings to be kings. Mendel lived in a world where people talked all the time of seeing angels and demons and witches could put hexes on people.
Belief + talk =/= laws of physics actually change.
When a scientific law changes, it's not because physics has objectively changed, rather it's because belief + talk about physics has changed.
Exactly -- in our world, there are constant laws of physics that one is attempting to model. That's the opposite of the case in which active trickster gods change the laws of physics often and at whim.
i love it when threads i start get long.
Take any cleric capable of casting spells. The average commoner could watch this cleric cast a spell on a broken down, hacking cough, feverish woman and that average commoner could then see that woman get healthy again. Take any charlatan and they could do the same thing (of course, their patient wasn't actually sick). Take any devout religious believer in our world and they could do the same thing with someone who is truly sick (we're still trying to figure out how the placebo effect works, but we know for certain that it -does- work).
That last is not actually quite accurate.
Specifically, the placebo effect is only shown for subjectively defined symptoms. It has not been shown to have a noticeable effect on objectively defined symptoms.
For example, a placebo can reduce the level of pain that someone reports, but it won't reduce their rate of fever or frequency of coughing.
Placebo doesn't cause cancer remission or reduce the rate of infection.
We actually have a pretty good idea how placebo works -- since the placebo effect depends on self-reporting, it's simply a matter of people believing that the drugs are working and therefore ignoring and downplaying (rather than focusing on and exaggerating) their symptoms.
There are, of course, other explanations. But placebo has not been proven to do anything in circumstances where machines can measure symptoms rather than having patients report the symptoms themselves.
And someone able to take a pill "religiously" couldn't be able to take other medications religiously? If you conduct a cardiologic study, it's not as if the patients drop all their previous medicines. So, what you measure with such a result is not placebo but COMPLIANCE. Or, if you will, the effect of actually taking your pills.