Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7055415" data-attributes="member: 4937">That the joke is not strictly speaking true is part of my point, and to the extent that he was doing more than joking or that people don't take that aphorism as being merely simplification of a larger and more complex idea and instead run with it as a veritable fact, then it supports my thesis rather than detracts from it.Clarke was frequently guilty of magical thinking and not understanding fundamental differences between science and magic, particularly when it came to Clarke's own wishful thinking about human destiny.Actually, the 10th century had almost no witchcraft trials.  It was the official doctrine of the Church at the time that witchcraft was simply superstition, and whenever possible in the 10th century (and prior to that even) the Catholic Church had tried to shut down witchcraft trials and criminal prosecution associated with it.   The Witch scare didn't get into full swing until the Renaissance and Early Modern period, and was associated with development of 'expert manuals' on witchcraft - the codification of old superstition into easily distributed pseudo-science that had the appearance of being the result of learning.   Similar myths about the 10th century concern the idea that they didn't bathe.  That is again something that started after the Medieval period.  They actually had lots of bath houses in the Medieval period, continuing the Roman tradition.  But, those are just quibbles.   To your larger point, yes, if I brought say a lap top back to the 10th century, most observers would assume that it was some sort of magic - and probably black magic, rather than any sort of 'natural science' (at the time, a phrase used almost synomonously with magic).   But that tells you more about the perspective of illiterate people living in an age before science was formalized as a methodology of investigation than it does anything about the truth of Clarke's law.   In fact, if actual magic was to be performed today, the vast majority of viewers would assume that it was just some sort of technological or scientific trickery because their biases would be to assume magic wasn't a thing.   If someone with 10,000 years more advanced technology was to do something with that technology in front of modern observers, we'd assume it was technology.   More to the point, educated literate observers would be able to ask questions about it that allowed them to distinguish based on the answers whether it was science and technology or magic.   Some of those answers might be hard to believe, or even astounding, but there is a big difference between science answers and non-science answers.You have to understand that there is a big difference between knowing some facts about the physical universe and knowing no facts about the physical universe.Sure.  But it is nonetheless very obvious when a writer is actually deeply knowledgeable in the area of the science he's discussing and is making his best effort to conform to what is known about the universe.   He might be wrong about the known unknowns, and he might completely miss the implications of the unknown unknowns, but he won't contradict the known knowns.  For example, he won't actually violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics without explaining how the apparent violation works, and he won't actually make use of energy without plausible mechanisms for generating it and a reasonable understanding of the implications of wielding that much energy.   Consider the lightsaber for its violation of all of that, as the amount of energy stored in that handle is enough to level a small continent, and yet you can turn the darn thing off without it instantly evaporating.  Where does the energy come from?  'Kyber Crystals' are an obviously magical answer, and distinguishable from science.</blockquote>

Verification