The 19th century physicists are right that Newton was right, by implicitly caveating them to being restricted to their available evidence, but there's no way you can twist it to say that they'd be right to say that QM is wrong. You CAN say that to them QM would be unjustified. And that's what we were trying to suggest you amend your statement to, and is very explicitly what you refused to do. You can even say that it would be procedurally correct for them to reject QM. That doesn't make QM wrong, or even obviously wrong.
But that wasn't your argument, drach. I interpreted your "we were wrong" to mean that the 19th century Scientists were wrong, and so I should assume I'm wrong, because I can't know more evidence won't come to light. If that was not your intent, could you please clarify, because I am having trouble resolving that statement and what you just wrote.
And, no, I said nothing about 19th century scientists being right to say QM is wrong. They can and should force stringent experimentation on a theory so utterly radical and foreign to their known Science, but they can't say it's wrong, when a phenomenon has been detected. They might postulate that the evidence was faked and repeat it themselves, and so initially assume it's wrong. That's normal and acceptable. See Cold Fusion, and continuing confusion about that particular branch of science. Scientists are allowed to approach a new phenomenon from both a positive and negative standpoint, and it's good that they do, because we can learn even more new things from a broader range of experiments.
I heard all of this in my Phil of Science class last semester. It seemed stupid to me then, it seems stupid to me now. 19th century scientists WERE wrong. And I expect that eventually today's physicists will be proven wrong too. That's the point of science. That's why the falsification principle works. Being right doesn't teach us anything.
Here's the trap that so many people seem to fall into. "Being Wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "It doesn't work". Newton's gravitational formula was ultimately proven to be inaccurate, but it was accurate enough to get us to the freaking Moon. Math, which is the basis of physics, is unforgiving. There's The Solution. Everything else is Wrong. Reality is a bit more forgiving. There's Right, and then there's Good Enough. Technically, Good Enough is still Wrong, according to the math, but it still serves to hold the buildings up well enough. That doesn't make Good Enough any less Wrong. It just means that the people doing the figuring at that point were close, but didn't nail it.
So far, everyone in physics has been wrong. The theories that hold today hold only because they haven't been proven wrong yet. I don't think that anyone is arrogant enough to think that we've nailed it. We're still ultimately wrong. We just haven't figured out how yet, that's all. We're right enough to make boop work, but that doesn't mean we are RIGHT.
I heard all of this in my Phil of Science class last semester. It seemed stupid to me then, it seems stupid to me now. 19th century scientists WERE wrong.
Right and wrong aren't proper terms to discuss scientific theories. A theory is always right, since it is based on a series of postulates and follows from them in a rigorous way, it is a consistent theoretical construct. It may or it may not be consistent with observations, that's the only relevant aspect.
By that standard, nothing in our world is ever right. Not science, religion, politics, economics, anything. It's not just Science that changes with time and discovery... everything does. Your standard makes "being right" impossible and unusable in any context. Including analysis of this comic. Rob does make new information known that changes what we knew to be true to now be false.
Would you like to take that all the way to its logical conclusion, or shall I?
I'm kinda iffy on the tool-school theories. Little confidence.
I'm not THAT confident that they're false... and with what you said, offering the opening for supporting statements in the comic, you can be very confident that they're false - but not up to the level of 'clearly and obviously false'.
Except for two crucial caveats you are leaving out. 1) Wanda is only an "expert" (and even that term is debatable) in the schools she has practiced and 2) you left out the crucial phrase "thinks". As in:
So the list suggests that the 'Hammer doesn't have a primary association, but there is still plenty of room for Wanda to be wrong (or just flat out lying because she's like that). It's not proof.
Example: a piece of armour may have resistance to (reduce by 50%) death and holy attacks and also block shots, defence +1.
I think we really don't have enough evidence yet for good guesses.
The power list came to the Tool from Wanda. They are not his own work product, and therefore not subject to his weaknesses. Wanda is an expert in magic, so the list stands.
Not sure where your confusion is Oh. Kriestor was referring to the fact that Stanely believes the 'Hammer uses several schools of magic BECAUSE Wanda told him so. When he got the hammer is irrelevant, before Wanda, he presumably just accepted that it worked and was cool without knowing or likely even caring *how* it worked.
Also random side-note, it's a little tiresome that you still have that siggy Oh, not really sure what's it's point was, other than to try and make it seem like you weren't being dense in the conversation that came from, cus taking things out of context is the only way you can make yourself look good.