Burning thought
Restricted
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
It certainly doesn't look complete but Oak says he wanted to create a complete guide of all the Pokemon. Which is one of the games objectives. This is something that legitimately cannot be argued against.The mountain thing is admittedly only mentioned in one entry. Several of them are known to repeat, like the 1000 punches in 2 seconds. Sometimes wording is different but a lot of the time it is in effect the same meaning. Like this:
FR Pokedex:"Its four ruggedly developed arms can launch a flurry of 1,000 punches in just two seconds. "
D Pokedex:"It punches with its four arms at blinding speed. It can launch 1,000 punches in two seconds."
Physics really do not have to be strictly followed in videogames. Like ever.
Well those are fallacies, not hyperbole. Hyperbole is when things are exaggerated. And actually the unharmed by any attack makes sense as it is talking about a rock armor body.
I've never said they were infallible. But they are smarter than you when concerning matters inside their own universe. Especially when they make a living studying these creatures.
More detailed information like what? And Oak is not the only Professor behind the Pokedex.
Professor Oak must be damn disapointed, no wonder he keeps trying to make new ones. Maybe in a few years a Pokedex with full entries on each pokemon, at least a few pages each will be realised without errors.
So essentionally the most argued subject at the moment is just an old entry, in a fallible source that was removed and changed in the new ones anyway? The whole blinding speed thing seems more talked about, it even has figuires which kinda make things look more scientific even in a kids game because its not vague.
Well no, but often we have some physics followed, most feats that we argue for other games would not really work if we used zero physics. If you want to use zero physics then this may or may not be even worth mentioning as a feat.
Their both failures of logic, but also hyperbole because when it claims "any" its exaggerated and general. It would be a no limits fallacy because it claims everything can be melted/unharmed, but also a hyperbole claim because something that can do this to "everything" or "anything" is exagerrated.
Sure their smarter, I am sure people in politics are vastly smarter in the area than I am but no way would I take everything a government says as fact. Also how does them being smarter than me help your claim? unless I was saying I knew more about it than them, them being smarter hardly helps.
Well a couple of lines is hardly detailed, I dont know about pokemon but if I looked in a book about animals and each one had only a couple of lines explaining it I would probably roll my eyes if the title was "complete encylopedia on animals".
Originally posted by The Scenario
I wonder if I am reading the argument right, since it seems to be "humans are sometimes wrong, therefore all pokedex entries are lies." Either that or "the guys who spend their lives studying pokemon are wrong because pokemon might disobey physics." Paraphrased, of course, but that is the gist of it.Trying to question or imply that a scientists doesn't know anything about their field seems faulty, but maybe that's just me. I mean, I wouldn't immediately distrust everything a zoologist says about animals.
Not quite right, the argument is that the Pokedex is fallible therefore, we dont know if anything it says is true because we dont know/have another source. Humans are fallible therefore the entires are fallible and full of fallacies. How could the opposition of the Dex simply take its claims as fact/good evidence or a source when its fallible, exaggerates, guildty of failures of logic etc?
Its like if I wa argueing about animals, and I forwarded to my friend a document that had holes in it, was fallible, had failures of logic within, he is well in his right to stick his nose up at the evidence i have provided because its not concrete solid.