• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Will Marvel Studios make a film than is grounded in reality?

Okay, a quick lesson in terminology:

"Hypothesis": A systematic explanation for a set of observed phenomenon, that is capable of being tested. Specifically, it must be designed so that it is possible to prove it wrong with some conceivable evidence ( "falsifiability" ).

"Theory": A hypothesis that has been tested by attempts to disprove it, repeatedly and rigorously, and which has nonetheless stood up to said efforts. This renders it highly congruent with reality, at least within the domains for which it is intended to cover.

Basically, when you all act like a "theory" is something yet to be proven, you are wrong. A theory is the exact opposite: an explanation for phenomenon that has stood up to extensive effort to disprove it, and constitutes the highest level of certainty within science. Phrases like "evolution is only a theory" miss the point hilariously, as "theory" is what *all* scientific hypotheses aspire to become.

( Also, I *still* fail to see what consciousness and personhood have to do with *anything* being discussed, as the theory of evolution really doesn't say anything about such, aside from perhaps "self-awareness is an advantageous trait." )
 
I think we're clear on the terminology, but you seem to be talking about something else. The opposite of something that has yet to be proven would be something that has been 100% proven, which is not what science aspires to become, science aspires to become falsifiable and uncertain, but consistent with known and accepted observations. To say that the opposite of not yet proven is something that has stood up to efforts to disprove sounds wrong, because those are not mutually exclusive traits.

And again, I suggest we agree to disagree on this issue. If the Theory of Evolution is supposed to explain how species emerge, then it should be able to explain how our species emerges, hence attributes we have, like opposable thumbs, or consciousnesses should be able to be explained with the Theory. If that seems irrelevant, then it's unlikely we'll be able to come to an understanding on the nuances of the scientific concept of proven versus the colloquial use of proven, and how each are valued or useful.
 
Last edited:
I don't see that happening to any of the Marvel characters, not any of the big ones at least

The approach might work for DareDevil as the most popular of Marvel's street franchise
Moon Knight (yes he can, when Ra's resurrection is taken out, Joker is like Basil Carlo, Bane needs no Venom to increase size, don't see why this one can't), and Shang Chi are all the possible characters I can think of turning their stories to a more grounded movie franchise
Problem is they won't be recognized well as good stuff, even with good writing and cinematography, more people will complain about them being "Batman ripoff", "nothing we haven't seen before", "another dang Bruce Lee wannabe", etc etc

Look at all 3 Punisher films, one of them is good (extended cut is obviously better), the other two are ok, if they are received like crap when Steven Seagull would star in a movie 100% like one of those but gets far better recognition, he's better off starring in his web series
 
Lorus, isnt that the point, isnt that statement being ignorant if you already assume it has nothing relevant to evolution? How would you know? If people are probably looking into that... and its already assumed it has nothing to do with evolution, why bother looking?

I could not agree more, but evolution would give us really no reason why "man" would even care to find out. Maybe this is why these questions get raised, I think evolution sees man as animal, machines if you will. You have to admit that who we are, questions we raise , what we do and dream etc.. does not fit the theory. I am not coming from any kind of religious view at all either.

My point is that I'm certain that somewhere in the world, scientists are trying to find ways to explain the phenomena of self awareness, but not in a way that's connected to evolution, so to speak. It's an entirely separate issue. Evolution and natural selection is just a mechanism that produces different and complex things from other things. Asking evolution to 'explain' self awareness is like saying the internal combustion engine doesn't explain self awareness, nobody would expect it to do so. I don't understand why people would criticise evolution for not explaining something like morality or self awareness, would the same logic not mean it could also be criticised for not explaining all the factors that contribute to protein synthesis? I don't understand what people want evolution to be.
 
My point is that I'm certain that somewhere in the world, scientists are trying to find ways to explain the phenomena of self awareness, but not in a way that's connected to evolution, so to speak. It's an entirely separate issue. Evolution and natural selection is just a mechanism that produces different and complex things from other things. Asking evolution to 'explain' self awareness is like saying the internal combustion engine doesn't explain self awareness, nobody would expect it to do so. I don't understand why people would criticise evolution for not explaining something like morality or self awareness, would the same logic not mean it could also be criticised for not explaining all the factors that contribute to protein synthesis? I don't understand what people want evolution to be.

I gotcha man,, I see what your saying.. And its not that im making you wrong or anything.. I think you see the "theory of evolution" as a pure physical. And by no means do i disagree with the theory of evolution on a possible physical factor. There are plenty of kinks and holes in the theory that I do believe to be used as some kind of proof.

I just come from the view because I observe that most "humans" ask these questions is there something more?. If so, on some level yet to be discovered (but is observable) could this have some influence on evolution? As I said before its how you want to see it spirit, soul, energy, ghost in the machine.

Its very observable Lorus,,,, you can actually see the molecules in a glass of water (given you have the proper equipment)... Did you know that if you touched the glass of water and felt hate that the molecules will actually change to represent how you feel. If you touch the water and felt jealousy the molecules will change again. Its actually documented! You can go see this for yourself in "what the bleep do we know".

I think you have to ask these questions, evolution will only tell you heres what we think on a physical level. But if such is observable (water example) what effect could this have physically with us? Its a loaded question, but I think we may find more to these questions by not seperating one from the other.

Anyways Lorus, I promise man im not saying your wrong by any means and I do understand what your saying.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"