mantimeforgot wrote:Our sample size has nothing to do with the fact that Predictamancers having zero actionable intelligence (According to you: The only thing Predictamancers have that isn't Fate awareness is the ability to make educated guesses; This is something which all intelligent people can do); You can't fight Fate so why does it matter if you know about it?
Instead of trying to avoid the ambush you are Fated to have, you can tell your troops to be ready for it. Instead of futilely trying to stop the fall of your side, you can pop an heir and take measures to make certain that she's not in the capitol when it falls. Instead of requiring your future employers to turn you forcefully, (when you know they will
succeed) you can go willingly to possibly spare the lives of your friends and family.
Just because you can't change Fated events, doesn't mean that intelligence isn't actionable. Predictamancy usually doesn't specify the details
, so you can still do whatever you can to change them. Besides, while anyone can make an educated guess, only with Predictamancy can you be educated about Fate.
mantimeforgot wrote:Predictamancers have consistently shown that they can give you examples of what will happen, but start to have problems when you ask "What should I do about it?"
Not really. Both of our examples of Predictamancers (Delphie and Marie) also gave good advice about what to do. It's just that the advice took the form of "What should I do to make sure this happened in the best (or least painful) way possible?", rather than "What should I do to prevent this?".
mantimeforgot wrote:Predictamancers can tell you what problems you have; Mathamancers can tell you what your chances of dealing with a problem are; everyone else provides solutions.
Yep. That's pretty much how it works, in a nutshell. All three of these are useful, but in different ways.
TazTheTerrible wrote:I think we should take a bit of a step back here and consider for a moment what we're all arguing rather than try to simply attack other people's latest posts. I mean what are we still talking about here, fundamentally?
Well, IIRC at the point mantimeforgot joined in, I was arguing against the notion that Predictamancers just had a 'feel' for what might
happen in the future, which got stronger, more detailed, and more accurate as the Predicted event drew closer.
It was my position that a Prediction consisted of a single, infallible packet of data from the future, for instance "Croakamancer Wanda Firebaugh will enter the service of Olive Garden, Chief Caster of Haffaton". The simplest explanation for any details that emerge between the time of the original Prediction and the time of the Predicted event, such as "Haffaton is going to destroy Goodminton to get at Wanda", is (in my mind) logical deduction and educated guesses. For example:
- Wanda will enter Haffaton's service IF AND ONLY IF she will turn willingly OR Haffaton will destroy Goodminton to get at her.
- Wanda will enter Haffaton's service.
- Wanda will NOT turn willingly.
- THEREFORE Haffaton will destroy Goodminton to get at her.
Here, the only thing that was Predicted by magic is in bold. (The educated guess is in italics.) Since we already know that Predictamancers can do this, (anyone
of decent intelligence can) but we didn't know if Predictions got stronger/more accurate over time, I invoked Occam's Razor to conclude that it's more likely that they don't.
But then mantimeforgot claimed my use of Occam's Razor was invalid, and I've been defending my argument ever since.Now
I'm pretty sure this is all one big misunderstanding. It seems like he thinks I think something I don't actually think at all, and I'm having a hard time explaining it to him...