http://www.livescience.com/othernews/061025_vampire_debunk.html
The truth is revealed...
TEh OmG!
Now, next time you see someone running away from something, there's a pretty good chance that it's not a vampire.
At least we can still believe in Santa Claus!
Quote from: brainfaceAt least we can still believe in Santa Claus!
Tecnically no, as he is part vampire and part fairy tale. This creates 2 parts fictional wich easily overpowers the real. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.
That guy's an idiot. You have to be embraced to be a vampire, duh! Anyone can just get bitten. Amature.
Of course, I never liked a monster that had to hide from it's food... freakin throat-leech cadavers.
Quote from: WitchHunthttp://www.livescience.com/othernews/061025_vampire_debunk.html
The truth is revealed...
TEh OmG!
Now, next time you see someone running away from something, there's a pretty good chance that it's not a vampire.
There ARE vampires, vampires like Mr. Costas who are sucking all of the wonder out of the Universe. I suppose its mathematically impossible for muppets to have a treasure island too.
I don't consider biting to be the ultimate mathematical impossibility of vampires, but blood-to-bodyweight ratio. Go read up on how much blood a vampire bat has to consume each night. Increase that to human size and a vampire would have to drink entire populations just to survive. Of course, if vampires are undead the amount of blood they need is probably not that high, it's more of a compulsion or ritual thing. So they wouldn't even have to drain one human per time period.
One order of wonder right here!
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI don't consider biting to be the ultimate mathematical impossibility of vampires, but blood-to-bodyweight ratio. Go read up on how much blood a vampire bat has to consume each night. Increase that to human size and a vampire would have to drink entire populations just to survive. Of course, if vampires are undead the amount of blood they need is probably not that high, it's more of a compulsion or ritual thing. So they wouldn't even have to drain one human per time period.
One order of wonder right here!
if it's a compulsion thing (as all modern vampire literatture says), then technically, they don't
have to drain
any humans of blood. theoretically, they could go countless centuries without ever tasting a drop.
in practice, i'm sure the compulsion would get too unbearable before
too long (say, a year or two, tops), but if any given vampire has a strong enough will to resist the urge of bloodlust, then that whole "one human a month" thing just falls flat.
that and, as mentioned earlier, being bitten isn't enough; you must be Embraced. this slows the rate of the growing vampire population needed for this guy's theory.
Well, in D&D vampires and vampire spawn are created just by being drained of their Constitution or by the vampire's neg.level slams. This is bound to happen a few times when a vampire has limited access, and as more vampires rise this keeps happening. Eventually, the population is going to be severely hampered by the sheer number, as more and more draining will take place.
While I don't believe in vampires, I must say that the linked article is about the worst debunking attempt I've ever seen. By that article's logic, if a wolf must eat a deer once a month in order to survive, since wolves have litters whereas deer have single offspring, then deer would be extinct becuase wolves are born faster than the deer they feed upon. Of course, the real fact of the matter is that wolves eventually die, keeping their population in equilibrium. If even half of the folklore about villagers exhuming and staking bodies is true, then the same would be true of vampires. Granted, vampires don't die of old age, but back in the day, there was no shortage of superstitious peasants willing to dig stuff up and mutiliate it.
not to mention it excludes the possibility of vampiric infighting, accidental sun exposure, and even assumes that every single person fed upon becomes a vampire, when very few modern interpretation of vampires follow that logic.
The most hilarious thing about the article, to me, was that mr. college professor felt he needed to write a book for me to realize vampires didn't exist. Thankyou, mr. college professor.
Also, the quote:
QuoteUniversity of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high level, Efthimiou told LiveScience.
indeed[/i].
Quotein practice, i'm sure the compulsion would get too unbearable before too long (say, a year or two, tops), but if any given vampire has a strong enough will to resist the urge of bloodlust, then that whole "one human a month" thing just falls flat.
That is why they have the Black Ribbon Society, to help each other swear off the sticky stuff.
Quote from: Wrexham3I suppose its mathematically impossible for muppets to have a treasure island too.
LMFAO! YES!
First of all the article doesn't even debunk the existance of vampires. Because, A that professor is on crack. B, you have to be embraced to become a vampire, embracing a human a month would probably kill the vampire. C. While Vampires are immortal, they can be destroyed, and consequently do occasionally get shuffled from the deck. D. Vampires are magical. Attempting to explain precisely how they work with math is ridiculous... particularly with that kind of math.
It's okay Lestat... you can come out now... the bad man is gone...
I like a good debunking. That was not a good debunking. That was debunking lite. That was setting up an idea of vampirism suitable for a child of six, and making that the target. Everyone who thinks at length about vampires - even just as an idle exercise - comes to that conclusion, although I'll grant you they don't usually do any involved math. Granted it's just an article, not the book itself, but still. Petit debunking is petty thinking. We can do better.
I have seen a number of interpretations of vampirism here. If we are to debunk the idea of vampirism, we must establish which theory we shall employ. (For our purpose, we shall not examine those people who are merely psychologically impelled to behave like vampires. We're talking about the supernatural version.)
That is, we might be. I am hereby offering a challenge to the CBG. One of the basic principles of science is disprovability; I propose we come up with a model of supernatural vampirism that might exist in the real world, and then disprove it.
Any takers?
Quote from: DeeLI like a good debunking. That was not a good debunking. That was debunking lite. That was setting up an idea of vampirism suitable for a child of six, and making that the target. Everyone who thinks at length about vampires - even just as an idle exercise - comes to that conclusion, although I'll grant you they don't usually do any involved math. Granted it's just an article, not the book itself, but still. Petit debunking is petty thinking. We can do better.
I have seen a number of interpretations of vampirism here. If we are to debunk the idea of vampirism, we must establish which theory we shall employ. (For our purpose, we shall not examine those people who are merely psychologically impelled to behave like vampires. We're talking about the supernatural version.)
That is, we might be. I am hereby offering a challenge to the CBG. One of the basic principles of science is disprovability; I propose we come up with a model of supernatural vampirism that might exist in the real world, and then disprove it.
Any takers?
the problem with this is, once we disprove our model vampire, we'll end up altering it to take into account what we used as evidence against it. then we'll just have to disprove it again. then it'll be altered. then disproved. then altered. then disproved. the lathered. then rinsed. then repeated yet again.
literature, i believe, has done a fair enough job at this already. why do we need to attempt the entire proccess by ourselves?
Costas Efthimiou. How do we know he is not a vampire using a traditional misdirection ploy to get us to let our guard down? The vampires do not want us to believe in them, it makes their job easier in the modern world.
Tricky little blood-sucking buggerers.
Ummm... because... it will be pretty?
Iono, I'm tired. And debunking like that makes me tired all over. Maybe it's just time to take a nap.
when we get to the model of vampire that cannot be empirically disproved, we will have IRREVOCABLY proved the existance of vampires. And then we'll get to buy lots of garlic and never sleep soundly again.
Quote from: DeeLAny takers?
A skin condition coupled with mental illness. No. Really.
There's a disorder of the blood that causes tissue damage on exposure to light. Folk remedy is bloodsucking. Compulsive habits (can't enter home uninvited, etc.) from mental illness. Corpse mutillation from similar mental illness (Had a brother who died of the illness. Kept the corpse on hand. When he saw it lying about all staked and decapitated, he killed himself. Probably self-immolation.)
And there's a sort of rudimentary vampire story. Supernatural elements might just be seepage from other floklore, or maybe just a convenient swarm of bats in the basement.
Quote from: DeeLThat is, we might be. I am hereby offering a challenge to the CBG. One of the basic principles of science is disprovability; I propose we come up with a model of supernatural vampirism that might exist in the real world, and then disprove it.
Or empirically disprove mathematics instead.
Quote from: Wrexham3Quote from: DeeLThat is, we might be. I am hereby offering a challenge to the CBG. One of the basic principles of science is disprovability; I propose we come up with a model of supernatural vampirism that might exist in the real world, and then disprove it.
Or empirically disprove mathematics instead.
Costas Efthimiou's erroneous use of the Persian chessboard is agood place to start.
Quote from: Epic MeepoIf even half of the folklore about villagers exhuming and staking bodies is true, then the same would be true of vampires. Granted, vampires don't die of old age, but back in the day, there was no shortage of superstitious peasants willing to dig stuff up and mutiliate it.
my question is, does this make vampires mortal? personally, i say yes, it does. if all those acts did grievous bodily harm (possibly even incapacitating bodily harm), but did not kill them, then they would be immortal. immortal, to me, means that one cannot die. mortal, to me, means that you can die.
any thoughts?
Quoteimmortal, to me, means that one cannot die. mortal, to me, means that you cannot die.
any thoughts?
Actually, mortal means you can die to most of us. ;)
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)The quality or condition of being immortal; exemption from death or annihilation; endless life or existence; eternity; perpetuity
Immortality means that, if kept in good health, one will live forever. Often, immortality is accompanied by immunity by mortal diseases and poisons, but not necessarily.[/quote]
Technically the Tolkien one wasn't an actual quote, just a summary of his explanations.
Quote from: Sidekick BoyQuote from: Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)The quality or condition of being immortal; exemption from death or annihilation; endless life or existence; eternity; perpetuity
Immortality means that, if kept in good health, one will live forever. Often, immortality is accompanied by immunity by mortal diseases and poisons, but not necessarily.
It ain't immortality if it has caveats.
You might as well say we are all immortal, unless something kills us...
Okay, forgetting real life for a minute...
In D&D, everyone has a maximum age limit, right? So, immortality just means there is no "dying of old age". The only way to die then would be through a more violent means, such as: disease, poison, injury, disintegration, ticked off a god, etc.
Thus, immortality is different from invincibility.
Quote from: Sidekick BoyOkay, forgetting real life for a minute...
In D&D, everyone has a maximum age limit, right? So, immortality just means there is no "dying of old age". The only way to die then would be through a more violent means, such as: disease, poison, injury, disintegration, ticked off a god, etc.
Thus, immortality is different from invincibility.
Indefinite lifespan, maybe, but still not immortal if they can die.
Okay, clearly that is where our disagreement lies.
To me...
Immortal = Indefinite lifespan
Invincible = Cannot Die
Invulnerable = Cannot be Injured
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to you...
Immortal = Cannot Die
(my original definition was edited, as pointed out)
Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICIQuote from: Sidekick BoyOkay, forgetting real life for a minute...
In D&D, everyone has a maximum age limit, right? So, immortality just means there is no "dying of old age". The only way to die then would be through a more violent means, such as: disease, poison, injury, disintegration, ticked off a god, etc.
Thus, immortality is different from invincibility.
Indefinite lifespan, maybe, but still not immortal if they can die.
this is my point exactly. going with OED, "exempt from death" is the same as "cannot die". going with dictionary.com, "unending life" exludes dying (or, in other words, the ending of life).
indefinate lifespan? yes. immortal? no.
and yes, invincibility
is different from immortality; invincibility means you cannot be harmed (which includes not being able to die), whereas immortality means you cannot die (which does not include any inability to be harmed). in other words, you can break every single bone in an immortal's body, and mash up their brain until it has the consistency of thin pea soup- and i'm sure they'll feel the pain on that one- but you cannot kill them.
edit-
immortal = cannot die
invincible = cannot be harmed
invunerable = cannot be harmed by (IOW, is not vulnerable to) one or more specific method
In D&D, "immortality" is the name of a special quality possessed by creatures with divine ranks (Deities and Demigods). A creature with immortality doesn't die of old age and cannot be magically aged, but can otherwise be injured or killed normally.
Quote from: Epic MeepoIn D&D, "immortality" is the name of a special quality possessed by creatures with divine ranks (Deities and Demigods). A creature with immortality doesn't die of old age and cannot be magically aged, but can otherwise be injured or killed normally.
So, you are blaming WotC for institutional subliteracy. I can concur with that.
@Cymro: I was actually just pointing out some game mechanics, though I do not challenge your assertion regarding WotC.
On the other hand, the "immortality = eternal life" definition only applies in some world views. For example, from what I understand, the Chinese gods could have their immortality removed in an alchemical furnace. The immortality itself did represent eternal life in and of itself, but there was no garauntee that it would stay with the same creature forever. (In one myth, the gods conspired to kill Monkey, who had stolen immortality from the gods. Monkey tampered with their alchemical efforts and ended up getting extra immortality instead of losing his own.)
Quote from: CYMRO ARBITER BRASSICIQuote from: Epic MeepoIn D&D, "immortality" is the name of a special quality possessed by creatures with divine ranks (Deities and Demigods). A creature with immortality doesn't die of old age and cannot be magically aged, but can otherwise be injured or killed normally.
So, you are blaming WotC for institutional subliteracy. I can concur with that.
youre kiiding me, right? surely everybody knows "critical" means "top 5%".
that and, of course, "level" has MANY definitions (none of which have anything to do with being even).
The discussion on immortality, edifying though it may be, is a bit of a digression. Let us suppose, for a moment, that vampires as described in the folklore are immortal in the sense of being unkillable. This doesn't make any difference, because of this equation: Staked/decapitated/burned to ash with a mouthful of holy wafers = helpless/inert/incapable of killing or acting as a vector for the disease that is vampirism.
So for the purposes of this thread, it is convenient to speak of vampires as unaging and resilient. The use of the word immortal for this description is okay.
Then again, I'm tired. Maybe I'm taking this all... a little too seriously.
Can we just say "decay immune" and be done with it?! The legend says they're dead already. As in they died. Past tense. All mortal. Unless you wanna go all "undeath as illness of the living." Or whatever.
well so far, our vampires are mortal (in that, they can die; at this point, we only really need one way to die, but i would settle for two: sunlight and stake through the heart), and require an Embrace to become vampires. they feed on blood, but a bite doesn't nesseccarily equal a new vampire.
the only attempt to disprove vampires thus far relied on those two tidbits to be untrue.
Becoming a vampire requires what - a combination of circumstances that we can refer to as 'random chance', or an act of will - perhaps some sort of ritual, typically referred to as The Embrace - on the part of the biting vampire?
http://www.physics.ucf.edu/~costas/Personal/brief-cv.html
There he is in all of his undead glory. Am I the only one who thinks he look positively vampiric?
I've seen it said that you gotta bite it. I could be wrong.
@jearc: is that the same dude that tried to disprove them? that would explain a thing or two...
"no, we're not... i mean, they're not real! here, watch me disprove our.... i mean, their existance!"
come to think of it, that could explain how a high number of vampire believers would qualify as "dangerous"...
@Deel: we could go with random chance, but personally, i'm more comfortable with going with willing ritual, as "embrace". we don't have to go into just what the ritual is, do we? and if so, do we have to do that quite yet?
Sdragon, we kind of do have to go into the details of the embrace, for a subtle reason.
Assuming all vampires are created by an act of volition on the part of an older vampire, every vampire who chooses to perform an embrace must select a subject based on criteria measured against the difficulty of the embrace. If the embrace is as simple as saying 'Hey, your a vampire!' while biting a subject, vampirism will tend to spread fairly rapidly, and vampire populations will have only indirect forms of quality control. Given that vampires have successfully concealed themselves from observation by any known scientific organizations, we can assume there are few truly stupid vampires. From this, we can deduce that there is some kind of quality control regarding who is embraced. This might be external, perhaps simply organizational, or it might be implicit in the process of the embrace itself.
If the embrace requires a risk or sacrifice, you're not going to do it to just anyone. If it requires some form of exertion or quality of the subject, it simply won't work on everyone. So the details on the embrace are in fact the first thing that require our attention.
ok, i see that. my thoughts were that both the vampire and the victim had to willingly partake in the Embrace. as far as this goes, i'm running on the Anne Rice model (both vamp and victim must willingly partake in embrace, victim-turn-vampire is psychologically drawn to the elder during the early "apprentice" stage, etc.).
that said, i think the only details we neccessarily need to go into would be the ones regarding quality control (which is somewhat implied in a mutually willing Embrace). in other words, while we may need to say that the Embrace is mutually willing, we don't need to go so far as to use the exact Embrace ritual used in Interview with a Vampire.