Re: [HoE] Junkman Cometh and Mad Science

[AJSolis@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/30/1999 3:27:13 PM Central Standard Time, 
crow_steve@hotmail.com writes:

> One could theorize that as 2063 got closer, less super-"future tech" of 
that 
> nature was built because the chances of it occurring became less and less.  
> In 1863 you've got two hundred years of alternate futures where someone 
> comes up with a time machine.  By 2061, the odds of that happening are a 
lot 
> slimmer and thus, harder for the manitous to find a reality where that 
> occurs.
>
   Hmm, an interesting theory.  As time went on, there was less and less 
variables from which the manitou could bring forth inspiration form, giving 
mad science an innate lifespan.  
  
> Newton lived and died well before 1863 - I don't believe anyone has ever 
> claimed he was inspired by manitous, or that all technology and scientific 
> development was inspired by manitous.  Edison creating the light bulb had 
> nothing to do with weird science that I recall.  I don't have the book here 
> in front of me - does it say that?
>  
   Ah, you misunderstood me.  I wasn't trying to imply that those mental 
giants were inspired by manitou, rather I was implying that if people such as 
that had been, then I see no reason why their innate inventiveness would 
atrophy because of it.  For that matter, as far as I know Einstein didn't 
invent a single thing, he just did thought experiments which lead to theories 
from which many devices were created.  So if he were inspired by the manitou, 
why would he be unable to understand the theories of the mad science 
inventions?  Were the theories of mad science just beyond all human 
comprehension?  To me, not truly understanding the technology is the 
difference between most mad science (alchemy on the other hand seems to be an 
occult science for the most part, unlike normal mad science the powers of 
alchemy seem to depend on the presence of magic in the form of ghost rock to 
function) and pure science.  A flame thrower is a flame thrower, a machine 
gun is a machine gun.  But the pure science versions are more reliable, and 
to me that is because the pure scientist really knew the principles involved. 
 But why can't a mad scientist truly comprehend the technology?  I have no 
problem with someone suggesting that most didn't bother, but pinnacle pretty 
much seems to say that such was impossible. 

> As for other Mads...in general, I suspect they were lazy.  You might be 
> interested in mechanics, but if someone gives you a car for your birthday, 
> you don't go out and learn how to build one from scratch.  The mads 
bypassed 
> "learning" and just built to the specifications the manitous put in their 
> heads.
>  
  And in general, I have no problem with that, but there is a difference 
between "in general" and "every single one ever without exception."  That is 
my problem.
  
> A paper clip would be "pure science" so I'm not sure I understand the 
> division you are referring to.  But yes, as I understand it, that's what 
> Pinnacle is saying.  "Real science" and their ability to use it had 
> atrophied in the minds of mad scientists.
>
   Again, a failure of communication on my part. What I was proposing was not 
the existence of a mad science paper clip (one shudders to think how that 
would come about), but rather that at least some mad scientists ought to be 
fully capable in pure science as well, that not everything their busy little 
hands work on has to be manitou inspired, but the product of natural 
intelligence and perseverance, qualities which I feel mad scientists ought to 
have in abundance anyway.
  
> Even in Deadlands, I seem to recall mad scientists putting weird science 
> stuff together in fever dreams and what-not. I guess I don't have a problem 
>  with them building something without understanding it.
>  
  Neither do I, indeed to me that seems to be the very definition of mad 
science, what I contend with is that mad scientists seem unable to ever fully 
comprehend the science involved and that no mad scientist has any ability at 
invention without their manitou muses.  

>  
> I don't believe the manitous gave the mads the knowledge as much as 
> blueprints directly into their minds.  If the mads truly had the 
"knowledge" 
> and understood the theories, wouldn't they have then been able to mass 
> produce?  Instead, each item they built had to be pretty much built from 
> scratch, with no modifiers or benefits based on how many similar or 
> identical devices they had built in the past.
>
   With their blue prints, a mad scientist can create a device over and over 
again, at the same base reliability, a mad scientist can even work with 
someone else's blue prints.  As for mass production, that is probably because 
the manitou's haven't given anyone the blueprints to a conveyor belt.  :)
   Yet a mad scientist can't remember how the blue prints go (an odd decision 
since the rules don't say a mad scientist needs their blue prints right in 
front of them to repair a device, if one remembers it well enough to repair I 
would have to say you do remember it)?  Because according to junkman cometh, 
it would seem that the mad scientists couldn't even understand their own 
blueprints anymore.  
  
>  
> That's why the manitous did _not_ give the mads the knowledge itself.  A 
mad 
>  wouldn't have had to keep drawing on the manitous (and risking insanity) 
for 
> more mental plans if the manitou simply dropped the knowledge and theories 
> into his head and left.  Assuming they could implant knowledge/theory.  I 
> could buy you a car.  I might even be able to buy you all the parts of a 
car 
> and give you the "put together" manual.  That doesn't mean I can give you 
> the knowledge to understand internal combustion, catalytic conversion, etc. 
 
>
   But a mad scientist can build a device again and again from their 
blueprints, the rules say as much, they don't have to go through the whole 
process of invention once they already know how to build something.  That 
says to me that they don't need the manitou once they have their blueprints.
 
>  
> I'm not sure I understand the whole "bring knowledge back from the future" 
> bit myself (see above for my personal explanation of it).  However, my 
> understanding, as noted above, is that the manitous gave scientists the 
> mental equivalent of a car, or the understanding of how to assemble one, 
> rather than the knowledge and theories behind how a car works.
>  
  Valid assumption, or at least only half gave the knowledge and theories on 
how a car works. 

  
> Einstein presumably came up with the theory of relativity, but manitous 
> probably gave certain mads direct mental "blueprints" of how to build an 
> atomic bomb.  But just because they could build it doesn't mean a mad 
> understood the theory which Einstein came up with on his own.
>  
   Actually atomic bombs were pure science, at least according to junkman 
cometh.