Scientific explanation?

[Morkulv]

How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?
Personally, I like to make my own conclusions, based on what I think is the
most realistic, and possible way.

I don't believe what any white-coat says what so ever. They might
have good information, but a fact is, that they were not there when humans
evolved, and they didn't see a werewolf in real life either (or they are holding
something out on us ).

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

[Vilkacis]

How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?

Not important at all. You can't scientifically explain something that cannot exist (not correctly explain, anyway). Werewolves have a base of fantasy and we are trying to make the rest as logical as possible, but ultimately, it is just fantasy; we can only go so far.

Personally, I like to make my own conclusions, based on what I think is the most realistic, and possible way.

That is what most of us do here, I think.

I don't believe what any white-coat says what so ever. They might have good information, but a fact is, that they were not there when humans evolved, and they didn't see a werewolf in real life either (or they are holding something out on us ).

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

I am reminded of a quote:

The young specialist in English Lit, ...lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

It is, unfortunately, much too large for my sig...


-- Vilkacis

[hydrocarbon]

Not important at all, to me, as they can't really exist. Else a lot of the laws of Physics would seem a bit wrong, wouldn't they? Suits me fine that way, I'm happy to keep them as figments of my imagination.

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

Remember that (generally) those "white-coats" know their stuff. Sure, they weren't there when we evolved (seeing as we have been evolving for, uh, a very long time), but they're pretty spot on.

For an explanation, you could try going down the metamorphosis road (eg. tadpoles turn into frogs over a period of time, not instantly), but it would end up a one-way trip.

[Figarou]

that is so true. You can't scientifically explain something that doesn't exsist.

[Trinity]

See this sort of thought process is what kils my creativity. I had a downand out arguement with a Bio-major. Their stance was that "The Hybrid form does not exist in nature, so why even -try- to make it look realistic?"

My arguement is that the more "realistic" it _LOOKS_ the more believable it is. From a film satndpoint, if yuo can capture an audience's attention and -keep it- then teh film is succcessful. Same thing with paintings. Same thing with books. Same thing with sculputre. Same thing with anything 'creative', be they crafts or fine arts.

With the human mind currently so set on things that look realistic ( look how popular Shrek was, Toy Story, and the FF movie (to some extent ), as well as th eneed for more real-like ww movies! ). People crave to be distracted. That's why we have hobbies! ;)


As an artist its a major buzz kill when some white-coat, as its been put so blithely ;) , tries to tell me that I shouldn't even try. Why? Because it will never be eblievale to them. GAK!

I would rather work with bio-majors, scientists, and the like who -know- what the 'truth' of somethign is.., then work with them to try and expand upon different possibilities using Nature's current designs as a base.

For me, its a form of completion, finailization, success.

I'd like to see ww is this movie be 'scientifically believable'. Why? Its fricking creepier, IMHO, to even imagine that its so very possible. Even if current science trends say it will never occur.., the movie go'er doesn't have to know that. *evil grin*

That's what makes 'horror' so great. Its beliable on some levels.., but it not something that is real ( in the movie sense, like Freddy Kruger ).

[Fenrir]

that is so true. You can't scientifically explain something that doesn't exsist.

Isn't that the point of cryptozoology?

[Figarou]

that is so true. You can't scientifically explain something that doesn't exsist.

Isn't that the point of cryptozoology?

Hmmmmmm.....

Cryptozoology- The scientific study of hidden animals.


Mmmmm Hmmmm...yes.......Hmmmmmm

[Shadow Wulf]

*Figarou rubs his chin*

[Searif]

that is so true. You can't scientifically explain something that doesn't exsist.

Isn't that the point of cryptozoology?

Hmmmmmm.....

Cryptozoology- The scientific study of hidden animals.


Mmmmm Hmmmm...yes.......Hmmmmmm

your so right there fig, and from my studies a werewolf is sort of a cryptozoology animal

[Lupin]

How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?

I don really think of it as an explination, just as a too to keep the believeable.

[kindar]

I think that in movies Plausibility is more important then actualy scientific explaination.

This is in the real of science fiction/fantasy. as long as it's beleivable within the context of the movie I'll be happy

[Figarou]

*Figarou rubs his chin*

and pats the head and rubs tummy which makes the leg twitch.

Then runs in circles chasing after his own tail.

[Doruk Golcu]

I am a scientist, a biologist, and I am fine with trying to make werewolves look realistic Plus, remember the motto of science: we cannot accept anything that is not conclusively proven (oversimplified). Therefore, since there is no proof that werewolves do NOT exist, they might. It is very unlikely that they do, but we say that based on assumptions depending on what we know about nature and living beings, not based on any conclusive proof. An educated guess, you might say

[Cassandra]

yeah, and never forget, often in history there were ppl who knew things to be real (eg atoms) and were told that it was scientifically impossible......and yet, years later science in fact proved these things did exist and alll those ppl were right!

so dont take it for granted that science can prove anything right away! sometimes we need several hundred years to prove something! so you never know....

[Scott Gardener]

Science done right is about being open to possibilities, but asking questions and refusing to believe without evidence. It's a careful balance, and opinions vary about how where to put the cutoff between open-mindedness versus resisting bad ideas.

That said, a lot of what we're focusing on is not technical plausibility so much as our own sense of believability. It's what we can see happening versus not see happening, regardless of the technical details. Remember that a lot of people debate seriously about the believability of other fantastic things. The Lord of the Ring trilogy and the Dungeons and Dragons movie were both about wizards and the like, but if you've seen them both, there's a world of difference!

We'll have an easier time believing someone is a werewolf if we see a transformation scene that looks vividly believable, versus something obviously fake, like the CGI shifting in D*rkWolf.

[Figarou]

We'll have an easier time believing someone is a werewolf if we see a transformation scene that looks vividly believable, versus something obviously fake, like the CGI shifting in D*rkWolf.

People started stories that real dinosaurs was used to make Jurassic Park after it came out. CGI was brand new back then and people wasn't used to seeing something so believeable on the screen.

People are used to it today.

[Terastas]

I do like to think there's a science to lycanthropy, but I don't think it's at all necessary that Science explain lycanthropy.

When writing, the best settings I tend to work with are those where lycanthropy is not so unusual; where it's not so uncommon and thus nobody really expects an explanation like they do in more conventional werewolf movies like Darkwolf or Underworld (both movies claim to have traced the werewolf bloodlines back to one specific individual). On the other hand, lycanthropy as magic is seriously overused, so I try to balance it by having the werewolves have an understanding of lycanthropy-- how to deal with it and what to expect from it. They just don't know (or care) where it came from.

In the rare instances where someone would ask for an explanation, I usually go with what I've said countless times on this forum before: because werewolves have been persecuted as Devil worshippers for centuries, any werewolves that could have known would have been killed and any possible documentation would have been destroyed by now. I find this method of shifting from scientific to political works pretty well because, once the werewolf gets his rant on, his political/philisophical statements are much more interesting than the Star Trek blather method.

[Trinity]

Ha! I love it. *chuckles*

[Lupin]

I do like to think there's a science to lycanthropy, but I don't think it's at all necessary that Science explain lycanthropy.

When writing, the best settings I tend to work with are those where lycanthropy is not so unusual; where it's not so uncommon and thus nobody really expects an explanation like they do in more conventional werewolf movies like Darkwolf or Underworld (both movies claim to have traced the werewolf bloodlines back to one specific individual).

That never made sense to me, how many regular people can trace their ancestry that far back?
Not to mention that the records of probably aren't very comprehensive.

[Terastas]

That never made sense to me, how many regular people can trace their ancestry that far back?
Not to mention that the records of probably aren't very comprehensive.

It can be done, at least with families that are either prominent (European nobility like Englands Winzers (sp?)) or have very specific regional origins (Scottish clans like Gunns and Macleods). My own family name, Ross, for example, can be traced back to the Pilgrims and the Scottish Highlands clan of the same name (I just don't hear too much about it because apparently our end of the Ross family tree has all the lunatics).

Lucius was able to trace the vampirism/lycanthropy bloodline for the other reason: vampire society is not only entirely hierarchal, but governed at the top by the elders -- vampires that could have been the common link's grandchildren (everybody already knew that Marcus was one of them). The hard part was finding a non-vampire/lycan in the bloodline, which they did the hard way: they tried everybody with a last name that sounded vaguely like the common link's and got lucky.

[Apokryltaros]

How important is it, to have a scientific explanation for werewolves in general?
Personally, I like to make my own conclusions, based on what I think is the
most realistic, and possible way.

Like everyone else has said, given as how werewolves are fantastical fantasy creatures, and as such, I'm of a bent that infers that magic is somehow involed with what make werewolves werewolves.

I don't believe what any white-coat says what so ever. They might
have good information, but a fact is, that they were not there when humans
evolved, and they didn't see a werewolf in real life either (or they are holding
something out on us ).

What I'm saying is, that we might believe scientists far too easily. After all, they are humans as wel, just like us.

So, what you're saying is that fossils are totally useless, save as doorstops and paperweights, and that all science is completely worthless because it comes from the observations of fellow humans instead of infallible, impartial, omniscient immortals who have been in existence since before Time began?

As an artist its a major buzz kill when some white-coat, as its been put so blithely ;) , tries to tell me that I shouldn't even try. Why? Because it will never be eblievale to them. GAK!
...
I would rather work with bio-majors, scientists, and the like who -know- what the 'truth' of somethign is.., then work with them to try and expand upon different possibilities using Nature's current designs as a base.

Even though I'm a Bio-major, I've come to the conclusion that a "realistic" werewolf that obeys the laws of Physics and Biology would either be a person with the mental disease of lycanthropy, or a werewolf that looks like either Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Larry Talbot the Wolfman.
As none of those options appeal to me, I disregard "reality" or "science" when it comes to werewolves or other werebeasts.
Instead, I opt for werewolves and werebeasts that I find aesthetically pleasing, as I tend to find that over-explaining lycanthropy tends to kill my enjoyment of it, much in the same manner one can not appreciate a bird's song by vivisection.
And yes, Vuldari, my aesthetic tastes invariably means that my preferred werebeasts are no less than 6 and a half feet at the shoulder

Lucius was able to trace the vampirism/lycanthropy bloodline for the other reason: vampire society is not only entirely hierarchal, but governed at the top by the elders -- vampires that could have been the common link's grandchildren (everybody already knew that Marcus was one of them). The hard part was finding a non-vampire/lycan in the bloodline, which they did the hard way: they tried everybody with a last name that sounded vaguely like the common link's and got lucky.

With vampires, I'd think it would be very easy to trace one's geneology, given as how even one's ancient "ancestor" would probably still be walking around.

[Trinity]

As an artist its a major buzz kill when some white-coat, as its been put so blithely ;) , tries to tell me that I shouldn't even try. Why? Because it will never be eblievale to them. GAK!
...
I would rather work with bio-majors, scientists, and the like who -know- what the 'truth' of somethign is.., then work with them to try and expand upon different possibilities using Nature's current designs as a base.

Even though I'm a Bio-major, I've come to the conclusion that a "realistic" werewolf that obeys the laws of Physics and Biology would either be a person with the mental disease of lycanthropy, or a werewolf that looks like either Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Larry Talbot the Wolfman.

As none of those options appeal to me, I disregard "reality" or "science" when it comes to werewolves or other werebeasts.

Instead, I opt for werewolves and werebeasts that I find aesthetically pleasing, as I tend to find that over-explaining lycanthropy tends to kill my enjoyment of it, much in the same manner one can not appreciate a bird's song by vivisection.

And yes, Vuldari, my aesthetic tastes invariably means that my preferred werebeasts are no less than 6 and a half feet at the shoulder

But there is a difference between a werewolf ala anime Tailban style ( though still o ne of my favorites mind you ) and a werewofl created by someone who KNOWS realistic, natural, anatomy.

Having a disscussion with other artist, who may or may not have a scientific background does me only a slight bit of justice. But speaking with an open-minded scietnist type, who is a bio major or a vet major does tons more to help my artwork by giving me realistic feed back.

not a "Because this is how I think and that's it" kind of answer.

but a "Because in nature wings cannot hold up a creature who mass exceeds the capability of lift. The atmosphere is too thin for lungs to function the way we understand them. The Hide would have to be thicker to withstand the pressures of a void."

- Ala Anne McCaffery -

There is though, I agree, a difference between making it "Real" and making it plausiable for a film enviroment. The more "Real" the less likely people will believe it. Simialrly the less "Real" and more fantasy base it is, the more laughable it becomes.., -because- people don't believe.

There needs to be a Balance.

[Apokryltaros]

True, some of the best fantastic creatures are at their best when they're at they're most plausible.
However, I find that the path to ultimate plausibility is torturous, and I rarely go down this path when working with fantasy creatures like dragons or lycanthropes, and is wholely impossible with things like the undead.
Do remember that science works best when constrained by rules, while art often works best when unconstrained by rules...
I find that werewolves lean towards the latter.

[Trinity]

Ah! See.., this is where you and I differ slighty ( but only slightly ) ;)

I preferr that art have rules, especially when it comes to things like werewolves. I have seen some horredous werewolf creations, and some that are just totally unbeliebale. I look to anatomy as I understand it and scoff at some pieces because the stick-like legs woul dnot hold the muscle and sinuew bulk that is a Gestalt form of werewolf. EVEN if the bulk isn't increased, having stick-like legs does not lead to healthy kness to feet. ;) *chuckles*

For me digging and rendering "realistic" works drives me to create more and more and more. Life Drawing and anatomy research to me is -key- to understanding my own drawings.

Example. I have begun, withint th elast year or so, to place wings near the center-mid line of th eback rather then at the shoulders. Its a lift, weight, and balance issue for me. Yes to some its not estetically pleasing because its not what everyone else does.

To me it looks like gold. *chuckles*

[Shadow Wulf]

well thats your realist style,while others have cartoony style, and please dont ever talk anything about rules of drawing, its peoples imagination, its thier way of thing, its fantasy, its not suppose to make sense. ok