The Vikings, as far as they know, see dragons can’t light their flame when their head is wet. Scientists do have to rework information when they discover new data about what they’ve been studying. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions, and it’s to note that the Hairy Hooligan Tribe has not studied the Night Fury up close before, and they aren’t all-knowledgeable about the other species, either. Gobber could legitimately believe that all dragons fall under this rule.He knows that there are a few exceptions to the rule, but what Gobber is doing here is laying out the general rule to his students. Gobber knows that most dragons cannot light their flame when they are wet. Gobber’s statement about wet dragon heads and lighting fire could be a generalized statement.What Gobber says could be incomplete information in several different ways: We can easily propose that what Gobber says in Dragon Training is not the full story. Human beings say incomplete or inaccurate things all the time. What Gobber says in Dragon Training doesn’t have to be true. I’m going to do a rare diverging from my analytical norm and bring up both forms of analysis, the within AND the without.įrom the insider’s look perspective: We could point out there is a disparity between what people say and believe versus what is actually true. The other type of analysis is looking at the universe from without, in a meta framework, where you study the source material as a work of fiction. It’s fun because it discounts nothing all it does is synthesize information and provide the best-possible-solution. The first way is to analyze things within the universe we are given, taking all information within the universe as given fact, and then construct a best explanation linking together data points. Any literary analysis of this sort can be analyzed two basic different ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |