Are statements within a story true until contradicted?

[Kris Brass]

Here is a good topic that is sure to rouse discussion! Are statements within a story true until contradicted? Are they true even if there is no supporting evidence to back up their claim?

For example:

Person 1: If he perfects the technique he definitely ain't gonna lose!

^ But we don't see the end result of the person whose trying to perfect the technique, he never had the opportunity to prove himself. Does this automatically mean his technique was good enough by the authors admission? Or is it simply an opinion?

Thoughts?

[YesNo]

I don't understand the example, but I'll just add this comment to help further the discussion: there is no truth without subjectivity.

[Kris Brass]

I don't understand the example, but I'll just add this comment to help further the discussion: there is no truth without subjectivity.
In a story I'm reading, a character makes a prediction that if another character fuses with another character, than their fused self will become stronger enough to defeat the villain. However, before the sum of the product can actually battle the villain, something happens and the two do not meet. Some fans still take the prediction as a fact because it wasn't contradicted in the story, and their main argument is that statements within a story are true until contradicted. Whereas other don't believe he was actually strong enough because he never had the chance to prove it.

[Whifflingpin]

Believe nothing until at least three independent bits of evidence show that it is true.

[Kris Brass]

I was hoping that a literature forum would have more to say on the matter. Are statements true until contradicted?

[North Star]

Statements are true when proven to be so, just as in real life.

[Danik 2016]

Fictional worlds have their own rules. In this fiction the author seems to play with the idea of prediction. How can you prove that something is going to happen or not if you change the conditions which would make it happen?
As it is you can neither prove nor disprove the prediction.:D

[Kris Brass]

Fictional worlds have their own rules. In this fiction the author seems to play with the idea of prediction. How can you prove that something is going to happen or not if you change the conditions which would make it happen?
As it is you can neither prove nor disprove the prediction.:D
Let's pretend we're in a debate and I'm on the side that says 'statements within a story are true until contradicted', and I counter you by saying that 'the author is trying to tell us something when he has his character say things, and that he would have no reason to lie to us' What would you have to say to that?

As a side note, do you believe that an outcome predicted by a character within a story is merely an opinion and not a fact until it's proven to be true?

[YesNo]

In a story I'm reading, a character makes a prediction that if another character fuses with another character, than their fused self will become stronger enough to defeat the villain. However, before the sum of the product can actually battle the villain, something happens and the two do not meet. Some fans still take the prediction as a fact because it wasn't contradicted in the story, and their main argument is that statements within a story are true until contradicted. Whereas other don't believe he was actually strong enough because he never had the chance to prove it.

It looks like both think it is true that someone can fuse with someone else. Their only difference is that the story hasn't explicitly told them that the fusion occurred or not. I'm not saying we can't fuse. Perhaps our subjectivities are a form of fusion. It is just not something I expect to see confirmed any time soon by some experiment.

However, people tend to believe what they read, no matter how outlandish. Someone tells them that some "scientist" believes in "many worlds" and belief kicks right in. I'm no better, being as gullible as the next guy.

Maybe one side is simply more literal than the other: if the text doesn't objectively, explicitly say something happened then it didn't. On the other hand, it is just a story. Nothing actually happened.

Sometimes it is more interesting if a story isn't too explicit or too literal. It makes the story more interesting because the reader gets emotionally attached to the characters, who may not even represent real people, and starts to wonder when things could go in bizarre directions. For example, consider the story of Sarah and Pharaoh in Genesis 12. Did Sarah actually have sex with Pharaoh? It is not explicitly stated, but the implication that she did is pretty strong. I can see how readers involved in the story might be concerned about what happened--even if nothing actually happened.

For what it's worth, robots or zombies couldn't care less about the truth of a story. They probably have better things to do.

[Calidore]

In a fictional work, a statement is true if the writer believes it is. A character saying something reflects the character's opinion, not necessarily the writer's. If it's a McGuffin, then it doesn't matter.

[Kris Brass]

In a fictional work, a statement is true if the writer believes it is. A character saying something reflects the character's opinion, not necessarily the writer's. If it's a McGuffin, then it doesn't matter.

Can you provide us with a reason as to why you think the author would lie to the audience?

[Danik 2016]

It is not possible to debate a book I haven´t read. All I can say in a very general way is that one single work of fiction may contain several levels of truth. There is the truth of the characters, of the Narrator, of the Author... Another thing one must remember is that some Authors play sort of game with their readers. In the context of fiction a lie has a different weight IMO than in real life. On the limit you can even say that fiction itself is a big lie because it is invented.
One doubt: Are you writing an essay about this book?

Let's pretend we're in a debate and I'm on the side that says 'statements within a story are true until contradicted', and I counter you by saying that 'the author is trying to tell us something when he has his character say things, and that he would have no reason to lie to us' What would you have to say to that?

As a side note, do you believe that an outcome predicted by a character within a story is merely an opinion and not a fact until it's proven to be true?

[Kris Brass]

No, but it's about the silliest thing, but we still have massive debates regarding it and make up some pretty complex arguments. I'll give you a run down of the arguments they are bringing to the table.

I'll just give you the rundown of their arguments. Don't laugh at me!! Haha. I'll list them in chronological order.



Chapter: 469 (DBZ 275), P6.1-7
Context: after Goku laments that Gohan and Vegeta are dead
Goku: “I coulda used Fusion…”
Dende: “Fusion…! Merging together, right? That’s the specialty art of the people of Planet Metamor!”
Goku: “So you know about it, Dende…! That’s right, some people from Metamor who I met in the afterlife taught me that art…It’s a merging technique which can only be performed if two people are fairly close in both power and body size…In other words, by having two people merge into one, they’re able to become a single, new human with amazing power which either of them on their own absolutely wouldn’t be capable of. It really is incredible! Those two from Metamor were completely weak and gentle on their own, but by using Fusion they transformed into a substantial warrior! [ ] …I was just taught the art, but I ain’t never tested it out…There wasn’t anybody on par with me in the afterlife…”

Chapter: 472 (DBZ 278), P9.4
Context: after explaining that Fusion lasts 30 minutes
Goku: “With these two, if they just manage to perform Fusion successfully, I think they’ll definitely be able to defeat [Boo] within 30 minutes. Fusion is just that extreme.”

Chapter: 476 (DBZ 282), P9.3
Piccolo: “If that bastard felt like it, he could wipe out the entire Earth, up here included, in the blink of an eye…!”
Goku: “It’s alright, I don’t think he’ll take out the Earth. After all, I told him that in 2 days, someone stronger than me would fight him, and he seemed happy…”
Note: Goku actually never told Boo this (apparently he's gone senile in the afterlife).

Chapter: 477 (DBZ 283), P11.8
Context: Chi-Chi thinks Goten will get killed by Boo
Goku: “Don’t worry. If he perfects the technique he’s trying now, he definitely ain’t gonna lose.”


So people use this to determine that Gotenks was originally stated three times to be stronger than Boo, but he never actually gets the opportunity to prove it. Because something happens to Boo before they fight.

The two kids do merge successfully into Gotenks, but as I said above, he never actually proves himself.

So in this case, are statements true until contradicted?

[YesNo]

I suppose you could start with statements that you use as assumptions. You don't check them against anything or try to prove they are true. You just accept them because they don't disrupt the fantasy too much. Then the logic of the story unfolds and the assumptions either continue holding together or they don't. When they don't, that would be the point when they contradict themselves and have to be rejected.

So I would be on the side of those saying the statements are true (as unquestioned assumptions) until they are contradicted.