Either her or Dianamon since I recall Cho Hakkai hitting on Goddess of the Moon in the source material.If her backstory is the same as the character’s she’s based on, she probably got banished after making a drunken pass at Ophanimon.
It is always bright and cheerful, and adorns itself in a fashionable manner, and has a lovely personality that enjoys eating delicious things while walking about.
Shakamon is the Mon Closest to Yggdrasill, so I'd say Cho-Hakkaimon and the Saiyuuki mons aren't from Iliad
Huh ok, but what does this have to do with what I wrote ?When you're skeptical of everything, it just comes out as denial.I always have to roll my eyes when people start talking about “feats” in fiction and trying to use them to prove absolutes. The author is free to ignore anything or make up anything.
Making up arbitrary rules like, “Mercuremon can only reflect weak attacks” (something that’s never been stated or even implied) is also pointless.
I’d also like to point out that Hybrids are Hybrid-level, not Adult-level or anything else, making arguments based on a Digimon’s level even more irrelevant than usual.
« Making up arbitrary rules like, “Mercuremon can only reflect weak attacks” (something that’s never been stated or even implied) is also pointless. »
Just as much, if not more, is to consider a statement to be true.
The characters are subjective by nature, and their claims are often biased.
And even the author is not immune to a contradiction.
Personally, I tend to trust feats more, seeing one character beat another is more concrete than hearing him say that he can do it.
You make a point about hybrids, I'm just trying to find a logic in their evolutions even if there is not necessarily.
Most media, however, try to associate them with more common levels (video games, V-Pets or even card games).
And I say there are even more reasons not to consider a source that has already proven to be unreliable.I'd say there's plenty of reasons to take them into account if the newer publications don't actually go into detail about the same topic and generally a single aspect of the older publications being updated does not inherently indicate anything else about them having been overturned.- Well these articles and these publications were relevant in their time, but are no longer today, so there is no reason to take them into account.
And again, relevant does not mean truthful.
In regard to truthfulness, the fact that in the end we're dealing with fiction should in some ways modify the way we think about sources; since generally any untruthfulness in fiction exists for a specific narrative purpose and otherwise I'd be skeptical about being skeptical for reasons elaborated further down.
There is no point in taking into account a source that contradicts itself.Well, that's simply your personal view of canon and clearly not everyone shares your standards on that topic.- And my point is the exact opposite, a reference has to be absolute to be canon and reliable.
Hence the interest of updates.
Plenty of settings don't bother being absolute about anything whatsoever and don't provide proof for much at all, yet that doesn't stop them from having a canon, and people having discussions about said settings and its canon and so on.
That Digimon even offers the concept of Digimon research going on and its results being released is already far more generous in its specificity than what we get from many other franchises, even if the data isn't flawless.
You don't have to know a lot of works of fiction to think so, well-written ones stay consistent from start to finish and concepts like power scales between characters are well established and don't contradict each other.Then 99% of fiction will never have value to you since "objective and irrefutable proof" aren't really a thing around these parts.Observations must be proven by examples, that's all.To say that such a star is the brightest or that such a monster is the strongest without providing objective and irrefutable proof has no value.
Sure, a random claim by a fan may (and probably should) be subject to such scrutiny but that's not the context we're talking about, as you seem to attempt to apply that kind of extreme skepticism to statements that have already been published. And that just seems bizarre, because then how can you believe anything?
If a book contains the statement "his eyes were green" we can assume that this in fact the case. No one would make the argument "well... the book didn't include a detailed analysis of the waveform of the light bouncing back from his eyes that would have irrefutably proven that they would indeed be seen as being green, therefore they could be actually any color".
Like, I'm absolutely of the opinion that once a fictional setting establishes something you can dissect and analyze it all day, that's the whole reason I'm on this forum, but at some level fiction has the right to state its facts and rules in somewhat of an axiomatic way; at some point the fact that those were the words that were officially published and not some other words that they could have just as easily published has to count for something.
If you want to reject a direct statement from a source, the burden of proof is totally on you to produce an "objective and irrefutable" reason for why you believe something else to be true.
And going back into the specific example of Digimon, it's just not feasible to expect anything to be proven or disproven as exactly as you demand it. The entire structure of the franchise isn't really suited for accumulating evidence "irrefutably" since for example different continuities portray Digimon differently and have wildly different rules. In Zero Two Mummymon's gun shoots warped lightning, in X-Evolution it shoots red lasers. In Tamers Orochimon was taken down by Leomon using LadyDevimon's power, so basically by the power of a single perfect if not less, while in Adventure: It takes the combined power of 8 perfects to take it down, etc.
This means that you cannot reliably use the abilities and/or strength of a Digimon in a certain setting to predict their ability or strength in a different setting.
So from this perspective it is questionable if any "feats" shown in the anime or manga would actually even apply to the setting of the DRB profiles in the first place, or at least not with the absolute certainty that you seemingly demand.
Hey, you're going too far for me.As much as I believe that particular transition to be a very interesting topic, it simply does not apply here as you cannot equate basic addition of data into an existing system with a complete paradigm shift revolutionizing not (just) the data but the entire methodology including principles and methods of an entire discipline.It is not a question of "for me", this is how research works in all fields.
If you claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth, not only is it wrong but it always has been, it is only the truncated observations of a bygone era that could have made people think otherwise.
If you think it does apply and you truly want to claim that, even if adjusted, the data presented in older profile isn't applicable due to some large scale paradigm shift in the fictional science of Digimon research, you'll have to present independent evidence of such a paradigm shift actually having occurred.
And good luck with that, because if that were the case it's unlikely that just the results would change but also the entire discourse surrounding them. Different concepts and perspectives, different terminology, different properties and factors that are that are taken into consideration and so on.
The point being that it would be pretty easy to pick out if some astronomical description was is based geocentrism or heliocentrism, one might bring up things like equants and epicycles or, well, the general assumption that the earth doesn't move, the other model does not.
As my evidence for such a shift not having occurred, I would point to the concepts and terms used in the profiles being pretty much stable. If a difference existed that was significant enough to make all statements basically incommensurable, I'm pretty sure it would have involved some very noticeable changes.
What theory ?Besides, science tends to avoid value relationships, or else it pays great attention to the choice of words.
At no point did I claim that the profiles in terms of their use of terminology their exactness or rigor would fully satisfy the requirements of actual scientific research papers.We would not have had "the brightest star", but rather "the brightest star observed to date", which changes everything.
My main point in bringing up the topic was simply that, even as research moves on, prior articles and the papers they're based on remain archived in their original form and are not continually updated.
But we do know that many if not all of the profiles are based on what can be assumed genuine research, as they do mention Digimon researchers, facilities and experiments (KoKabuterimon's strength was said to be demonstrated in an experiment that involved him lifting a Tortamon for instance), so reasonably, statements that are not clearly designated as hearsay are already proven by in-universe research. Of course we don't have the exact experimental results, or the (fictional) research papers, and what we end up in the profile is more of a kind of second-hand account obviously targeted at non-specialists.
But I don't think all evidence or all claims need to be already science grade specific in order for for some theory or some model to be applied to it.
So it rubs me the wrong way to see some rejection based on exactness standards that simply can't be expected to apply, and I would argue that much of the process of science or rather logical discussions and systematic analysis (as nothing we do here is proper science either) should consist of establishing patterns and models to process, interpret and account for as much of the available data we have at our disposal and not just to throw away data you don't like until whatever is left fits your theory.
And that's why the DRB will never be an absolute reference, at best a notebook serving to better understand the functioning of Digimon as portrayed in the various media.Since we cannot see into the future and the profiles are not written from an omniscient perspective, "until now" and "as far as we know" is always implicitly true for any statement ever made except perhaps highly theoretical abstracts. There is no need to explicitly add that qualifier to every statement.The brightest star observed at a T-time is not and never has been the brightest star in the Universe.
It's just that it was the only one we could observe from our limited perspective.
Your example does not work.It was meant to describe a situation where absurd problems arise by ignoring obvious context.I'm not really following you in your cat example.
If you look at a photo of a cat sitting in my office taken at 11:00 and a photo of my cat in my kitchen taken at 12:00 you might ask yourself how the cat can be both in the office and in the kitchen.
Except you probably don't ask yourself that at all because you can reasonably infer that my cat moved from the office to the kitchen at some point between 11:00 and 12:00, which accounts for the discrepancy of the cat's position.
The same applies for DRB profiles. From A profile written in 1999 describing Mugendramon as "the strongest" and a profile written in 2006 describing Leviamon as "the strongest" we can reasonably infer that progressively stronger Digimon have debuted between 1999 and 2006, accounting for the statements in both profiles as the practical meaning changes with time.
Both cat pictures and profiles remain "valid" in their respective contexts.
"The answer is simple: The Digimon franchise at the time of Mugendramon's debut, which is early 1999.Exactly, and that's all we need to know to confirm that his profile does indeed hold canonical and valuable information.If you apply the logic of any science to the DRB, Mugendramon was never the strongest Digimon, he was only the strongest to have been observed at one point in time.
Your notion of completely dismissing old data is far too broad in proportion to the actual criticisms you present for it since the faults you point out relatively easy to correct for.
You main criticism for profiles such as Mugendramon's basically boils down to "things are no longer how they used to be back then" ...but so what? Change rarely happens randomly, it's often a definite pattern. If you identify a pattern chances are you can reverse it. If the meaning of words has changed you can understand from context how much the meaning has drifted, and translate. If units have changed, you convert. If values have shifted, you counteract with an offset.
People, especially in science, don't just just give up and throw all their accumulated knowledge away the moment they have to merely recontextualize something.
Let's look at an obvious example from economy: Inflation.
In 1953 the movie House of Wax was shot with a budget of around 1 million dollars. But well, time moves on and $1 in 1953 is not at all the same as $1 in 2021 and in terms of the amount of actual value that was spent on the movie the 1 million figure is only true as long as we are talking about the time around 1953 and is completely incorrect by today's definition of what the dollar is worth nowadays.
But only because it no longer applies doesn't mean that this one million has no meaning at all anymore and that we could somehow never ever know how much the movie actually cost in 2021 dollars. Rather, because we know when the movie was shot, we can take that value and process it, using some fancy math/economy and something called a "Market basket" of goods (that obviously can't be comprehensive) with prices tracked over time to arrive at a conversion rate that tells us that the value of the dollar has basically multiplied by ten since the fifties and we're looking at a value of around 10 million dollars in 2021.
So only because some definite value or statement has become obsolete doesn't mean that its practical meaning in the current context cannot be restored. So here I will demonstrate a way to adjust a DRB profile by inflation... or perhaps rather deflation in this case.
In the same way as "$1" means different values at different times, even though it still always "$1" the term "the strongest" denotes different things in different contexts as well. If we understand its intended context we can reformulate the statement it in a way that remains valid in our current context without contradictions.
So we start by asking the basic question: In which context was Mugendramon's profile supposed to apply?
The answer is simple: The Digimon franchise at the time of Mugendramon's debut, which is early 1999.
No statement in the profile can be said to apply at anything beyond that point, since neither the authors of the profile, in the out-of-universe sense, could know about any Digimon they haven't designed yet, nor could the Digimon researchers, whose discoveries the profiles are based on in-universe, be able to take into account the ability or even existence of any Digimon species they haven't even discovered yet.
So now we know the context. And while that context may change in the future, what stays the same are the practical qualifications that have to be met for a statement to be true in that particular context. The statement in this case is being Mugendramon being the strongest, and the qualification is simply all other Digimon in that context being weaker. Duh.
This sounds like a pointless reversal but it illustrates the factor of scope: Even once Mugendramon is no longer the strongest in general, it will not change the fact that these other Digimon are still weaker.
Because we know when Mugendramon debuted, we also know which other Digimon existed at the time and luckily for this particular example the setting back then was pretty limited. Ultimates as a concept were only recently introduced via the first few Pendulums and for simplicity's sake we can assume that Perfect levels and below aren't really competition.
So with that in mind here's what the profile actually tells us: HerakleKabuterimon, SaberLeomon, MetalEtemon, Holydramon, MarinAngemon, MetalSeadramon and Pukumon cannot equal Mugendramon in terms of power. I don't think that's a particularly shocking claim and the introduction of progressively more powerful Digimon doesn't change anything about it.
But since I feel you'd insist on doubting it anyway I have prepared another metaphor because that's how I like to spend my time: Let's say some European biologist who is for some reason completely unaware of other continents measures the top speed of animals on land. He compares the top speed of running turtles, chickens, cats, hedgehogs, pigs horses, you name it. And lets say he finds that hedgehogs are faster than turtles and chickens faster than hedgehogs, and cats faster than chickens and honestly I'm not actually going to google how fast all of them go so I'll just go out on a limb and say he finds out that the horse wins out.
Since he only knows about Europe he declares that the horse is the fastest animal.
But one day he finds out about Africa and he goes there and there he sees Cheetahs which are faster than horses (And I guess this thought experiment takes place in the future where the last Asiatic cheetahs are completely extinct).
That certainly disproves that the horse is the fastest animal, but does it disprove anything else? According to your logic, the moment that the Cheetah disproves the the statement "the horse is the fastest animal", we have to consider that turtles and chickens could be faster than horses. Hedgehogs could be faster than cats, because all previous data is completely worthless, right?
I think most would disagree with that. That cheetahs are faster than horses does not disprove the previous result of horses being faster than turtles. The biologist would have received the same results in those measurements with or without knowing about cheetahs. Put more abstractly: A simple shift of boundary values does not impact the relation between preexisting values in the same system.
So there we go. We can adjust the data ourselves without Bandai doing it for us.
Except it's up to you to prove that a character can accomplish something, and not up to me to prove that it can't.I don't think I've ever heard of that type of fallacy in any actual theory of argumentation.- Regarding Mercurimon, it falls under the scope of "No Limit Fallacy".
To pretend that an ability or a hax is "invincible" has no value until it has been proven by feats.
I would say your arguments would fall under the"Made up limits" fallacy where fans pretend there are some arbitrary limits to something even though there's no proof for their existence.
Personally, as long as we are talking about magical computer monsters that violate countless laws of physics by generally existing, I am completely on board with the idea of them being able to use any supernatural ability their profile ascribes to them to its fullest imaginable extent until shown or stated otherwise.
I mean they and their abilities are manifested computer programs. Computer programs have a tendency to apply their logic quite indiscriminately to any input they get. If efficiently written, the same a tiny compression program can compress both a kilobyte sized file and a gigabyte sized file. Even the biggest, meanest universe ending explosions are just a chunk of data in context of Digimon.
So if Mercuremon's ability simply cut-and-pastes any data it receives, I don't see why it should care about limits.
It's not just a matter of dodging, Dexmon and Ogudomon X took All Delete head-on and barely felt it.The only people deeming those attacks invincible have always been idiots though. The actual wording of All Delete merely states that the blade erases all data it comes into contact with, which doesn't exactly make it invincible as there are plenty of Digimon capable of fighting in a way that avoids getting into the range of a sword.This is all the more true in Digimon where abilities deemed "invincible" like All Delete or God Matrix have been countered more times than they have been effective.
Neither was invincibility of Dot Matrix/God Matrix ever any more than villainous gloating; Anyone who was surprised or felt cheated that the villain's data erasing ability would at some point be cancelled out by the hero's data rewriting ability just straight up doesn't understand foreshadowing.
Numemon's profile is irrelevant.That Numemon is weak is explicitly stated in its profile.You have the right to think that Mercurimon can deflect the attacks of Cherubimon and Lucemon, yes, in the same way that I have the right to think that Numemon is the most powerful Digimon and that he is withholding his strength so as not to destroy the Multiverse.
That there are any limits to Mercuremon's Generous Mirror attack is not stated in its profile and we've already seen him kill an Ultimate with it.
So much for that.
Which is my point from the start, if the DRB says "white" and the anime says "black", well "black" is the correct answer.
I have referred to this case with my Omegamon example, If 2 sources contradict each other, the one that best matches the trend should be considered.It’s weird that you call out the Reference Book for being inconsistent and point to something equally inconsistent as the only thing that should be taken into consideration. In the anime, Agnimon defeats a Perfect-level Digimon in episode one. Two episodes later, he can’t even overpower Child-level Digimon. By your reasoning, then, shouldn’t the anime be discarded for inconsistency?
The truth is that power levels are not absolute things. Everything is situational. This is true of the anime especially.
Are you sure you haven't made a mistake somewhere, I'm not following your logic.Which is my point from the start, if the DRB says "white" and the anime says "black", well "black" is the correct answer.
the 2020 anime said that sandyanamon is yellow, but the DRB says its gray. since everything else, games, cards etc say its yellow the anime is wrong here and the drb is right.
also, just cuz youre the strongest doesnt mean you cant lose. the #1 ranked tennis player isnt undefeated