No flaws? You just listed off a whole bunch of flaws! As for the rest, he is not much more sure of himself than most eleven-year-olds I've met.
Ymirsdaughter, read the review more carefully. "He has some flaws, but they rarely actually result in harming him in the middle or long term, and have helped him so far."
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
God Ymirsdaughter go read a REAL BOOK.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Ah, this place.
It is also possible that the three of you simply hate science. ;)
Or it's possible you simply aren't open to the fact that many people find this piece heavily flawed and it has nothing to do with our opinion of science.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
God Ymirsdaughter, you wouldnt know what ACTUAL SCIENCE is even if it bit you in the ass.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Why are half of the comments unhelpful yell and insults?
Because it's the internet? Okay, that's not much of an explanation.
I wouldn't say that everyone who hears him is immediately swayed. Preteens may be impressionable and a certain teacher may have been a tad vulnerable (or crushed by guilt) at her time of "being swayed". Most adults aren't all that convinced by Harry's logic.
Leave a Comment:
Mouthpiece
I gave this series a try because the illogical parts of the original bugged me, and thought some fun poking would be fun. Was I disappointed.
Rather than a clever satire in which the flaws of the original are humorously examined, it is instead a pulpit in which an unabashed Author Avatar sits there and spouts off a whole bunch of sermons about how science is totes great, and anyone who isn't aggressively and narrow-mindedly rigid in their application of empiricism is completely stupid and ineffective. Everyone who hears this Golden Child speak of the One True Path is immediately swayed and blown away by his eloquence and clear superiority, or refuses to be because they're wilfully evil or stupid, often both. This does get partial points in that there are some characters that seem aware of some of his ideas, but because they aren't as arrogant and pushy with them, they're portrayed as secondary at best. The character may not technically be a Marty Sue, but he's certainly Marty Sue-ish. He has some flaws, but they rarely actually result in harming him in the middle or long term, and have helped him so far.
He spouts off a bunch of isolated 'facts' from cognitive psychology and philosophy, hardly ever explaining the important context of these ideas. How's this for a 'fact': the Dunning-Kruger effect, which means those who aren't capable think they're great, while those who are more competent tend to rate themselves lower since they're aware of the flaws in their knowledge. While B does not necessarily imply A, it certainly waggles its eyebrows suggestively. Throw in some superiority bias, selective attention and confirmation bias, and I'm more inclined to believe that this Harry is a giant toss-pot who knows a few things, rather than being 'wise', as he's supposed to be. While defining ‘wise’ is problematic, it is clearly different from being able to spout facts and sermonise ad infinitum.
And just because it works doesn't make it any better. It works because the writer makes it work, not because of any believable logic or natural flow of the plot. If I wanted to read a textbook, I've got bookcases full. If I wanted to be lectured, I'd take a physics class. If I want to be entertained, I read something with more entertainment value than arrogant lecturing sermons about how Harry's the cleverest of them all.