2
$\begingroup$

I don't know much about the tags or rules in Meta, since I usually just briefly lurk, so I'd appreciate it if someone can fix the tags to be more appropriate and I apologize if I've broken any rules here.

I want to ask what really supposed to mean? recently I thought reality check more meant such a given concept is possible or plausible or working, but not necessarily mean checking reality or can be real, am I misunderstanding the meaning of this tag? My English is not that good so I may have misunderstood the obvious meaning here.

Is there any better tag for asking whether a concept is possible or plausible?

In the past I kind of hesitated to use this tag because I think can cover it already, but after some of my questions get demands to have even though I have put , I start to put it into one of my question but one of the deleted comment and answerer seems to assume I was asking about real bird counterpart or example which is not necessary nor it must be a bird in the context of my question and I don't know should I change the tag or not which probably ruin the answer which is frowned upon here.

In the past, I thought it was mean about literally checking reality or can be real, but after my past encounter and some lurking around other questions sometimes people demand reality check for the question even though the description or the context seems out of reality or fiction stuff but still in science base realm.

| |
$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Internal consistency

or

Can your suspension of disbelief survive this

It means real science can be suspended in the face of a bending of the rules within the asker's universe. Whether it's allowing for FTL travel or artificial gravity or any other discarding of a fundamental law, what you might expect is not necessarily true, but what has been declared to be must be consistent with itself.

As far as the answers are concerned, normal science can apply to anything not declared as changed, anything that's too far outside science can be declared as perhaps going too far.

, and have traditionally been considered as 3 points on a scale of which you pick one based on how tightly you want to stick to the rules as we know them to be.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ so from what i get it mean plausibly check right? even if the question is mean for magic it still compatible? or only exclusive to science? $\endgroup$ – Li Jun Oct 24 '19 at 10:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LiJun, it's fine with me but some say it's not compatible with magic, better to keep it on the science path, but it is compatible with handwavium and unobtanium. $\endgroup$ – Separatrix Oct 24 '19 at 10:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Separatrix I think it just needs a bit tighter explanation of how magic works. For example "in my world, magic cannot create flames but can heat water. I'd like my mages to be able to produce tea through this - is it plausible?" should be fine - clear restrictions and abilities of magic and a clear and unambiguous result that is linked to the rules laid out. But, say, something like "In my world, mages have to sing their spells. I'd like my mages to be able to produce tea through this - is it plausible?" is not fit for a reality check. $\endgroup$ – VLAZ Oct 25 '19 at 7:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .