Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
2GAG - Monsters In The Mind by Drunken-Novice 2GAG - Monsters In The Mind by Drunken-Novice
Read the next comic strip

One of these days someone will figure out that I don't actually know science.

Have you checked out the Twogag Facebook page yet?
If not, my nagging will getcha one of these days!

Support twogag:
:bulletpurple:Store :bulletorange:Donate :bulletred:Facebook :bulletblue:Twitter :bulletgreen:vote 2gag :bulletorange:webcomic
Add a Comment:
frap4 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2013
I don't know what's scarier: the freaky @$$ monster in the shadows of the third panel, the mammoth sized comment chain far bellow about the phycological process that causes the unknown to have the effect of an unexplained reality on the human mind, or the advertisement that popped out of nowhere while writing this comment and deleted all my work.
SaraKpn Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
This goes for religion too. Exactly the same. I love that scientist by the way =) Great comics!
MarsCam Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2013  Student General Artist
if his theory is true then I would be dead by now. .D
AngelsKarith Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013
Because his an idiot rofl this made me laugh so hard
LightningIdle Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
The best part is that Frank probably feels no real pity. XD
z4z Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2013  Student DON'T know science?
AScarletmoon17 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
good question XD
3picMartianWill Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Student General Artist
lolol! I love this. xD
vindurza Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
looks like they're going to need the magic red flower
Lapulta Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Oopsy! XD
dinshino Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013
I take it you've seen the previews to that new movie, then?

If you're going to try to create a paranormal being, why in the seven hells would you create a malicious one?!? A benevolent one would have clearly been smarter.
Whackedgourd Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2013
Where's the fun in that? Even though I suffer nightmares after horror movies, I'd still rather hunt down a monster than make friends with it.
dinshino Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2013
However, there are those who would be foolish enough to tempt fate and summon something like Slender Man or far worse.
jackanarchy99 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Frank, why do your words confuse me so?
CrowleysPyramid Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
Forget quantum physics and 'Spooky Action At A Distance'.
'Spooky Action HOLY DAMMIT CHRISTMAS WHAT IS THAT?!!' is a far more fascinating field of study.

But don't take my word for it: check it out for yourself! :iconnecronomiconplz:
TomSchmitt Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
this is what i keep telling my friends about slenderman...
nexu22 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
Here's something along the same idea:

I give you a pin and tell you there are angels dancing on the tip. Your automatic response would be that there aren't. Here's the science aspect: you can't prove that there aren't. To prove something to be true is harder than to prove it is false. It may exist, but it may not. Just like if I said there are crows in the box. Even if the box is empty, that doesn't mean there are no crows in a box somewhere in the universe. To absolutely prove that there are no crows in the box, using proof that it does not exist, every meter, inch and centimeter of the universe must be examined. This way it can definitely be said there are no crows in the box. Just like the angels. We can't say there are no angels on there because we have no proof that says otherwise. To prove there are no angels on the pin, you would have to search every part of the universe. Back to your monsters here, although you can say monsters exist or don't exist, believing in it would make it irrelevant. To prove their existence, by science would mean to prove they don't exist anywhere in the universe. So, not just by believing in them would make them real. They are real, until proven fake. By searching the universe. Thoroughly.

Sorry this was so long, I thought it was interesting XD
Dracold Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I wouldn't say that it is always harder to prove something wrong. Only if the claim is very vague. If you want to prove something scientificly, it has to have a scientific definition - mathematical description.
If you don't specify what an angel is, how big it can be and what does it mean that they dance on a tip of the pin, than your claim can be true by all means, but it does not really say anything - it has no sense to discover if it's right or false, because it does not have any meaning to any kind of listener.
nexu22 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013
When scientists want to prove a theory, it is by showing that it is wrong, that they prove it. If they never succeed, to their knowledge, it is right. Proving something that already exists by using mathematical reasoning would be repeating what has already been said.

The interesting part about the pin, is that the point wasn't to prove they ARE there, but to prove that it is possible they exist there. It is often seen in quantum physics that there is a chance. A chance of what? Anything. There's a chance that if you walk into a wall, your atoms will align and you will pass right through it like Shadowcat. My "claim" is that you can say whatever you want, but it isn't sufficient proof that something exists. You go off what is known. Therefore, you must go off what is not known, and use various methods to prove the statement incorrect. Sure I can say there are green martians in a bathtub, but what bathtub and where? This statement can never said to be true until it is proven false by someone, as said before, exploring the entire universe for every single bath tub.

The meaning itself is left to interpret. Although there can be my version of an angel there and not yours, it would still prove to be correct. It does not matter how they look, what "dance" they are doing, and so forth. What matters is their existence, and this brings us back to the top of our little discussion.
Dracold Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't understand what you are saying. Only thing I get is that you are making it overly complicated.
There are few ways of constructing a mathematical proof... there are three of them. I don't know their names in English. One of them is to try make the statement incorrect (wiki says that it's Reductio ad absurdum in English). Mathematicians tend to not like this proof, because it is not overly constructive. It is constructive only if we have exactly two possible answers - by proving that one of them is false makes automatically the second correct. Not all problems are binary though. In those cases, we may need predicate logic to prove our claim. That is however something that neither me or you are capable of, because it is strict science high level math and logic. The third proof if I remember correctly is constructive proof - it is proof that all the sub-claims are true and that we can join them together and still receive tautology. This is the best proof, because not only we know that the claim is correct, but we also know how it came to be.
All these methods above has one thing in common - you always has to have a sufficient proof for every single fact you use in it. You can't say that "I can say whatever I want and still be unable to find a proof." Because if you find a claim that proves it wrong via "Reductio ad absurdum" method, that you assume that your claim indeed is correct. Why should only your statements be correct? There must be an objective way to determine what is correct and what is not. Otherwise everything would be wrong, including the claim that everything is wrong. Which is contradictory.
If you leave the meaning to interpret, then it is not science.
If I said that: "Every spell cast in our universe creates feedback in the netherworld," and by 'casting a spell in our universe' I meant 'exerting force on a first body' and by 'feedback in netherworld' I meant 'force of opposite direction on a second body', my statement would be definitively correct - it's a third Newton law.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
But did I have to try to disguise my claim behind pseudo-etheric rubbish just to make it harder for the listener to decipher what I meant and finally find if that indeed is a correct statement or false? We need to define strict terms, otherwise everything we say is pointless, like if one of us decided to
#define true false
#define false true
Just for the sake of making it more complicated to find out in the end, whether the monsters exist or not.
nexu22 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2013
JEEZE that's long!!! The only little tidbit I wanted to get across is that you can't say a monster doesn't exist at all until you know for certain that it nowhere in the universe. The point was not to go into a strict scientific build of it. It's an idea presented by many scientists, not something I came up with on my own. It's an idea. A fabrication. There is no physics involved. I am aware of Newton's laws, but those apply to Earth forces. We do not know if they apply in other places. In fact, all physics breaks down to nothing in a black hole. Physics doesn't work in a black hole. Again, that's what scientists say, because we don't even know if black holes exist! They're still an idea. As you said there have been many claims that state it is real, and that is why they think they are real, but honestly, nobody truly knows if black holes are real or not. Same goes for these monsters. You just can't be sure, until you've seen everything yourself... Kudos on writing that all out, but to the common reader, it means almost nothing XD

Last little point here: quantum mechanics states basically that you can say anything and there is a chance of it to happen. Falling through the floor because your atoms line up, or something like that. This too, is an idea, an interpretation that changes. In modern science, as you said interpretations are non existent, but that's not entirely true. There are two ideas fighting to be the best theory. The most common of the two is String theory/M theory. The other theory, I forget the name at the moment (UGH), cannot co-exist with string theory. They are interpretations of our universe, and only one can be right. The entire angels thing was not (this is contradictory to what I said earlier, but ignore the previous one for I feel I should give SOME explanation, I just didn't want to make it too complicated) supposed to be interpreted by someone other than me. I say there are angels, hence they can exist there, but my view of them. Just like the two theories. Strings can exist, but the scientist's view of them, not just some random citizen. Please don't over complicate this, it was just a little idea for people who don't study sciences. It was never meant to be a full out debate...
Dracold Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You don't need to examine every bit of universe to prove that something is true or not. You have to have a system, a tool that is proven to be correct and use it. 1000 x 1000 = 1 000 000 : how do I know this? Because I counted every unit of the first thousand and summed it thousand times with every sum of other thousands? No, I used math. I can say that monster doesn't exist if I have some apparatus to prove it. But in this concrete case the apparatus is non-existent and since the vague definition of monster it is also meaningless.
And by the way, I did have an opportunity to speak with professor who is dealing with a string theory, and it is not just this theory contradicts other theories, it has 5 different interpretations and only two of them are somehow connected, otherwise they still kind of contradict themselves (or at least do not entirely support each other). And he also said that many people who work with string theory are becoming slowly aware, that it is not entirely the right way. That only implies that we do not understand it entirely yet, but it is far too soon to claim that nothing can be proven. If this is the case, why so many people try?
nexu22 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2013
I didn't say string theory can't be proven, just that the monster thing couldn't.

Also, you used math that was already proven by taking each unit and counting. Someone else did that for you and proved that it worked. That math you used is merely repeating the proof. An apparatus to find "monsters" would have to be made and proven to be correct, just like the math already was. Only then can we validate that it works.
Dracold Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The two paragraphs you wrote contradict each other. In the first you say that monster thing cannot be proven, in the second you say it can. So I must agree with the second one. The necessity which needs to be fulfilled not something that cannot be done. But it is more likely something that nobody needs to prove. Hence my very first comment.
The mathematicians are divided in terms of they philosophies.
The first group are strict theoreticians who only seek to prove the elemental truths and they do not care whether their findings will be applicable to mere mortals. Many of them made great discoveries, but those were found useful decades or hundreds years after their death. Some of them were even rediscovered, hence the original work was wasted (if not all of it).
The second group are more practitioners. They know that some problems exist that humanity needs to solve NOW and they try to find the answer. Because they pursue the straight goal, they are hindered by the professional tunnel vision and they most of the time need help from the theoreticians. But their discoveries are generally more useful, if not so ground breaking.
If discovering whether monsters exist or not was any essential to problems we face now, the second group of mathematicians would try to find a solution. The first group of mathematicians will find the proof unwittingly in few yeas, centuries or thousands of years,... or maybe even they already have, but they (and nobody else) haven't realized that it can be applicable to this case.
Demialc-neeb-sah-em Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013
Hold on a tick. Not that I am one to arge semantics but... I am.

If you say "there are crows in THIS box" rather than "There are crows in A box," surely you would only have to investigate very nook and cranny that one box.
nexu22 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013
THIS box may refer to this box in any universe, as quantum physics points out. Quantum physics and general relativity argue the possibility of the multiverse, and how that particular box can exist in many different ways. It is unknown whether that box has crows in it in a different universe.

The point of that though, I realize I was unclear, was to show that to prove there are no crows in the box, you have to look through it completely and prove that there are no crows in there, rather than there is. Saying something doesn't exists is the same logic, the box being our universe. To know it doesn't exist, you have to search ever bit of the universe.
sumerkhan Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You don't know science?????? what????????
kmathel94 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist
Flagged as Spam
Username-91 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Nice try scumbag. But have been reported. So get out of here before we didn't smash that you're ugly face you have buckhead!
nexu22 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
you know what else's free? A ban and a punch in the face
GodSAMmit Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Student General Artist
LN-EXPOSED Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
Stop spamming.
gamyordinance12 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
youre good
latias43 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
lol XD he is gonna have a really bad time in the next few minutes....
fooxd Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist

NerdyAndProud Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Student
Is that a dinosaur fetus in a jar?
lukaner-Z Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013
There is a whale sized fish man under my bed.......
synesthesicchick Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
MercyTheDestroyer Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
You mean you've fooled them this long?!? Haha
Keeper-of-souls Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
There's already a movie on that. :3

Ho $hit! It's the penumbra worm! :nuu:
PhoenixOfWildfires Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Poor Wayne...

Okay, Frank scares the fuck out of me.
Vsencke Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Professional Artist
Fuck me, it's a Grue.
HopeRobin Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Student General Artist
As long as the light stays on, they should be okay.
BattleJesus Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2013
Don't jinx it
pjcyto Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
We call this the Calvin theory. Named after the same Calvin from that famous comic strip about a boy and his tiger.
Erick-FM Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
very interesting talk
Drakonias115 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Mind Fuck... Once you see it, you'll shit bricks...
Hridya Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
MrMadManiac Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2013  Hobbyist
Why does this remind me of 'From Beyond' by H.P. Lovecraft?
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
February 27, 2013
Image Size
650 KB


31,647 (1 today)
1,510 (who?)