Elkohar has an honor blade?

[Oudeis]

The chap implies that HBlades grant Surge binding. I don't think El's been surgebinding.

 

How long was Kaladin able to Surgebind before he actually did? Shallan? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. We've never had an Elhokar viewpoint, that I know of. Maybe he's been plagued with spheres going dun and bizarre phenomena related to surface tension all his life and just hasn't made the connection.

 

Beat me to it.  i mentioned it in the main thread, but oh well.

 

 

If Elohkar has the Honorblade then Szeth can't. 

 

Since we're 90% sure now that this how Szeth had been Surge-binding without a Nahel-bond, it seems highly unlikely Elohkar has Jezrien's Blade.

 

There was a main thread? Which was that? Sorry I missed it.

 

There were ten Honorblades. Szeth, I suspect, has Jezriens. Taln, I think we all agree, has Taln's. That leaves eight others which Elhokar might have.

[DocHoliday]

Martin thread was the one with the link to Chapter 11, 12, +14 I believe. The one released this recent Monday.

[Oudeis]

Oh. Yeah. That one's got nearly 200 posts already. I do not have so much free time that I'm going to read all that.

[DocHoliday]

LoL, I remember when it was a wee little sprout counting down the minutes...

 

God I'm old... lmao

 

Nah, I don't blame you for not doing through it. I didn't have to work today so I was there for every minute of it.

[Chlehrma]

The chap implies that HBlades grant Surge binding. I don't think El's been surgebinding.

Szeth can not wear plate because it interferes with his surgebinding. We do not know if it is because his abilities come from his Honorblade, but I suspect that to be the case since the radiants in Dalinar's vision had both plate and blade while surgebinding. Regardless, at this point I think it is safe to say that elhokar does not have an Honorblade. Both blades we have seen this far were not works of art, but were instead very plain in design.

[Moogle]

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

Pedantic note (sorry): Lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Something can only count as evidence for one side of an argument, and if it does, its negation counts as evidence for the other side. For example, it would be ridiculous to say "there's been no sign of sabotage among our army, this is evidence for there being disguised saboteurs!" If sabotage is evidence for there being saboteurs hidden in your army, then a lack of sabotage is evidence for there not being saboteurs hidden in your army.

 

Similarly, Elhokar not Surgebinding is evidence that Elhokar can't Surgebind because if Elhokar had Surgebinded then it would be evidence that he could Surgebind.

 

What you meant is that lack of proof is not proof of lack.

 

Pedantic Moogle out! (Sorry again this is something of a pet peeve of mine.)

[DocHoliday]

I always thought it was:

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[Oudeis]

Pedantic note (sorry): Lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Something can only count as evidence for one side of an argument, and if it does, its negation counts as evidence for the other side. For example, it would be ridiculous to say "there's been no sign of sabotage among our army, this is evidence for there being disguised saboteurs!" If sabotage is evidence for there being saboteurs hidden in your army, then a lack of sabotage is evidence for there not being saboteurs hidden in your army.

 

Similarly, Elhokar not Surgebinding is evidence that Elhokar can't Surgebind because if Elhokar had Surgebinded then it would be evidence that he could Surgebind.

 

What you meant is that lack of proof is not proof of lack.

 

Pedantic Moogle out! (Sorry again this is something of a pet peeve of mine.)

 

If you're sitting indoors with no way of knowing whether or not it is raining outside, that is not evidence for or against rain. It's simply a lack of information. I have never seen a rhinoceros; is this evidence that they don't exist? We've barely seen Elhokar, he's frequently in Plate which, even if you don't accept that Szeth has an Honorblade, is still a thing which we know may interfere with some Surgebindings, and we've never had a first-person perspective on him. He could be surgebinding left and right, and we'd never know; literally everyone we've seen with access to Surgebinding keeps it as secret as possible (up until they are commanded by a non-surgebinder to kill everyone in fabulous, spectacular ways).

 

Something can only count as evidence for one side of an argument, but not everything has to count as evidence for either side. Let's say I can see that it's raining outside: Is this evidence for or against the existence of rhinoceroses? A man walks past and he's chewing gum. Which brand of gum would make it most likely that he was born in Nebraska?

[Moogle]

Something can only count as evidence for one side of an argument, but not everything has to count as evidence for either side.

 

I agree! I even said it in my post: "lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Something can only count as evidence for one side of an argument, and if it does, its negation counts as evidence for the other side."

 

 

I have never seen a rhinoceros; is this evidence that they don't exist?

 

Yes. Seeing a rhinoceros would be evidence for the existence of rhinoceroses, so not having seen one is evidence against them existing (or should be in your mind). Mind you, you should still believe they exist, just less so since you've never seen one before. Different evidence usually differs in strength.

 

Perhaps we have different definitions of evidence? I'm going off the definition of evidence for X being something that, when found, increases the probability you assign to X being the case. This naturally decreases the probability you assign to not-X being the case (since there's a sort of conservation of probability).

 

Anyways, this is a pedantic and off-topic thread of conversation. I apologize for bringing it up.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Moogle

[Aether]

A man walks past and he's chewing gum. Which brand of gum would make it most likely that he was born in Nebraska?

Definitely not Juicy Fruit, I think. They tend do be prefered in colder areas. Hotter areas usually prefer the spicy flavoured gum. Maybe Dr. Pepper chewing gum?

[Oudeis]

Anyways, this is a pedantic and off-topic thread of conversation. I apologize for bringing it up.

 

I realize you thought you were being clear when you admitted it was pedantic, but in the face of people actually believing that the lack of evidence is proof of lack, you might have sown less confusion if you were more careful to express that my central point, the fact that this entire issue is made the next thing to meaningless in context, was still valid. Whether Elhokar can Surgebind or not, we would very likely never have seen him do it. The fact that we haven't is as insignificant to the question at hand as my personal lack of seeing a rhino is to their existence.

[Aether]

Yes. Seeing a rhinoceros would be evidence for the existence of rhinoceroses, so not having seen one is evidence against them existing (or should be in your mind). Mind you, you should still believe they exist, just less so since you've never seen one before. Different evidence usually differs in strength.

There are a lot of misconceptions going on here. Just as a rule of thumb, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that Darnam has never seen a Rhinoceros is by no means evidence (however slightly) evidence against its existence. "There are Unicorns" is not a true statement based on the fact that no one has ever seen one. In fact, that statement cannot be proven, as one cannot prove a negative. Just as one cannot disprove Unicorns, you cannot disprove that Elhokar can surgebind. There might be clear indications to suggest the contrary, but it cannot be disproven.

[Moogle]

Whether Elhokar can Surgebind or not, we would very likely never have seen him do it. The fact that we haven't is as insignificant to the question at hand as my personal lack of seeing a rhino is to their existence.

 

Again, I apologize for any confusion/pedantry. That said: if Elhokar had Surgebinded while on-screen, we would consider it evidence for him being a Surgebinder (very good evidence in fact), so him not Surgebinding on-screen is evidence for him not being a Surgebinder. It's weak evidence (particularly because we haven't seen him on-screen much), so weak that we may as well disregard it, but it is evidence nonetheless. Thus my pedantry.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions going on here. Just as a rule of thumb, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that Darnam has never seen a Rhinoceros is by no means evidence (however slightly) evidence against its existence. "There are Unicorns" is not a true statement based on the fact that no one has ever seen one. In fact, that statement cannot be proven, as one cannot prove a negative. Just as one cannot disprove Unicorns, you cannot disprove that Elhokar can surgebind. There might be clear indications to suggest the contrary, but it cannot be disproven.

 

You and Wikipedia are using the word 'evidence' in a different way than I have previously defined it. Evidence is not proof. I have no issue with the deductive logic: A->B (or "A implies B"), is not equivalent to ~A->~B, "not-A implies not-B".

 

Also, your Wikipedia article's factual accuracy is disputed and it is noted as "reading like a personal essay".

 

I am using inductive logic, because nothing is certain and we're dealing with probabilities. In probability theory, if E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H) (or, "seeing E increases the probability of H", or "seeing a rhinoceros increases the probability of rhinoceroses existing"), then P(H|~E) < P(H) (or, "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H", or "not seeing a rhinoceros decreases the probability of rhinoceroses existing"). Probability theory is what I'm using, and it's what you should be using, too, because deductive logic is incredibly limited. If you're not familiar with the math, take a look here. It was how I originally 'got' Bayes theorem originally, even if it is a bit dense and the author gets a bit... excited... about it.

 

In probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Deductive logic says that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Entirely different statements. Both are correct. No one has taken a picture of a unicorn in modern times, and we say that this is evidence against unicorns existing. It is not, however, proof that unicorns don't exist.

 

I take no side on the issue of whether or not Elhokar has an Honorblade. I am uncertain. If Elhokar could Surgebind without one, then Darkness would have found some way to kill him, I imagine. But of course, Jasnah and Elhokar would have been the first Surgebinders in forever (excluding Szeth who has an Honorblade himself), so it's possible Darkness just didn't know. Elhokar's gems all being broken is suggestive, but the fact remains that he was not glowing brighter than the sun, and Shardplate-grade gems are high quality and should provide tons and tons of Stormlight.

 

If Elhokar wasn't Surgebinding, who broke his gems? Who has access to gems that go in Shardplate?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Moogle

[Aether]

Again, I apologize for any confusion/pedantry. That said: if Elhokar had Surgebinded while on-screen, we would consider it evidence for him being a Surgebinder (very good evidence in fact), so him not Surgebinding on-screen is evidence for him not being a Surgebinder. It's weak evidence (particularly because we haven't seen him on-screen much), so weak that we may as well disregard it, but it is evidence nonetheless. Thus my pedantry.

 

 

You and Wikipedia are using the word 'evidence' in a different way than I have previously defined it. Evidence is not proof. I have no issue with the deductive logic: A->B (or "A implies B"), is not equivalent to ~A->~B, "not-A implies not-B".

 

I am using inductive logic, because nothing is certain and we're dealing with probabilities. In probability theory, if E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H) (or, "seeing E increases the probability of H", or "seeing a rhinoceros increases the probability of rhinoceroses existing"), then P(H|~E) < P(H) (or, "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H", or "not seeing a rhinoceros decreases the probability of rhinoceroses existing"). Probability theory is what I'm using, and it's what you should be using, too, because deductive logic is incredibly limited. If you're not familiar with the math, take a look here. It was how I originally 'got' Bayes theorem originally, even if it is a bit dense and the author gets a bit... excited... about it.

 

In probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Deductive logic says that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Entirely different statements. Both are correct.

 

I take no side on the issue of whether or not Elhokar has an Honorblade. I am uncertain. If Elhokar could Surgebind without one, then Darkness would have found some way to kill him, I imagine. But of course, Jasnah and Elhokar would have been the first Surgebinders in forever (excluding Szeth who has an Honorblade himself), so it's possible Darkness just didn't know. Elhokar's gems all being broken is suggestive, but the fact remains that he was not glowing brighter than the sun, and Shardplate-grade gems are high quality and should provide tons and tons of Stormlight.

 

If Elhokar wasn't Surgebinding, who broke his gems? Who has access to gems that go in Shardplate?

I am not familiar with probability theory. I do agree that the absence of evidence for something implies absence of something, but I still wouldn't count this as "evidence" for anything.

 

And even conceding the implications of probability theory, I am not sure this is entirely relevant for whether or not Elhokar is Surgebinding. The book is not written in a vacuum, and this particular author is infamous for his prevalent and subtle foreshadowing. We have no firm evidence that he is in fact surgebinding, nor that he has an Honourblade, but there are indications - some would say strong - that he is in fact capable of it, whether he has an Honourblade or not.

[Moogle]

I am not familiar with probability theory. I do agree that the absence of evidence for something implies absence of something, but I still wouldn't count this as "evidence" for anything.

 

If something implying something else is not evidence, what is? Please provide your definition of evidence. Evidence for X, to me, is anything that makes X more likely.

 

 

And even conceding the implications of probability theory, I am not sure this is entirely relevant for whether or not Elhokar is Surgebinding. The book is not written in a vacuum, and this particular author is infamous for his prevalent and subtle foreshadowing. We have no firm evidence that he is in fact surgebinding, nor that he has an Honourblade, but there are indications - some would say strong - that he is in fact capable of it, whether he has an Honourblade or not.

 

It's somewhat relevant, as everything (including books) falls under the umbrella of probability theory. That said, Elhokar not Surgebinding on-screen is weak evidence and is basically worthless for deciding either way. Thus my point about all of this being pedantry and I apologize for the walls of text.

 

It's an interesting question you raise, though. Assuming Elhokar can Surgebind, is it in part due to an Honorblade? He sees liespren, which is evidence for him being a Radiant, but nothing says he can't have an Honorblade and be a regular Surgebinder. His sword is pretty darn fancy. However, the other Honorblade (well, probably an Honorblade, I know we can't be 100% certain Szeth has one) we've seen changes your eye color to something else. Elhokar's eye color is never described as changing, and I think that's something which someone would have noticed at somepoint.

 

I guess he could be only ever summon his sword with his Shardplate helmet on to disguise the eye color change? Ugh, we have next to nothing to go on. I hope they decide to surprise release WoR early.

 

Also, another problem: the Heralds were able to instantly summon their Blades (I think?), while Szeth takes ten heartbeats. Odd. Has anyone seen if Elhokar can instantly summon his Blade?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Moogle

[18th Shard]

Doesn't Elhokar say he saw things in mirrors? Twisted shapes? Probably a spren, maybe a cryptic.

[Oudeis]

Thus my point about all of this being pedantry and I apologize for the walls of text.

 

It's an interesting question you raise, though. Assuming Elhokar can Surgebind, is it in part due to an Honorblade? He sees liespren, which is evidence for him being a Radiant, but nothing says he can't have an Honorblade and be a regular Surgebinder. His sword is pretty darn fancy. However, the other Honorblade (well, probably an Honorblade, I know we can't be 100% certain Szeth has one) we've seen changes your eye color to something else. Elhokar's eye color is never described as changing, and I think that's something which someone would have noticed at somepoint.

 

I guess he could be only ever summon his sword with his Shardplate helmet on to disguise the eye color change? Ugh, we have next to nothing to go on. I hope they decide to surprise release WoR early.

 

Also, another problem: the Heralds were able to instantly summon their Blades (I think?), while Szeth takes ten heartbeats. Odd. Has anyone seen if Elhokar can instantly summon his Blade?

 

1. While I'm all for technical accuracy, a lot of people skim these threads, especially when they get to be as long as we've made them, and a lot of people will glance at what you wrote and believe it's solid evidence that Elhokar cannot Surgebind. For this reason, when I feel compelled to point out trivial details, I try hard to make it clear that the underlying point I'm "arguing" against remains entirely valid; I suspect you think that saying "I'm being pedantic" covered that, and my only point is that I think you'd be more clear if you used words that more people know.

 

2. Yes, it seems obvious that he sees Cryptics. So does the entire crew of the ship Shallan's on; Pattern doesn't appear able (or willing) to hide from humans. I'll grant Elhokar's case is slightly different, but most of the people we've seen in the series so far have been unique. Rock, for example, can see all spren. Kal sees the bindspren that Sigzil cannot. Lift's stomach extends into the cognitive realm. Perhaps Elhokar's eyes do. Perhaps seeing Cryptics is an aspect of his (presumable) Honorblade; maybe he bears the Blade of Shallash herself, the Herald associated with Cryptics. Actually... I really like that theory. I'm gonna go ahead and suspect that now.

 

3. We've seen that Szeth's Blade changes his eye color. Taln's eyes, when he wielded his Blade, did not glow or turn light. Because he's a Herald? Because he just got back from Damnation and boy are his eyes brown? Because each Blade is a unique work of art, and since that was Kalak's viewpoint maybe he didn't mean actual forged metal-working; maybe, familiar with the capacities of the Blades themselves and the process that made them, he means they're works of art in the abilities they grant, the traits they manifest, that sort of thing. (Note: Just re-read the passage. After saying "works of art" he immediately follows up with "flowing of design" so it does imply he's talking about how they look).

 

4. When my eReader stops acting up and lets me turn the page, I'll check on this "instant summons" thing, but that could easily be the difference between a Herald and a not-Herald. Remember, there's something unique about the Heralds if they've survived all this time without their Blades, and the Blade does bond to a person. Syl gets something back from Kal in exchange for what she gives. Presumably, the Shardblade bond works in a similar manner; perhaps a non-Herald does not have to give whatever it would take to let Honorblades be instantly summoned.

[Moogle]

1. While I'm all for technical accuracy, a lot of people skim these threads, especially when they get to be as long as we've made them, and a lot of people will glance at what you wrote and believe it's solid evidence that Elhokar cannot Surgebind. For this reason, when I feel compelled to point out trivial details, I try hard to make it clear that the underlying point I'm "arguing" against remains entirely valid; I suspect you think that saying "I'm being pedantic" covered that, and my only point is that I think you'd be more clear if you used words that more people know.

 

My bad. I will put huge disclaimers on any future pedantry in the future noting that I still agree with the point, because your concern is quite valid.

 

 

2. Yes, it seems obvious that he sees Cryptics. So does the entire crew of the ship Shallan's on; Pattern doesn't appear able (or willing) to hide from humans. I'll grant Elhokar's case is slightly different, but most of the people we've seen in the series so far have been unique. Rock, for example, can see all spren. Kal sees the bindspren that Sigzil cannot. Lift's stomach extends into the cognitive realm. Perhaps Elhokar's eyes do. Perhaps seeing Cryptics is an aspect of his (presumable) Honorblade; maybe he bears the Blade of Shallash herself, the Herald associated with Cryptics. Actually... I really like that theory. I'm gonna go ahead and suspect that now.

 

Have you considered joining me in the crackpot theory that dead-Gavilar was a Lightweaved Tearim? It's as close to patently false as you can get, and yet I still love it. I feel that Shalash's Honorblade being in play adds a certain element of "it sounds crazy but it could be workable" to the theory about Gavilar being alive.

 

Yours is a good theory, though - I had proposed Elhokar might be the one with an Honorblade that Darkness was talking about, but I hadn't thought it might be Shallash's and we didn't have confirmation (near-confirmation, whatever) that Honorblades granted Surgebinding.

 

Also, it explains Elhokar's secrets/the cryptics.

 

 

3. We've seen that Szeth's Blade changes his eye color. Taln's eyes, when he wielded his Blade, did not glow or turn light. Because he's a Herald? Because he just got back from Damnation and boy are his eyes brown? Because each Blade is a unique work of art, and since that was Kalak's viewpoint maybe he didn't mean actual forged metal-working; maybe, familiar with the capacities of the Blades themselves and the process that made them, he means they're works of art in the abilities they grant, the traits they manifest, that sort of thing. (Note: Just re-read the passage. After saying "works of art" he immediately follows up with "flowing of design" so it does imply he's talking about how they look).

 

Taln is a problem for the theory of all Honorblades changing eye-color. He's a problem for the theory that gratuitous Surgebinding leads to permanently brightened eyes, too. I don't like him and his theory-mucking.

 

Each Honorblade granting different powers could be workable, though. It wouldn't surprise me, anyways - I'm a little bit sad at the fact that they apparently grant Surgebinding. I was thinking they'd be super unique. Well, maybe they still are, if a Radiant holds them. We'll see.

 

 

4. When my eReader stops acting up and lets me turn the page, I'll check on this "instant summons" thing, but that could easily be the difference between a Herald and a not-Herald. Remember, there's something unique about the Heralds if they've survived all this time without their Blades, and the Blade does bond to a person. Syl gets something back from Kal in exchange for what she gives. Presumably, the Shardblade bond works in a similar manner; perhaps a non-Herald does not have to give whatever it would take to let Honorblades be instantly summoned.

 

This is true. I doubt that the Heralds had weaker Surgebinding than the Radiants, and yet Szeth apparently is indeed weaker. There's probably a difference based on who holds it.

 

As to the "instant summoning" the issue is that even that is in doubt. Kalak seems to instantly summon his Blade, but it could be a trick by Brandon. Szeth is described in the next chapter as having to wait ten heartbeats, though, so it seems like a purposeful omission .

Edited January 29, 2014 by Moogle

[Chlehrma]

Definitely not Juicy Fruit, I think. They tend do be prefered in colder areas. Hotter areas usually prefer the spicy flavoured gum. Maybe Dr. Pepper chewing gum?

Big Red

To find out who put cracked gemstones in his plate you have to question who handles the recharging. I can not remember if it is the storm wardens or the ardentia. Considering that one of the ardents was cozying up to Dalinar, I suspect--without evidence--that someone wants him on the throne in place of Elhokar.

The only nahel bond type spren Elhokar can see if the cryptic stalking him. He did not see Syl when Kaladin was in the conference room.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Chlehrma

[Havon]

It explains why his spheres were cracked in his shardplate. He may be surgebinding without knowing it. And even if he loans it out, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to surgebind on command.