Statements

Boros stating he'd blow away the planet's surface

This article is regarding how to properly assess the reliability of statements.

In regards to the how you would do so, the answer is dependent on who is stating.

Let's make a hypothetical example.

“Domingo was stated to be invulnerable. In every instance he has been approached in an attempt to be harmed, he gets up without any notable damage taken to him or the techniques do not phase him in the slightest. However, Domingo exhibits these traits in a universe with rather low levels of Attack Potency. Is he truly an invulnerable force?”

• Option 1: The person who made this claim was an underling; bragging to a group of people about how it was him who defeated his master, Domingo. The instance he declared him being invulnerable was a bullet breaking from coming into contact with the master. This can be assumed to be a Hasty Generalization, therefore, inapplicable because there is no other context given for why the master would be invulnerable. It could just be used to amplify the extremity, subsequently being classified as Hyperbole and a bloated exaggeration of events.

• Option 2: The person was capable of projecting energy attacks and has made observations about Domingo through potentially use his energy attacks against him. In this scenario, the person who made the statement can be seen as more reliable, but they are still not necessarily true. The person states that Domingo is invulnerable, however, the truth would be that Domingo would be invulnerable to what he can dish out. In this case, say Town level attacks for example.

• Option 3: A Macrocosmic+ or higher deity says Domingo is invulnerable. If someone with infinite power and the ability to tear this person's reality apart says they can't kill Domingo, he has invulnerability higher than his durability to this degree. At least against all conventional forms of damage. However, he could possibly still be subdued throw other abilities such as Durability Negation or Existence Erasure to name a few. 

• Option 4: The narrative itself calls Domingo invulnerable. This statement could be interpreted similarly to Option 2 in that it should be examined in the context of the story. They could be invulnerable in the context of their own universe or the situation at hand, but they would likely be susceptible to weaponry and physical force to a higher caliber of what's present in the verse.

• Option 5: The author is the one calling Domingo invulnerable outside of the story. As the previous option, this should be examined in the context of the story. A character being described as invulnerable, invincible or all powerful in one setting might not be in the same position when compared to characters from other settings. See Note 2 as well as there might be cases where this is invalidated on the spot as well.

It should be noted that word of mouth can be used to upgrade a character, though, the statement should meet the following requirements for it to be utilized:

• If the source of the statement is reliable?
• If the statement conflicts with the story or feats of the character?
• If the statement is only valid in the context of its setting, or if it holds up in comparison with other settings?

Note: Please remember that character and narrative statements tend to use flowery language and exaggerate to certain degrees. Without any further context to clarify, statements such as characters having “infinite power” or especially omnipotent statements are not enough to suggest upgrades. When reviewing a statement for potential upgrades, be sure to keep this in mind.

Note 2: It should be noted that if an author is supplying an interpretation for something ambiguous or not implied by the context of the original work, it is inapplicable due to Death of the Author. According to Umberto Eco, the functionality of this literary concept is explained as, “A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations.” The idea validates the necessity of the audience being of an importance, as the contents of something being published become its own identity and thus, allows for its own interpretations. The author's intentions do not supersede that of the audience because the purpose of publishing said material was for the pleasure and perception of the viewer. However, it should be noted that Death of the Author is not applicable beyond these types of circumstances.

See also

Hyperbole

Fallacy

Outlier

Inconsistency