There are no other dragons on Planetos besides Drogon, Viserion and Rhaegal

[Suzanna Stormborn]

There has to be more eggs though?

There are eggs out there for sure. Some of them may be fossilized like Dany's, but we know Euron had one, and Illyrio got his hands on three, there are probably more in the red keep also.

[Lord Godric]

I understand the logical belief that if Dragons were alive for 150 years, someone would see them or find them. However, I feel as if Martin included this idea of recluse, wild dragons which no one can tame and are never recorded to have died for a reason. The idea that there is still an actual dragon on Dragonstone to fulfill the idea of awakening the stone dragon is better than any other explanation I have heard yet.

[ChillyPolly]

By that logic we can't claim that something doesn't exist, ever.

In the broad sense, yes. In the narrow sense, no. You are not really following my logic. You in turn are attempting to argue from ignorance, based on the logic "But if I do not argue from ignorance I will not be able to reach the conclusion I want". Sorry, but your desire to reach a set conclusion does not justify fallacious reasoning.

We can reasonably conclude that certain things don't exist within the confines of certain contexts:

For instance:

Premise 1: If there were a dragon under your bed, I would have seen it.

Premise 2: I have not seen a dragon under your bed.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no dragon under your bed.

This is a valid argument, if both premises are true. The tricky premise is premise #1. If it is true, then the conclusion is true. If it is probably true, then the conclusion is probably true. Much may depend on whether I have actually taken the trouble to look under your bed to see if there is a dragon there.

It is possible to apply such logic on a broader scale than the small space under your bed. One can, in the modern communications-age context, extend it to the entire world:

Premise 1: If Bigfoot existed on Planet Earth, we would have MORE than x evidence of Bigfoot's existence [such as a body, more reliable sightings, bones, fossils, better photos].

Premise 2: We have no more than x amount of evidence of Bigfoot's existence on Planet Earth (in the form of sightings, footprints, etc.).

Conclusion: Bigfoot does not exist on Planet Earth.

I think this argument is (probably) sound, because I think that Premise #2 is probably correct. A lot depends on the fact that we live in a modern age of information, where the world has grown small, everyone carries a camera on his cell phone, and any major local discoveries are quickly transmitted around the world in a short period of time, and preserved for posterity. So yeah, I think if Bigfoot existed, we would indeed (at least probably) have more and better evidence readily available on Wikipedia. Hence we can reasonably conclude (at least to a degree of probability) that Bigfoot does not exist.

You are apparently trying to apply an analogous argument to the question of dragons in Westeros, on the belief that knee-jerk skepticism automatically makes you a rational person. However, you have neglected to analyse the analogous version of premise #2.

The medieval-style world is not even remotely like the modern world. It is far too large, far too unexplored, and far too sparsely inhabited. Nobody carries cameras. Nobody carries telephones. The world has not been mapped to the square foot by satellite images. The vast majority of the population is unlettered. The maesters hold unlettered person in contempt and do not believe their stories as a matter of principle. The argument that if dragons still existed, maesters would know more about them than they do, is utterly bogus.

The world has not even been mapped to any completeness.

This is a case where the default assumptions has to be 'No dragons' and therefore you stick to it until proven false, much like it's acceptable to claim 'No Easter Bunny' because no one ever seen one.

Extraordinary claim and all that.

The principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" does not apply here. Dragons existed in Westeros, until at least 150 years ago. It seems they have existed for 1000s of years before that. If anything, the idea that they must have gone extinct in the last 150 years, after surviving thousands if not millions of years, is the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Again, you are deluded by the fact that you live in the eco-catastrophic modern age, where widespread extinctions of species that have been around for millions and millions of years are routine news. Extinction is an extraordinary event. In the ordinary course of things, the fact that a species existed 200 years ago would be powerful evidence that (to a high degree of probability) it still exists now. In the context of such a powerful presumption, the argument "I've never seen a dragon, and neither has my mom and dad, or the smart-ass professors at my classes at the Citadel who never journey beyond their ivory towers" would be pathetically weak evidence that the species has actually gone extinct. It's analogous to saying my mom must be dead because I have not seen her for the past 15 minutes, nor have I met anyone who has.

And the realization that dragon-eggs can hatch after extended periods of dormancy puts a huge monkey wrench in the whole idea of dragon extinction, even if one could prove a lack of adult specimens (which one cannot do).

There is no default assumption of non-existence. Some evidence of existence (however inconclusive) must be countered by a evidence of non-existence .. or a valid argument supported by valid premises, as outlined above.

The likelyhood of there being other dragons in ASOIAF, anterior to Daenerys, is however much better than there being a real Easter Bunny in our world, it goes without saying. There has been quite a few elements that hint at that possibility, and you did a good job of compiling several in a previous post. It's still a good default position to say there are none until more definitive evidence comes in. Which very well might come next book because for all we know.

Some evidence of dragons = some evidence of dragons. You have countered it with nothing except to declare that your position wins by default unless I meet an arbitrary standard of proof that you are demanding, which, of course will always be declared to be greater than the evidence that GRRM has given us. Your arbitrary claim that there ought to be more evidence is backed by nothing. We have as much evidence as GRRM has chosen to give us, and no more.

[Mal Malenkirk]

In the broad sense, yes. In the narrow sense, no. You are not really following my logic. You in turn are attempting to argue from ignorance, based on the logic "But if I do not argue from ignorance I will not be able to reach the conclusion I want". Sorry, but your desire to reach a set conclusion does not justify fallacious reasoning.

I did not reach a conclusion. I just did not reach the conclusions that other dragions exist and wait fore more evidence. It's pretty basic in science. Just because you did not conclude that A is true does not necessarily mean you've concluded it's false. Yeah, I stick to the default assumption that there are none but it's not an article of faith and await further details in the next books.

We can reasonably conclude that certain things don't exist within the confines of certain contexts:

For instance:

Premise 1: If there were a dragon under your bed, I would have seen it.

Premise 2: I have not seen a dragon under your bed.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no dragon under your bed.

Fine.

A dragon is a very large animal

It hunts sizeable prey such as horses.

It therefore needs very large hunting area, much largeR than a royal eagle, for example.

Conclusion: If dragons where out there hunting over areas of several hundreds of square miles, there would likely have been some reports sometime in the past 150 years.

I don't consider that definitive and there are all kind of esoteric possibilities but until further evidence are in, I find that sufficient to suspect there a none left. Especially since animals need to breeds and if the numbers are so low that nobody have seen any, it's starting to get dubious they could reproduce if there were still a handful hidden in some armpit part of the world. And since Dragons are apex predator, I see no reason they'd avoid human area on purpose anyway.

Again, you are deluded by the fact that you live in the eco-catastrophic modern age, where widespread extinctions of species that have been around for millions and millions of years are routine news. Extinction is an extraordinary event.

Not that extraordinary. And Dragons were known to be in steep decline for years, becoming smaller and smaller, becoming rarer and rarer. It did not come out of the blue. They would have been on the PETA watchlist for a while in the real world!

And the realization that dragon-eggs can hatch after extended periods of dormancy puts a huge monkey wrench in the whole idea of dragon extinction, even if one could prove a lack of adult specimens (which one cannot do).

Hey, there might be other dragons hatching all over the world as we speak. Magic seems to be rising. We just have to see them.

There is no default assumption of non-existence. Some evidence of existence (however inconclusive) must be countered by a evidence of non-existence .. or a valid argument supported by valid premises, as outlined above.

There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. I can only prove that dragons don't live under my bed, to paraphrase from you, and that's only if you'll agree that these magical beast do not possess the power to become invisible and intangible. Then I can't prove shit. It'd still be damn unlikely.

Some evidence of dragons = some evidence of dragons. You have countered it with nothing except to declare that your position wins by default unless I meet an arbitrary standard of proof that you are demanding, which, of course will always be declared to be greater than the evidence that GRRM has given us. Your arbitrary claim that there ought to be more evidence is backed by nothing. We have as much evidence as GRRM has chosen to give us, and no more.

My standards are not that high. Obviously, Martin could simply introduce a new dragon. That'd settle the issue. I'd be also be convinced by a reliable character claiming he saw one. If we never get a new Davos POV but he shows up in Mel's POV and claim there were dragons in Skagos, I'd believe him. If some POV characters run into a devastation by fire where a dragon was the most likely explanantion, I'd also be swayed.

Am I being so unreasonable?

And I did say I was giving 4 to 1 odds toward there being other dragons. How dogmatic am I being, here?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

The principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" does not apply here. Dragons existed in Westeros, until at least 150 years ago. It seems they have existed for 1000s of years before that. If anything, the idea that they must have gone extinct in the last 150 years, after surviving thousands if not millions of years, is the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Again, you are deluded by the fact that you live in the eco-catastrophic modern age, where widespread extinctions of species that have been around for millions and millions of years are routine news. Extinction is an extraordinary event. In the ordinary course of things, the fact that a species existed 200 years ago would be powerful evidence that (to a high degree of probability) it still exists now. In the context of such a powerful presumption, the argument "I've never seen a dragon, and neither has my mom and dad, or the smart-ass professors at my classes at the Citadel who never journey beyond their ivory towers" would be pathetically weak evidence that the species has actually gone extinct. It's analogous to saying my mom must be dead because I have not seen her for the past 15 minutes, nor have I met anyone who has.

Well the doom of Valyria helped as far as extincting the dragons goes. I mean even in woaif, there is no mention of dragons elsewhere on the planet after the Doom. Westeros seems to be the only place, then they died out in Westeros as well.

As far as millions of years go.....eh.....I tend to think maybe this is a cyclic planet, like the magic comes and goes, waxes and wanes. Maybe the dragons had all died out once before as well. Maybe that's where the 'moon' theory comes from in the Dothraki, that dragons come and go on the planet history line.

[cgf]

I'm for more dragons showing up so that Dany's arc becomes a young girl learning to rule with nukes at her disposal rather than a special chosen one miracle'ing her way through the story. But I also completely buy that Dany survived the pyre by accidentally stealing MMD's spell. So this may just be me wanting Dany to turn out to be more than just another Neo/HarryPotter/generic-chosen-one-protagonist.

[ChillyPolly]

I did not reach a conclusion.

4 to 1 odds against = a conclusion.

A dragon is a very large animal

It hunts sizeable prey such as horses.

It therefore needs very large hunting area, much largeR than a royal eagle, for example.

Conclusion: If dragons where out there hunting over areas of several hundreds of square miles, there would likely have been some reports sometime in the past 150 years.

Okay, lets lay out the argument:

A

Premise#1: All dragons are very large animals who eat horse-sized prey on a daily basis

Conclusion/Premise#2: Therefore: All dragons need very large hunting areas

B.

Premise#2: All dragons need very large hunting areas

Premise#3: All very large hunting areas are inhabited by humans or at least regularly visited by humans

Conclusion/Premise4: Therefore: If any dragons existed during the last 150 years, some humans would have seen them and lived

C

Premise #4: If any dragons existed during the last 150 years, some humans would have seen them and lived

Premise #5: No humans have seen dragons during the last 150 years and lived

Conclusion/Premise#6: Therefore: No dragons have existed during the last 150 years

The arguments are valid, but are they sound? Can we rely on the premises?

Premise 1 is false, or at least unproven. We are told that some dragons are small, and that growth is limited by space and available food supply.

Conclusion/Premise 2 is unknown, or at least questionable, given the hints of “stone dragons” in a state of perfectly preserved dormancy, from which blood magic can awake them, and given the fact that we cannot rely on Premise 1.

Premise 3 is false, or at least unproven. It is possible for very large hunting areas to be entirely uninhabited by humans. Such as Sea Dragon Point and Skane (and we're still only talking about Westeros's backyard here).

Hence we cannot rely on Conclusion/Premise 4

Premise 5 is false or unproven as well. We have no idea how many people have seen dragons for the last 150 years. We only know that the maesters either did not hear from them or didn’t believe them if they did hear from them.

Hence we can have no confidence in premise 6, which derives from #4 and #5.

But we can reasonably conclude that Summer saw a "great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame". Because it says so in the text. Why engage in tortured arguments involving factors we cannot possibly have the power to compute, when we can merely believe our own eyes? It just doesn't make sense.

And Dragons were known to be in steep decline for years, becoming smaller and smaller, becoming rarer and rarer.

You are talking about the Targaryen/Valyrian dragons. Dragons have been surviving in the wild since the dawn of time.

I can only prove that dragons don't live under my bed, to paraphrase from you,

Sure, but you need a valid argument.

and that's only if you'll agree that these magical beast do not possess the power to become invisible and intangible.

No need to raise invisibility or intangibility. Just look at the size of the map.

[Blazfemur]

Not gonna bother to read all the pages but logistically, and logically, they say Dragons brought magic back to the world. um.. it took magic to hatch them. i would also add, not all pov's span the entire globe of planetos.

....that is all.

[ChillyPolly]

i would also add, not all pov's span the entire globe of planetos.

Yes ... but an understatement. Are there some POVs that DO span the entire globe?

[Blazfemur]

Yes ... but an understatement. Are there some POVs that DO span the entire globe?

pov's no. and yet the entire of asshai exists, where supposedly the eggs came from. and then, furthersoutheast beyond asshai and the heart of darkness, further still, the land of always winter (yes, go southeast enough you end up northwest, and per quaithes prophecy thats the direction she should go)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Not gonna bother to read all the pages but logistically, and logically, they say Dragons brought magic back to the world. um.. it took magic to hatch them. i would also add, not all pov's span the entire globe of planetos.

....that is all.

This is why I don't buy the "dragons bought magic back" argument, because it brings up a chicken-or-egg conundrum: If there was no magic before the dragons hatched, then how did the dragons hatch? I think it's likelier that magic is an independent force of nature, if you will, that ebbs and flows and is cyclical, and the dragons hatching is a result of magic cycling back to the forefront, not the other way around. I would expect people with a focus on fire, like the pyromancers, to see the dragons and mistake correlation for causality, but I think it's more correlational. You also see someone strongly associated with fire, Melisandre, become more powerful at the Wall, which is strongly associated with (and made of) ice. That suggests to me that there isn't "ice" magic or "fire" magic, just magic in general that feeds both sides.

[Archmaester Drew]

This is why I don't buy the "dragons bought magic back" argument, because it brings up a chicken-or-egg conundrum: If there was no magic before the dragons hatched, then how did the dragons hatch? I think it's likelier that magic is an independent force of nature, if you will, that ebbs and flows and is cyclical, and the dragons hatching is a result of magic cycling back to the forefront, not the other way around. I would expect people with a focus on fire, like the pyromancers, to see the dragons and mistake correlation for causality, but I think it's more correlational. You also see someone strongly associated with fire, Melisandre, become more powerful at the Wall, which is strongly associated with (and made of) ice. That suggests to me that there isn't "ice" magic or "fire" magic, just magic in general that feeds both sides.

Precisely. :cheers:

[Blazfemur]

This is why I don't buy the "dragons bought magic back" argument, because it brings up a chicken-or-egg conundrum: If there was no magic before the dragons hatched, then how did the dragons hatch? I think it's likelier that magic is an independent force of nature, if you will, that ebbs and flows and is cyclical, and the dragons hatching is a result of magic cycling back to the forefront, not the other way around. I would expect people with a focus on fire, like the pyromancers, to see the dragons and mistake correlation for causality, but I think it's more correlational. You also see someone strongly associated with fire, Melisandre, become more powerful at the Wall, which is strongly associated with (and made of) ice. That suggests to me that there isn't "ice" magic or "fire" magic, just magic in general that feeds both sides.

dragons are a weapon of magic -- they arent the source of it. theyre a weapon of Valyrian power, just as the Others are weapons of First Men power.

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

I have seen a ton of posts about possible 'other' dragons in Westeros. Cannibal hiding in a cave, Sheepstealer still alive in Bay of Crabs, dragons sleeping for centuries under Winterfell, etc......

This cannot possibly be true if we look at the writing from Game of Thrones......

Everyone quickly forgets that dragons have been extinct for 150 years. Same thing with the direwolves, not that they were extinct but they have been absent for years. Magic has been gone from Planteos for decades, and now it's back. This is a major theme in the books, no way it will just be cast aside,

GOT Chapter 1, "Direwolves loose in the realm after so many years, I like it not." --Jory

"They were the last of the Targaryen dragons anywhere, and they had not lived very long." Tyrion GOT

Then there is this clencher statement, which is not even from Dany's POV, but switched to an omnipotent POV for this one paragraph at the very end of GOT, and I think it goes without saying that whatever the omnipotent narrator such as this says, is canon.

"As Daenerys Targaryen rose to her feet, her black hissed, pale smoke venting from its mouth and nostrils. The other two pulled away from her breasts and added their voices to the call, translucent wings unfolding and stirring the air, and for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons."

I doubt GRRM will just casually forget everything we have previously been told about dragons and all-of-a-sudden have one hiding in Winterfell. That is wishful fanfic and nothing more.

Discuss

Bran Stark sees Dragons in Asshai maybe they were sleeping for years and came alive when Danny jumped in the Pyre or maybe the magic came to life when the Ice and Fire blood of Jon passed through the magical wall who knows but the fact is Bran saw the Dragons.

[TallTyrion]

Bran Stark sees Dragons in Asshai maybe they were sleeping for years and came alive when Danny jumped in the Pyre or maybe the magic came to life when the Ice and Fire blood of Jon passed through the magical wall who knows but the fact is Bran saw the Dragons.

Maybe he was looking into the past. Or he's just dreaming.

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

There are eggs out there for sure. Some of them may be fossilized like Dany's, but we know Euron had one, and Illyrio got his hands on three, there are probably more in the red keep also.

There is no way Illyrio gave 3 Dragon's to Danny and didn't keep some for his precious Aegon after all they kind of help authenticate Aegon, My belief is that the crates Illyrio was so persistent on getting to Aegon before he set sail had Dragon eggs and the Targaryen sword Blackfyre in them maybe even an old Targaryen crown. These same things i believe are in the Lyanna Stark winterfell crypt which were left for Jon that being Rhaegars egg, the Targaryen sword Dark sister (maybe) or his harp and a Targaryen crown.

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

Maybe he was looking into the past. Or he's just dreaming.

He saw things that were actually happening at that moment along with the Dragons this was before he could get in the tree and look into the past although maybe it was the future i could be wrong

[TallTyrion]

There is no way Illyrio gave 3 Dragon's to Danny and didn't keep some for his precious Aegon after all they kind of help authenticate Aegon, My belief is that the crates Illyrio was so persistent on getting to Aegon before he set sail had Dragon eggs and the Targaryen sword Blackfyre in them maybe even an old Targaryen crown. These same things i believe are in the Lyanna Stark winterfell crypt which were left for Jon that being Rhaegars egg, the Targaryen sword Dark sister (maybe) or his harp and a Targaryen crown.

No they don't anyone can own a dragon egg.

[Blazfemur]

There is no way Illyrio gave 3 Dragon's to Danny and didn't keep some for his precious Aegon after all they kind of help authenticate Aegon, My belief is that the crates Illyrio was so persistent on getting to Aegon before he set sail had Dragon eggs and the Targaryen sword Blackfyre in them maybe even an old Targaryen crown. These same things i believe are in the Lyanna Stark winterfell crypt which were left for Jon that being Rhaegars egg, the Targaryen sword Dark sister (maybe) or his harp and a Targaryen crown.

Dark Sister WILL resurface. SHOW Arya mentions it actually, so it's even in the heads of the show-watchers.

[Mal Malenkirk]

4 to 1 odds against = a conclusion.

That's nowhere near a conclusion. That's an estimation. It means in my personal estimation, there are about 20% chances that there are already other dragons in Planetos and 80% that there aren't.

You seem to be incapable to abide doubts in any situations, You need to hold the answer.

We see vague hints that maybe there are other dragons. It leads me to think it's possible that there are though I am not convinced. It leads you to conclude there are, no room for doubts. Well I have doubts. And I can live with that.