On 3 Maj, 18:21, Ben Crowell <crowel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
> >> answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know
the
> >> philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that.
>
> > Philosophers never agree about anything. They never really do anything
or
> > advance humanity. They just sit around and invent problems and
> > incomprehensible terminologies. All the while scientists are busy
doing
> > actual research and development.
>
> One can muddy essentially any debate by throwing in a statement that
> the question is "as difficult to answer as the question of exactly
> what _____ is. And as you know the philosophers still aren't entirely in
> agreement about that." That's because you'll never find any topic on
> which philosophers will all agree. I'm sure you could round up any two
> random philosophers and get them to disagree about whether there's
> a clear distinction between a Phillips screw and a flat-head screw.
> After all, I can clearly imagine the possibility of screws that
> interpolate between the two types. On the other hand, maybe there's
> a Platonic ideal of the Phillips, and a Platonic ideal of the flat-head.
> That doesn't mean that I can't tell which is which when I'm browsing in
> the hardware store.
I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain exactly
what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like Popper, or Kuhn).
Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
exactly what science is. My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
specified technical or mathematical details.
Yes, this departs from the traditional view of what "hard" SF is, but
that's because I have a broader view of what science is. To me,
science is the ultimate and ideal method for everything - all forms of
understanding and eventually, when we have totally reverse-engineered
nature and also understand our own nature fully, all forms of conduct.
Hence, a genre that bases itself on a scientific world view is the
only truly relevant genre; the only truly rational genre, and in the
end the only truly realistic genre.
Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
"science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
misinterpret.
- Tue
|
