On Sunday 04 May 2008 04:42, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> 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).
That's because it's a philosophical question.
> Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
> exactly what science is.
But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that
scientists
who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly scientists who
are
interested in the history and philosophy of science, ie. they're not doing
it in their capacity of scientists.
Scientific progress doesn't stop for philosophical conundrums!
> 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.
>
You're not arguing it, you're asserting it.
> 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.
>
I agree with your last sentence. But it's dangerous to redefine science as
you do it, for obvious reasons.
> 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.
It's not precise, because we'd be arguing about what's speculative and
what's not. Almost anything can be considered speculative.
//Niels
|
