On Sunday 04 May 2008 04:14, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> On 3 Maj, 08:53, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>> > Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
>> > i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
>> > inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
>> > properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or
not
>> > it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
>> > "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
>> > currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
>> > doing it.
>>
>> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel
>> of writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is
always
>> the same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the
>> methods of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
>
> Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
> our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
> the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
> hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
> simply.
>
There's some truth to that. However, I still think my rephrasing is more
precise. Collecting all the things you mention under the umbrella
of "science" is bad rather than good, in my book.
>> >> > 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. I
>> >> > think it becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop
>> >> > talking about science and start talking about a scientific
attitude.
>> >> > Once such an attitude is established, and supernatural silliness
has
>> >> > been left behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the
>> >> > universe, and all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their
>> >> > societies, become part of the realm of science; part of the
>> >> > scientific world view. The realm of sci-fi encompasses everything
>> >> > that is in any way - whether explicitly or symbolically - relevant
>> >> > to the development and self- understanding of secular humanity.
>>
>> >> The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
>> >> criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo
experiments
>> >> to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
>> >> because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
>> >> and technology.
>>
>> > *Actually*, by my definition no form of fantasy can be called SF, as
>> > fantasy worlds almost always have magic and/or gods, and hence are
not
>> > based on a scientific world view. It's the basic world view that
>> > determines whether something is science fiction or not.
>>
>> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible
>> technology, they might as well be doing magic.
>
> I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
> seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same.
If they're indistinguishable, they're the same. You can try to come up
with
a counterexample.
> If
> something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
> imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
And what's a "physical law" in this context?
> Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> causality.
What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about! Causality
(that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
> Imagined science and technology may or may not be impossible. By its
> very nature we can't know which. And yes, it is the author's task to
> make it plausibly scientific. But the crucial thing then becomes the
> reader's susceptibility to the author's imaginings. Not every reader
> will find the same descriptions equally plausible. It depends on both
> the reader's knowledge, imagination and philosophical bent. Different
> readers will appreciate and accept or reject different ideas. Until
> everybody achieves equal levels of scientific understanding and
> agreement about the deep nature of science, there can never be a
> consensus about which sorts of science and technology are particularly
> plausible.
>
I agree, apart from the "deep nature of science" thingy.
>> We (the readers) need to understand
>> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
>> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien
technology
>> plausible to the reader to some degree.
>
> Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
> SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
> almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
> hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
Making technology plausible isn't quite the same as focusing on known
science. And the imagination in hard SF often lies in the applications of
technology and consequences for society, rather than the technology
itself.
> But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
> SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
> engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
> may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
> certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
> more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
> yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
> long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
> along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
> the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
> preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
>
I agree that personal taste is the important thing. But we're talking
about
global definitions, which are not, or shouldn't be, subject to personal
taste.
Galactic empires are probably contingent on breaking the light barrier,
which is something we don't know how to do. At all. We can hope that
further research will bring us a solution, but there's absolute no
guarantee.
>> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has
>> weird spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more
>> plausible as the result of proper scientific development rather than
>> magic. Most of it...
>
> Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
>
Note the cleverly hidden words "weird" and "crazy" ;-)
>> >> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states
>> >> > that, in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or
>> >> > should take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or
>> >> > as little science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the
>> >> > individual writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't
>> >> > bound by rigid definitions, believing in "one right way to do it"
>> >> > (which is often wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But
>> >> > that's ignorance. Or lack of imagination, which is practically the
>> >> > same thing.
>>
>> >> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
>> >> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
>>
>> > Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
>> > intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
>> > soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard
SF.
>>
>> Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like
you're
>> trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you
like.
>> If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
>> criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we
>> usually call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you need
>> to be more specific, I think.
>
> Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's personal
> opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
> say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF.
Agreed. Examples? And are you using your own definitions for "SF", "hard"
and "soft" here?
> I also believe
> in a broader definition of "hard" SF, where it's not necessarily about
> rigorous, scientific details, but about the general attitude and world
> view of the story's setting. But of course, according to my idea that
> every story with an underlying scientific attitude is hard SF, an
> enormous amount of all SF would be hard.
And an enormous amount of non-SF stories would suddenly become SF. Quoting
Sherlock Holmes:
"From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could
infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without
having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is
a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are
shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science
of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired
by long and patient study nor is life long enough to allow
any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.
Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the
matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the
enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems.
Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to
distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or
profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise
may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and
teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man's
finger nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boot, by his trouser
knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his
expression, by his shirt cuffs -- by each of these things a
man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should
fail to enlighten the competent enquirer in any case is
almost inconceivable."
That's what I call invoking a scientific world view!
> Star Trek included. Star Trek
> features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> knowledge.
And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
> Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
> sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
> often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
> discussion.)
>
> So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> whatever) content.
So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology? I can
relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
> So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> described as fantasy.
Which tenets exactly? And it looks to me like you're giving FTL the
benefit
of the doubt while dismissing the same for time travel -- why?
//Niels
|
