On Monday 05 May 2008 01:24, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> On 4 Maj, 08:45, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If by "philosophical question" you mean something that people don't
> agree on, then yes. As you stated above, philosophy is just so much
> chatter on things some people don't agree on.
Most "what is..." and "why is..." questions are philosophical questions,
as
opposed to hardcore science's "how much". There's no distinct line in the
sand, but talking about science instead of doing it is certainly on the
wrong side of said line.
> They're trying to figure
> out some of the as yet unresolved questions in various fields, incl.
> science. But when science becomes more well-defined, philosophy will
> have played itself out once and for all.
>
>> > 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.
>
> If so, the young ones, apparently, are mostly too ignorant to have an
> informed opinion on the matter... But sure, a lot of science can be
> performed without necessarily having a clear idea of the fundamental
> nature of science.
>
Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it and
producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X. But
you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change
the
usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and should be
dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of science.
>> Scientific progress doesn't stop for philosophical conundrums!
>
> Once in a while it may have to!
>
Hardly.
>> > 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.
>
> I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
> objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
>
oh I'm sorry, but this is Abuse.
>> > 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.
>
> As Harlan Ellison will tell you, dangerous visions are the only ones
> worth having! :-)
>
>> > 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.
>
> I wouldn't think so. I think it's quite plain whether one is dealing
> with facts or not.
You can't be serious!
> And, sciencewise, if it's not facts, it's
> speculation.
>
> Anyway, this thread has helped me reformulate my erstwhile view on
> "hard" SF. Where I used to hold the usual view that "hard" SF is
> admirably heavy on known science and (more or less therefore) near the
> pinnacle of the entire genre of SF, I now believe as I have explained
> in my posts here, that the best and most worthy SF is that which
> proceeds from a properly scientific *attitude*, regardless of how
> factual or speculative the described science is, and that what is
> usually called "hard" SF is by no means necessarily a superior
> subgenre. If "hard" SF is supposed to describe the best SF (which is
> how it's often being used, with people considering "hard" SF to be the
> most scientific SF, allowing connoisseurs to scoff at that despicable
> "soft" SF), then "hard" SF ought to be that which displays the most
> rigorously scientific *attitude* to the events and details of the
> given work.
>
> The problem being that people don't understand, or agree about, what a
> properly scientific attitude is... which makes it all the more
> important for good science fiction to educate the public about this
> very matter.
>
> In the end, of course, everything depends on how well the individual
> work is written, and what the author wants to say with it. Messages of
> relevance to humanity's overall development are more important in SF
> than scientific content. The cardinal tenet of SF is that it takes
> place within a scientific understanding of the universe. And in order
> to be SF, a work must declare itself as such, expressly and
> deliberately taking its point of origin in a scientific world view,
> which is usually accomplished simply by calling itself "science
> fiction".
>
"Science fiction" is often used as a marketing label, but I agree with
most
of what you're saying here. A problem I often have is that when the writer
gets a (scientific) detail wrong, it can easily ruin the entire experience
for me.
//Niels
|
