On 5 Maj, 16:34, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Hogwash! To have a scientific world view is to have a scientific life
style, regardless of whether you're engaged in specific experimental
investigation. Theoretical science, whether directly useful or wildly
speculative, is precisely as important as applied science - the main
thing is to have both going on at the same time. There isn't either
without the other.
> > 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.
I'm sorry but I don't think that's a scientific attitude. Sure, if the
questions are *bogus*, but they may not be. Philosophy of science
concerns itself, among other things, with the nature of the scientific
method, and that's rather important. The reason it's possible for
scientists to do science is that there prevails a certain paradigm as
to what the scientific method is, and the vast majority of practising
scientists accept this paradigm. Hence they largely agree on what
comprises good science. But paradigms, like everything else in the
universe, change. Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
(except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
And another thing. A scientific world view must encompass everything.
Unless you *know* them to be without merit, you can't just dismiss
pertinent claims and perspectives that annoy you for some reason.
That's like picking an opinion and stubbornly sticking with it without
ever trying to increase your level of enlightenment so that your
considered judgment can constantly evolve.
> >> > 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.
No it isn't!
> >> > 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!
I'm always 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.
Bad research is inexcusable indeed. But research has to stop at some
point. Many would say that Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy
contains a good deal too much research and detail.
- Tue
|
