On 5 Maj, 20:44, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 19:04, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> [snip]>> >> > 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.
>
> >> > This is just as patently wrong as it can possibly be. If you can't
> >> > visually tell the difference between salt and sugar, then they're
the=
> >> > same?!
>
> >> Who said anything about visually? I obviously meant "distinguishable
> >> after rigorous tests".
>
> > Doesn=92t make any difference. You are still not taking into account
the=
> > difference between subjectivity and objectivity. In subjective
> > contexts there can be no science, and no scientific declarations like
> > the one you=92re attempting to make. Listen: There must be rules to
> > govern what we call the limits of knowledge (hereunder the limits of
> > testing). We cannot declare two indistinguishable phenomena to be the
> > same until we have brought all of our scientific means to bear on it.
> > Hence, some imbecile who cannot distinguish two things from each other
> > cannot be allowed the privilege of having it objectively accepted by
> > all of us that his two things are the same. This much is obvious,
> > right? Hence, you can only declare indistinguishable phenomena to be
> > the same after all of humanity=92s total scientific means have failed
to=
> > distinguish between them. *Then* the *objective* (not subjective)
> > limits of knowledge have been reached, and then science, or a
> > scientific attitude, has permission to declare that the two - to the
> > best of scientific knowledge, which may be revised later - are the
> > same. Not in any other situation. That=92s science. Some guy=92s
> > superstition is just some guy=92s superstition. If you believe that
the
> > cave-man=92s limited perception has any kind of scientific authority
> > whatsoever, then *you* are superstitious.
>
> To *him* they're the same, exactly as Clarke says. To current humanity
> they're not. To current humanity other things are deemed /the same/,
even
> if they're not to some hyper-intelligent shade of blue. Is that what you
> were trying to say?
That's what I said, while generously but apparently vainly helping you
to understand the difference between subjective experience and
objective science.
> >> >> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> >> > In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or
imagined.
>
> >> What if it obviously incorrect?
>
> > Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases, not SF
> > at all.
>
> OK, we probably agree there.
>
> How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's
mad=
,
> never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
> There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
> machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is
wrapped
> in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
The religion in Battlestar Galactica is presented specifically *as*
religion. There is no evidence of supernatural happenings. The
religion is based in legends about Earth, and these myths are part of
the plot, and it will probably be revealed just how they came into
being. The overall premise is a perfectly sound scientific world view.
Yes, there's only one scientist which is too little. No, I don't think
the technology looks steam-punk-ish. Evil machines is a sci-fi trope,
and can be an okay plot element. The characters, to a great extent,
behaves exceptionally realistically, and some of them are therefore
also realistically loathsome, while some are pretty sympathetic, or at
least likeable (Roslin, Adama, Thrace, several others). Some of the
loathsome characters are extremely interesting (Baltar, Zarek, Admiral
Cain). Like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica takes place in a spaceship
environment where a certain futuristic level of technology is taken
for granted but rarely specified to any degree. I don't particularly
mind that. I think BG is fine sci-fi. One of the most entertaining
American sci-fi shows yet, as a matter of fact (though admittedly the
track record of U.S. sci-fi TV shows is not great). The production
values are excellent, which I think is quite important (the "sexy"
look). It's not perfect, but the vast majority of what I would
criticize about it relates to the lack of realistic development of the
social organization and some of the ethical details surrounding the
fact that all humanity (as far as they know) now consists of only
50,000 people. The writers are not really taking the consequences of
what this would mean. But I find it to be an extremely entertaining
show; the best sci-fi show currently on TV, with the possible
exception of Doctor Who.
> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn=92t SF at all, but
> > I don=92t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
>
> I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science in
> science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
> everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
You're talking about technology. The applied science of engineers:
Mechanics.
> >> >> > 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!
>
> >> > Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making
up
> >> > your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
> >> > account.
>
> >> Yes I am: I don't.
>
> > Your brevity makes your position unclear here.
>
> I though I was perfectly clear: I don't take the level of understanding
in=
to
> consideration. I don't accept your concept of subjective understanding.
Then you are a *poor* scientist, Dr. Venkman!
> > (=93You are a *poor* philosopher, Dr. Emerson!=94).
>
> I should hope so!
And I know so...
> > If you don=92t take the (subjective or
> > objective) level of understanding into account, then you cannot talk
> > about scientific/objective limits of knowledge, whereas if what you
> > don=92t take into account is the subjective understanding (which
however=
> > your argument was based on), then you *can* take objective limits of
> > knowledge into account. Pick one. And it=92d better be the second one.
>
> It's neither. Or both. I'll get back to you on that one.
You already picked the wrong one...
> Don't wait up.
You don't have to tell me twice.
[emphatic snip]
> >> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>
> > To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems
=96
> > and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
> > author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
> > hard SF it ain=92t.
>
> Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details
and=
> still enjoy ourselves.
As with Battlestar Galactica...
> >> >> > 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?
>
> >> > Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
> >> > anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
> >> > practical time-travel.
>
> >> That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
> >> _violated_?
>
> > Can you tell us which ones aren=92t? ;-)
>
> Ohm's law. Your turn.
Since there is no science of time-travel you cannot know which laws
are not violated by it.
> >> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> >> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> >> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> >> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>
> >> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
> >> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
> >> beloved ruler!
>
> > But they don=92t make human time-travel practically possible in any
way,=
> > shape or form.
>
> They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
Not wormholes that humans or spaceships can travel safely through.
> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin=92 atcha: Everybody is entitled to
their
> > opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions should
> > be challenged.
>
> We both know what happens when I do that...
We're currently neck-deep in what happens...
> >> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
>
> > You can patronize my =93philosophical=94 science criticism all you
want;=
> > that=92s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
> > Zrrrrrbt!
>
> I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
You *are* patronizing it, and I have always been lucidly aware that
it's not *your idea* of science. Because as you have admitted several
times now, you don't particularly have one. You just like gadgets.
- Tue
|
