On Monday 05 May 2008 21:47, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> 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’t 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’re 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’s 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’s science. Some guy’s
>> > superstition is just some guy’s superstition. If you believe that
the
>> > cave-man’s 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.
>
Science is the subjectification of objective reality.
>> >> >> 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.
>
My personal feelings about BG is that it's sleep-inducingly boring,
hopelessly pretentious and terminally unimaginative. That's what I feel
when I see an episode. Nothing _ever_ happens, you just get people who
stand around and cry / fight / whisper / stare / pray or whatever. I
simply
don't get what's so great about this.
You're right, it's not steam punk-ish. But everything is dirty, old and
malfunctioning, machinery as well as people. There's no joy to be found,
everything is war and dirt and death.
In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't get to
them if they didn't network their computers. And that only the good old
fighters from the museum stood a chance. That, to me, was a clear
reactionary anti-tech notion, and thereby a mark of non SF.
>> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
>> > I don’t 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.
>
No, I'm talking about science. You're the one who says that there only has
to be a spaceship for something to be SF.
[merciful snip]
>> >> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>>
>> > To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems
–
>> > 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’t.
>>
>> Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details
>> and still enjoy ourselves.
>
> As with Battlestar Galactica...
>
To me, BG isn't terribly entertaining.
>> >> >> > 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’t? ;-)
>>
>> Ohm's law. Your turn.
>
> Since there is no science of time-travel you cannot know which laws
> are not violated by it.
>
Ohm's law is invariant to time, thus reversible. But you're not holding up
your end: you claimed that the very idea of time travel blatantly
disregards basic scientific tenets. Which tenets?
>> >> > 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’t 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.
>
That's not what you asked for.
>> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ 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...
>
The question is: what happens next?
>> >> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
>>
>> > You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you
want;
>> > that’s 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.
Briefly put, science is the method by which we examine the world. There
are
many details and practical issues, but that's about it.
> You just like gadgets.
What was that about you always being serious?
//Niels
|
