On 5 Maj, 22:18, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 21:47, Tue Sorensen wrote:
Niels wrote:
> Science is the subjectification of objective reality.
That depends.
> >> >> >> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> >> >> > In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or
imagine=
d.
>
> >> >> What if it obviously incorrect?
>
> >> > Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases, not
S=
F
> >> > 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
sa=
y
> >> 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
simpl=
y
> don't get what's so great about this.
And yet I happen to know that you have seen every single episode...
you've no one to blame but yourself. Oh, and come to think of it,
me. :-)
> You're right, it's not steam punk-ish. But everything is dirty, old and
> malfunctioning, machinery as well as people.
You mean like in the original Star Wars trilogy? Now *that* was a cool
look... Whattaya mean the people are old? They are not! It's a
perfectly youthful show.
> There's no joy to be found,
> everything is war and dirt and death.
You may have missed your true calling: writing depressed war poetry.
> 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.
It was a homage to the old show! Get over it!
> >> > 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.
>
> No, I'm talking about science.
Well, you think you are, anyway...
> You're the one who says that there only has
> to be a spaceship for something to be SF.
Spaceships are good. I could eat them up. Yummy. But first and
foremost there has to be a scientific attitude.
> >> >> 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...
>
> To me, BG isn't terribly entertaining.
Guess it doesn't have to be for you to watch it...
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> 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?
Since there is no science of time-travel, it is an irrelevant
question. How can the non-science of time-travel be related to
existing scientific laws? You're trying to trap me into exposing my
partial ignorance of specific science, but my name is Alan Greenspan
and I don't work that way! (Now *there's* an obscure comics reference
if ever there was one!) My knowledge of nitty-gritty science is
admittedly relatively limited - I mostly work with large abstract
questions -, and what detailed knowledge I do have tends to be
passive, so I can't volunteer it. But I can analyze it into next week
if you present it to me for scrutiny! But I still don't see how actual
science has any real relevance to the non-science of time-travel.
> >> >> > 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
w=
ay,
> >> > 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.
Actually, if you read back, it specifically was.
> >> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin=92 atcha: Everybody is entitled to
the=
ir
> >> > opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
> >> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions
shoul=
d
> >> > 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?
A pause and a re-match. And then I win.
> >> > You can patronize my =93philosophical=94 science criticism all you
wa=
nt;
> >> > 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.
>
> Briefly put, science is the method by which we examine the world. There
ar=
e
> many details and practical issues, but that's about it.
I'll agree with you about that much - but to me an important corollary
is that the world has taught us to be scientific. Ultimately, the
principles of science come to us from external reality. We just
haven't understood them entirely yet.
- Tue
|
