On 8 Maj, 22:19, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 23:53, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>
> > 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
> >> >> >> > imagined.
>
> >> >> >> What if it obviously incorrect?
>
> >> >> > Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases,
no=
t
> >> >> > 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
tec=
h.
> >> >> 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
thin=
k
> >> > 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
a=
t
> >> > least likeable (Roslin, Adama, Thrace, several others). Some of the
> >> > loathsome characters are extremely interesting (Baltar, Zarek,
Admira=
l
> >> > Cain). Like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica takes place in a
spaceshi=
p
> >> > 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
th=
e
> >> > 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.
>
> > And yet I happen to know that you have seen every single episode...
>
> Then you know wrong. And I can assure you that I've been pressing Fast
> Forward a lot lately!
>
> > you've no one to blame but yourself. Oh, and come to think of it,
> > me. :-)
>
> Blame for what exactly?
For having sat through a show that disgusts you.
> >> In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't get
t=
o
> >> 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!
>
> No way, it's a central point early on.
If you don't recognize a homage when you see one, there's nothing I
can do about it. For me (who've only seen very tiny bits of the
original series, and basically found it unwatchable) it was great fun.
The designs (and characters) are some of the only things that still
connect the new show to the old, and they've done it in a way that
both honors and satirizes the old show. I think it is brilliantly
done.
> >> >> > 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...
>
> Automatic gainsaying.
=2E..is the soul of any good argument...
> >> 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 putting a murder mystery in a spaceship isn't necessarily science
> fiction?
Science fiction is whatever science fiction fans find interesting.
Science fiction fans tend to like spaceships, so a story in a
spaceship setting is, ipso-facto, science fiction. In any case, if
there's a spaceship in the story, there's a great probability that the
basic world view of the tale is a scientific one as well, also making
it science fiction.
> >> >> >> >> > 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
oft=
en
> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> So you withdraw your claim then?
Certainly not. Anything that is not scientific violates science.
> > 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.
>
> Your knowledge of science and the history of scienc is absolutely
> limited. "Large abstract questions" is your way of saying "philosophy",
> even if you wont admit it.
I'll admit it. Since the scientific community doesn't agree about what
comprises the deep underpinnings of science, they aren't going to
agree that my ideas are scientific, and hence I must, for now, call
them philosophical. For now.
> Your analytical skills are hampered by your dogma.
Your dogma prevents you from understanding that my ideas represent the
ultimate abandonment of any dogma in the classical sense.
> >> >> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin=92 atcha: Everybody is entitled
to
> >> >> > their opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal
objecti=
ve
> >> >> > 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?
>
> > A pause and a re-match. And then I win.
>
> Win? This isn't a game!
Never said it was. Never the less, one world view will win out in the
end.
- Tue
|
