On Saturday 10 May 2008 18:17, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> Niels wrote:
>> On Friday 09 May 2008 08:07, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>> >> >> 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!
>> >>
>> >> 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 can't see how this could possibly be an homage. It's not a detail in
>> the background, it has actual meaning in the plot. It's im****tant, not
>> part of the dressing.
>
> Nevertheless. There's no rule limiting the element of a homage. And
> since the only reason for its being there is to make the style and
> design more like the old show in order to satisfy the old fans, it's
> certainly a homage, and I think it is worked expertly into the new
> story. It's not my fault that you don't know a homage when it bites
> you in the butt.
>
You can't just hand wave away the parts you don't like. Calling something
an
homage doesn't mean it can be silly and not affect our perception of the
whole.
>> In a later episode, the Cylons easily started breaking into
>> the system when our heroes coupled them together, which is almost as
>> ridiculous as sparks flying out of the control panels on the
Enterprise.
>
> I think it's alright. Viruses spread through connected systems. That's
> true today; why wouldn't it be true in the BSG world?
>
Viruses spread through _open_ systems. Today, right now, we protect
ourselves from viruses by securing our access points, not by disconnecting
them.
>> >> >> You're the one who says that there only has
>> >> >> to be a space****p for something to be SF.
>> >>
>> >> > Space****ps 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 space****p isn't necessarily science
>> >> fiction?
>> >
>> > Science fiction is whatever science fiction fans find interesting.
>>
>> What??? This is a completely new definition, which is obviously
>> completely false. What're you trying to pull here???
>>
>> > Science fiction fans tend to like space****ps, so a story in a
>> > space****p setting is, ipso-facto, science fiction. In any case, if
>> > there's a space****p 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.
>> >
>> You'd twisting otherwise straightforward concepts to have them fit with
>> you preconceived notions.
>
> I'm sorry if the plasticity and applicability of my conceptual
> apparatus overwhelms your limited intellect.
>
If by "plasticity" you mean "never having to be precise" and by
"applicable"
you mean "can't be used for anything", the yeah, you're the greatest brain
ever.
Too bad I'm sooo stooopid that I can't even understand those things you
can't explain.
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> You've said that before, but you're still, time and time again, using
the
>> word "science" in your own personal meaning.
>
> That makes two of us.
>
>> You're really not being honest
>> about this. In one sentence you say that science means what people
>> generally take it to mean, in the next science is some grand human
>> scheme. Then it's philosophy and soon "Science fiction is whatever
>> science fiction fans find interesting". Really!
>
> These things are all true. And yes I'm being philosophical in my
> approach, because that's the only way our current understanding is
> going to evolve.
That's a claim. Now you must sup****t it with evidence or withdraw it.
> Some of the areas that aren't scientific yet must be
> pushed into the realm of science by philosophical analysis and
> inquiry.
Why? how?
> And yeah, I sometimes use "my own" (i.e. what I am convinced
> will be the future) definition of science, and this will make some
> people confused.
Which you know -- so why do it?
> However, at least I have some new and original ideas,
> unlike *some* people...
I can make up any number of new and original ideas. So what?
> and to people who are close to understanding
> what I'm saying, I can argue very well for my position.
You know, speaking to yourself isn't usually taken as a good sign...
> Unfortunately, you are not among those people...
Who are all these clever people who agree with you and therefore
understand
what you're saying? Or is it the other way around? Have you decided on a
formal name for your flock?
>> I think you should accept that what people generally, and scientists in
>> particular, think of as science is all that which you carelessly
dismiss
>> as "nitty-gritty science". Math, research, logic, statistics,
>> experiments, forming hypothesis and theories, looking for errors,
finding
>> correlations -- that's what it's all about.
>
> That's a simplistic, primitive and untrue claim.
>
It's how I see things, and how I believe most scientists see things.
>> We are at the scientific and
>> technological level we are today, because thousands and thousands of
>> people put hard work into those fields, not because a group of
dedicated
>> philosophers thought and wrote about their personal interpretations of
>> what "to be" actually means.
>
> Just because they're not so readily visible, foundational paradigms
> are there all the same.
>
So what? You _never_ explain what difference, in practical terms,
underlying
philosophies make!
//Niels
|
