{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6135", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6135, "subject": "Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "messages": 6, "voices": 3, "first": "2011-12-07T16:59:06+00:00", "last": "2011-12-16T18:49:00+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-07T16:59:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It appears that there may be something to the inheritance of acquired\ncharacteristics:\n\nhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205102713.htm" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB6975.8010208@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T15:53:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history and \nmythology).\n\nSome apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and biologist \n(and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any mistakes or ignore \nany facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can know everything Mankind \nknows today, and never make mistakes, and even if one could, Mankind itself \nhas not progressed that far in its knowledge that such a person would never \nerr. To believe that current knowledge is unshakeable and its progress will \nbe merely gradual from now on is recentist. It really is the same as all \nthose data tapes in early sf. Now, what people don't usually realise is that \nso-called hard sf is itself a matter of abundant data tapes. Then there's \nthe opposite - people who consider that since current knowledge is never \ncomplete, then anything goes when devising their sceneries.\n\nI don't think GW falls into either trap. For one thing, his stories are sf \nbecause sf frees him to do what a 'naturalist(ic)' framework wouldn't allow. \nOtherwise, they might do without the sf element. Yes, sometimes he is \ninterested in exploring the real-sf possibilities of sf (as opposed to just \nthe freedom from 'naturalism'), but that's not imo a very significant part \nof his work. Now, how does he cope with the problem of recentism vs \nabsurdism? Quite well, I think - he does what he thinks can be reasonably \ndefended. He doesn't try to make it defensible, nor offer tedious \nexplanations for it; he just avoids that which would be awkward to defend. \nSo if he wants an item that current knowledge has no way of producing, what \nhe has to look into is whether it _is_ possible that a breakthrough in the \nunderstanding of the Universe will make it achievable. If so, why not use \nit? (Conversely, Ray Cummings's _Insect Invasion_ or tGitGA, while \ninteresting, are simply too difficult to defend - but then RC's objectives \nwere different from GW's.)\n\nGW doesn't mean to teach science or history. He uses them carefully in \nbuilding his world(s). He takes care not to do anything with them that can \nbe absolutely invalidated. For instance, the Sun's visibility from Blue may \nor may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge of \nastrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way it will \nprogress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to be able to \nobserve more of the Universe than it allows us today].\n\nAs to what hard sf really should be, I think some of AC Clarke is a good \nexample - and it has nothing to do with projecting current knowledge and \ntechnology. It's rather having stories driven (at least in part, of course) \nby the logical outcome of actions and starting conditions, as understood by \na science that may or may not be our own but is consistent. RVwM is a good \nexample of this, imo, if one excepts the part about the 3-limbed aliens \n(which however was integral to the story, but I think the book would be \nbetter if the episode had been left out - the implication was there anyway, \nand one might think of better alternatives than the one presented)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB7546.3000308@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:43:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB6975.8010208@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nI think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history\nand mythology).\n\nSome apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and\nbiologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any\nmistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can\nknow everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of \ngeneral established science, available popular science literature, and \nthe abstracts of past and new developments in their fields of interest. \nI would hope that the science relevant to a science fiction story they \nplan to sell would count as within those fields of interest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For instance, the Sun's visibility from\nBlue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge\nof astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way\nit will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to\nbe able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today]." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have \nvery well worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of \nnearby stars and have had for over a century now. This of course does \nnot restrict a writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science \nfiction needs to have a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the \nauthority of science for suspending disbelief and at least suggest by \nimplication a reason for deviating from science as the astute reader is \nlikely to know it." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB7709.3090400@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T16:51:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB7546.3000308@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history\nand mythology).\n\nSome apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and\nbiologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any\nmistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can\nknow everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of general\nestablished science, available popular science literature, and the abstracts\nof past and new developments in their fields of interest. I would hope that\nthe science relevant to a science fiction story they plan to sell would\ncount as within those fields of interest." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which is different from being an expert in those fields, able to come up \nwith ideas the researchers themselves aren't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For instance, the Sun's visibility from\nBlue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge\nof astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way\nit will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to\nbe able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today]." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have very\nwell worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of nearby\nstars and have had for over a century now. This of course does not restrict\na writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science fiction needs to\nhave a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the authority of science\nfor suspending disbelief and at least suggest by implication a reason for\ndeviating from science as the astute reader is likely to know it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll have to disagree here, both on the existence of an appeal and the \nrestrictions imposed by current knowledge. Otoh, there are cryptic \nreferences to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the narrator \nmay not be interpreting facts correctly, so there." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB80FA.40305@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T17:33:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB7709.3090400@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 10:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nJeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history\nand mythology).\n\nSome apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and\nbiologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any\nmistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can\nknow everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of general\nestablished science, available popular science literature, and the\nabstracts\nof past and new developments in their fields of interest. I would hope\nthat\nthe science relevant to a science fiction story they plan to sell would\ncount as within those fields of interest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Which is different from being an expert in those fields, able to come up\nwith ideas the researchers themselves aren't." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don;t follow you here." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "For instance, the Sun's visibility from\nBlue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge\nof astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way\nit will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to\nbe able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today]." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have very\nwell worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of nearby\nstars and have had for over a century now. This of course does not\nrestrict\na writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science fiction needs to\nhave a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the authority of science\nfor suspending disbelief and at least suggest by implication a reason for\ndeviating from science as the astute reader is likely to know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll have to disagree here, both on the existence of an appeal and the\nrestrictions imposed by current knowledge." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Scienceless science fiction? Good luck with that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Otoh, there are cryptic\nreferences to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the\nnarrator may not be interpreting facts correctly, so there." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An unreliable narrator is a start, but he has to be shown to be \nunreliable in certain ways that allow the deviation but not in others, \nlest the story lose coherence entirely and dissolve into aimles fabulation.\n\nHow can you have science fiction without authoritative science?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EEB929C.6070104@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-16T18:49:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!", "in_reply_to": "<4EEB80FA.40305@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 17:33):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/16/2011 10:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history\nand mythology).\n\nSome apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and\nbiologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any\nmistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can\nknow everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of general\nestablished science, available popular science literature, and the\nabstracts\nof past and new developments in their fields of interest. I would hope\nthat\nthe science relevant to a science fiction story they plan to sell would\ncount as within those fields of interest." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Which is different from being an expert in those fields, able to come up\nwith ideas the researchers themselves aren't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don;t follow you here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You don't? Some people think that not only an sf writer has to know \neverything there is to know about the plausibility of time travel and green \nmen, but also be able to explain to an unlimited degree of precision how \nthose things are to come about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "For instance, the Sun's visibility from\nBlue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge\nof astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way\nit will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to\nbe able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today]." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have very\nwell worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of nearby\nstars and have had for over a century now. This of course does not\nrestrict\na writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science fiction needs to\nhave a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the authority of science\nfor suspending disbelief and at least suggest by implication a reason for\ndeviating from science as the astute reader is likely to know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'll have to disagree here, both on the existence of an appeal and the\nrestrictions imposed by current knowledge." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Scienceless science fiction? Good luck with that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What's 'scienceless science fiction' got to do with what I wrote?\nWhat appeal to the authority of science to suspend disbelief is there in the \nnarrator's assessment of the position of the Red Sun in his night sky?\nWith daily news about galaxies that look older than possible, neutrinos that \nmay or may not travel ftl and 'habitable' planets 600ly away which nobody \nhad seen before, what's a red dot in the sky?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Otoh, there are cryptic\nreferences to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the\nnarrator may not be interpreting facts correctly, so there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "An unreliable narrator is a start, but he has to be shown to be unreliable\nin certain ways that allow the deviation but not in others, lest the story\nlose coherence entirely and dissolve into aimles fabulation.\n\nHow can you have science fiction without authoritative science?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What's authoritative science? Where is it in sf?" } ] } ] }