Subject: (urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:59:06 +0000

It appears that there may be something to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205102713.htm

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:53:25 +0000

I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history and 
mythology).

Some apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and biologist 
(and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any mistakes or ignore 
any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can know everything Mankind 
knows today, and never make mistakes, and even if one could, Mankind itself 
has not progressed that far in its knowledge that such a person would never 
err. To believe that current knowledge is unshakeable and its progress will 
be merely gradual from now on is recentist. It really is the same as all 
those data tapes in early sf. Now, what people don't usually realise is that 
so-called hard sf is itself a matter of abundant data tapes. Then there's 
the opposite - people who consider that since current knowledge is never 
complete, then anything goes when devising their sceneries.

I don't think GW falls into either trap. For one thing, his stories are sf 
because sf frees him to do what a 'naturalist(ic)' framework wouldn't allow. 
Otherwise, they might do without the sf element. Yes, sometimes he is 
interested in exploring the real-sf possibilities of sf (as opposed to just 
the freedom from 'naturalism'), but that's not imo a very significant part 
of his work. Now, how does he cope with the problem of recentism vs 
absurdism? Quite well, I think - he does what he thinks can be reasonably 
defended. He doesn't try to make it defensible, nor offer tedious 
explanations for it; he just avoids that which would be awkward to defend. 
So if he wants an item that current knowledge has no way of producing, what 
he has to look into is whether it _is_ possible that a breakthrough in the 
understanding of the Universe will make it achievable. If so, why not use 
it? (Conversely, Ray Cummings's _Insect Invasion_ or tGitGA, while 
interesting, are simply too difficult to defend - but then RC's objectives 
were different from GW's.)

GW doesn't mean to teach science or history. He uses them carefully in 
building his world(s). He takes care not to do anything with them that can 
be absolutely invalidated. For instance, the Sun's visibility from Blue may 
or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge of 
astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way it will 
progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to be able to 
observe more of the Universe than it allows us today].

As to what hard sf really should be, I think some of AC Clarke is a good 
example - and it has nothing to do with projecting current knowledge and 
technology. It's rather having stories driven (at least in part, of course) 
by the logical outcome of actions and starting conditions, as understood by 
a science that may or may not be our own but is consistent. RVwM is a good 
example of this, imo, if one excepts the part about the 3-limbed aliens 
(which however was integral to the story, but I think the book would be 
better if the episode had been left out - the implication was there anyway, 
and one might think of better alternatives than the one presented).

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:43:50 +0000

On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history
> and mythology).
>
> Some apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and
> biologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any
> mistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can
> know everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even

However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of 
general established science, available popular science literature, and 
the abstracts of past and new developments in their fields of interest. 
I would hope that the science relevant to a science fiction story they 
plan to sell would count as within those fields of interest.

> For instance, the Sun's visibility from
> Blue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge
> of astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way
> it will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to
> be able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today].

Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have 
very well worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of 
nearby stars and have had for over a century now. This of course does 
not restrict a writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science 
fiction needs to have a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the 
authority of science for suspending disbelief and at least suggest by 
implication a reason for deviating from science as the astute reader is 
likely to know it.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:51:21 +0000

Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):
> However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of general
> established science, available popular science literature, and the abstracts
> of past and new developments in their fields of interest. I would hope that
> the science relevant to a science fiction story they plan to sell would
> count as within those fields of interest.

Which is different from being an expert in those fields, able to come up 
with ideas the researchers themselves aren't.

> Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have very
> well worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of nearby
> stars and have had for over a century now. This of course does not restrict
> a writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science fiction needs to
> have a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the authority of science
> for suspending disbelief and at least suggest by implication a reason for
> deviating from science as the astute reader is likely to know it.

I'll have to disagree here, both on the existence of an appeal and the 
restrictions imposed by current knowledge. Otoh, there are cryptic 
references to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the narrator 
may not be interpreting facts correctly, so there.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:33:46 +0000

> with ideas the researchers themselves aren't.

I don;t follow you here.

> restrictions imposed by current knowledge.

Scienceless science fiction? Good luck with that.

 > Otoh, there are cryptic
> references to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the
> narrator may not be interpreting facts correctly, so there.

An unreliable narrator is a start, but he has to be shown to be 
unreliable in certain ways that allow the deviation but not in others, 
lest the story lose coherence entirely and dissolve into aimles fabulation.

How can you have science fiction without authoritative science?

---

From: António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:49:00 +0000

>> with ideas the researchers themselves aren't.

You don't? Some people think that not only an sf writer has to know 
everything there is to know about the plausibility of time travel and green 
men, but also be able to explain to an unlimited degree of precision how 
those things are to come about.

> Scienceless science fiction? Good luck with that.

What's 'scienceless science fiction' got to do with what I wrote?
What appeal to the authority of science to suspend disbelief is there in the 
narrator's assessment of the position of the Red Sun in his night sky?
With daily news about galaxies that look older than possible, neutrinos that 
may or may not travel ftl and 'habitable' planets 600ly away which nobody 
had seen before, what's a red dot in the sky?

> An unreliable narrator is a start, but he has to be shown to be unreliable
> in certain ways that allow the deviation but not in others, lest the story
> lose coherence entirely and dissolve into aimles fabulation.
>

What's authoritative science? Where is it in sf?