Wolfe Vindicated Again!

António Pedro Marques · 16 Dec 2011, 16:51 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:51:21 +0000
Subject: (urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!
In-Reply-To: <4EEB7546.3000308 at clueland.com>
References: <CAJ8=rti-8wG+pqEwmcTbNejRojomnZOeV2N2DmEidy5Mpu_Pdg at mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEB6975.8010208 at gmail.com> <4EEB7546.3000308 at clueland.com>
Message-ID: <4EEB7709.3090400 at gmail.com>

Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):
> 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.

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

>> 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.

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.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net