S&S vs. SF in BotNS

entonio at gmail.com · 24 Dec 2011, 10:18 · 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 (entonio at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:18:42 +0000
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <4EF58E84.9080208 at clueland.com>
References: <SNT123-W6264EC536A69C6A6153331CFAA0 at phx.gbl>
	<4EF414CF.3000700 at clueland.com> <4EF462C8.909 at gmail.com>
	<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>
	<4EF49B4F.3060806 at gmail.com> <4EF58E84.9080208 at clueland.com>
Message-ID: <E7544662-4DDA-4C90-97C9-F6F70A7D1E98 at gmail.com>

No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:34, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com> escreveu:
> I think I was speaking about how credibility aids suspension of disbelief in a given work of science fiction. Demonstated scientific accuracy greatly aids credibility,

But if the science is demonstrably accurate, where does said disbelief come from? Is it something like the rejection of technology by magic folks in _changeling_, where the guy to no avail claims that what he's doing is just like boiling water?

> but it's totally optional: Wells articulated that his books were based on impossibilities, yet they are undeniably science fiction by the standards of their time as well as ours.

Sure thing.

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