Not One of Us
James Nicoll
Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
common with cultish folk:
Two questions:
Is fantasy anti-scientific?
What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
Actually, a third question:
What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
netcat
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
>
> Two questions:
>
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
According to Dawkins, apparently so. However that guy must be rather
conflicted, if he simultaneously likes Pullman. Obviously only fantasy
where (G|g)od(s) get killed is scientific.
rgds,
netcat
Mike Schilling
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
ITYM something *else* in common with cultish folk, in addition to his
desire to convert the world to his religion.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ge9sgo$4po$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
Finally? Dawkins has always had a lot in common with the cultists. Go
read _The True Believer_ by Eric Hoffer. Dawkins is a prime candidate
for recruitment in to a religious cult.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
Even overtly SF stories with "soft" science, like faster-than-light
spaceships with unconvincing rationales, can get children interested
in becoming scientists when they grow up.
Stories with witches and goblins and the like, though, will warp
children's minds, and seduce them into going for English Literature
majors when they go to college or something!
So, yes, stories with overtly fantastical elements are worse!!!
John Savard
PV
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
>Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
>common with cultish folk:
Sigh. Dawkins should stick to evolution, which he's dead right about, and
shut the hell up about anything else. He's really a pontificating
twat sometimes. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Nicholas Waller
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
Is he particularly Concerned About Harry Potter? The headline says so
("Harry Potter has become the latest target for Professor Richard
Dawkins") but headlines are written by sub-editors.
I bet Dawkins was talking generally about his wide-ranging and
interesting-sounding project and the interviewer (who, possibly,
hasn't heard of any fantasy children's author apart from Rowling)
simply asked, "what about Harry Potter?". "I haven't read any Potter,"
says Dawkins, who apparently wants to talk about all sorts of fairy
stories, creation myths, fictions, religious beliefs and so on and
hasn't particularly (I am guessing) set out to denounce Rowling. But
what the hell, Killjoy Atheist Dawkins Targets Potter.
> Two questions:
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
Not necessarily, in the same way that historical novels or chicklit
aren't, necessarily, anti-scientific. Often non-scientific, perhaps.
But they're obviously more likely to be anti-scientific if the author
is less keen on science (trashing technical types who eschew magic)
and more keen on some sort of supernatural force.
A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the
facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case
being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence
and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to
research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts -
monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).
> What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
If they get it deliberately wrong in order to debunk the scientific
worldview or trash scientists or promulgate some tinfoil idea of their
own then I suppose by definition they would be anti-scientific. But if
in the 1950s a story deliberately gets something wrong in
contemporary terms that subsequently turns out to be correct in 2000,
I wouldn't call that anti-scientific, even if it was only a lucky
guess, or a playful what-if (being "prematurely correct").
There's anti-scientific, non-scientific, pro-science but lacking in
detailed technical competence, pro-science but being playful...
> Actually, a third question:
>
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
It may depend on how much rigour there is in the implementation of the
rules of the world... whichever story has more deus ex machinas pulled
out of rabbits is probably the worse one. As science fiction stories
are not stories about science, as William Atheling Jr pointed out, I
don't think they have to be completely accurate to the science truths
of the day they are written.
"Bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards" is surely anti-
scientific, but I don't think reading fiction about such things from
Rowling and Tolkien leads to children "believing" in them per se. If
kids really grew up thinking Gandalf or Harry or Luke Skywalker tapped
into real powers, well, I think everyone would think that a bad
thing.
I should think Dawkins' main worry is that kids really do grow up to
believe that saints and Jesus and Kali and whoever have real magical
powers. And I wouldn't be surprised if he decided, in fact, that
reading a wide range of deliberately authored fiction and fantasies
and so on might help kids understand that religious myths and legends
are in a similar sort of category. Which maybe is why some Christian
groups are worried about Potter.
Nick
Urban Fredriksson
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>Is fantasy anti-scientific?
Not as a genre.
>What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
Bad science is still science.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A boundary between the known and the unknown always exists.
Gene
@reader1.panix.com:
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-
over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
Dawkins has long been concerned with the sheer Eeeevil of having different
religio-metaphysical beliefs than his own, so he's always been like these
cultie dudes. This appears to be more of the same. Maybe the Devil made him
do it.
Bill Snyder
Naah, it must have been one of those meme thingies practicing its
spooky mind control powers.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Louann Miller
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
You know he's married to Romana 2, right? And that they were introduced by
mutual friend Doug Adams? He can't be too worried.
Gene
51pKJXUnZ2d...@giganews.com:
> You know he's married to Romana 2, right? And that they were introduced by
> mutual friend Doug Adams? He can't be too worried.
He claims both that fantasy fiction rots the brain and that he loves Pullman.
If he's right his brain has been rotted, and if he's wrong then he's wrong.
I'm also wondering about the idea that fantasy literature is for children and
Rowling and Pullman are its foremost exponents.
trag
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> rote in news:Y7KdnRw4_
> 51pKJXUnZ2dnUVZ_uCdn...@giganews.com:
>
> > You know he's married to Romana 2, right? And that they were introduced by
> > mutual friend Doug Adams? He can't be too worried.
>
> He claims both that fantasy fiction rots the brain and that he loves Pullman.
> If he's right his brain has been rotted, and if he's wrong then he's wrong.
He made no such claim. He stated that he was concerned about it and
was going to research what effect, if any, it has. Which is a very
scientific attitude to take.
Nicholas Waller
> jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in news:ge9sgo$4po$1
He likes sf, he says in comments to various appearances of this "let's
research fairy tales" story:
"I love science fiction, and think it is wonderful for stimulating
imaginative scientific ideas. Science thrives on imagination, the
wilder the better. I was never talking about anything close to science
fiction, in any case. I was talking about magic spells, turning
princes into frogs and things like that. That is not science fiction,
that is fairy tales."
As far as references to him "joining the hordes of people Concerned
About Harry Potter" goes, that (as I suspected) appears to be some
sort of simple-minded headlining by a sub-editor:
"Also, I have no view on Harry Potter. I know nothing about Harry
Potter, one way or the other. I have never read Harry Potter, and,
contrary to the More4 report, I never said anything about Harry
Potter. All I said was that it would be nice to see some RESEARCH on
the question of the influence of magical stories on children."
Comments 2 and 3 at http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,53
People in newspapers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail evidently
make it a matter of policy to misrepresent him and perhaps everyone
else.
Nick
Gene
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>> He claims both that fantasy fiction rots the brain and that he loves
Pullman.
>> If he's right his brain has been rotted, and if he's wrong then he's
wrong.
>
> He made no such claim. He stated that he was concerned about it and
> was going to research what effect, if any, it has. Which is a very
> scientific attitude to take.
Sounds like brainrot to me. Too many stories with talking frogs when he was a
kid, I'd guess.
Gene
a4f2da...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> "I love science fiction, and think it is wonderful for stimulating
> imaginative scientific ideas. Science thrives on imagination, the
> wilder the better. I was never talking about anything close to science
> fiction, in any case. I was talking about magic spells, turning
> princes into frogs and things like that. That is not science fiction,
> that is fairy tales."
When people spout off like this on this group, they always seem to have
thoroughly rotted brains. "Science fiction good, fantasy bad. Ugh. Duh.
Slobber." It's hardly likely he's genetically stupid, so brain rot seems,
Scientifically Speaking, about all it can be. Quant suff.
Robert A. Woodward
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
<snip, re: Yawn>
>
> Two questions:
>
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
>
It's non-scientific (in general), which is different.
> What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
>
How so? Was the author ignorant, disinterested, careless, or
perhaps having a better idea?
> Actually, a third question:
>
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
Neither would be bad in proper hands. What's worse is a story
written by an author enamored by his own cleverness.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Mike Schilling
>> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
>> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty
>> fantastical?
>
> Neither would be bad in proper hands. What's worse is a story
> written by an author enamored by his own cleverness.
Unless the author really is as clever as he thinks he is. Admittedly,
this is rare.
Nicholas Waller
> Nicholas Waller <testo...@aol.com> rote in news:ad3f7d75-a222-421e-a406-
> a4f2da2c3...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > "I love science fiction, and think it is wonderful for stimulating
> > imaginative scientific ideas. Science thrives on imagination, the
> > wilder the better. I was never talking about anything close to science
> > fiction, in any case. I was talking about magic spells, turning
> > princes into frogs and things like that. That is not science fiction,
> > that is fairy tales."
>
> When people spout off like this on this group, they always seem to have
> thoroughly rotted brains. "Science fiction good, fantasy bad. Ugh. Duh.
> Slobber." It's hardly likely he's genetically stupid, so brain rot seems,
> Scientifically Speaking, about all it can be. Quant suff.
But he doesn't say that fantasy or even fairy tales is bad, or
slobber, he's wondering if maybe fairy tales have a deleterious effect
on rationality. Or not. You may think he has largely made up his mind
already, but he doesn't say he has.
What he does say - written him, rather than mediated through either
the Torygraph or the Daily Heil - is
"And, funnily enough, I am genuinely agnostic over the question of the
educational consequences of supernatural fiction. I really don't think
it is obvious, one way or the other. I really could see it going
either way."
and
"Same with children and magic. I don't care what you feel, and I don't
care what I feel. I want to see the evidence. Please stop telling us
what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your
intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I
don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know that
the evidence shows."
http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,53
Nick
Quadibloc
> "Same with children and magic. I don't care what you feel, and I don't
> care what I feel. I want to see the evidence.
> I want to know that
> the evidence shows."
But that _proves_ Richard Dawkins is eeeevil! He wants to do
controlled experiments on CHILDREN by depriving them of fairy-tales!
John Savard
Jon Schild
James Nicoll wrote:
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html
>
> Two questions:
>
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
No. Non- and Anti- are different prefixes for a reason. All fantasy is
non-scientific. Very little is anti-scientific, in that it actually
preaches that science and scientists are wrong.
> What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
What about them? The usual term is science FICTION, after all.
> Actually, a third question:
>
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
There is a third option, which is the worst. So-called "non-fiction"
that is actually fiction attempting to be otherwise. This includes
astrology, creationism, and many many other topics.
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Gene
7f4285...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> "Same with children and magic. I don't care what you feel, and I don't
> care what I feel. I want to see the evidence. Please stop telling us
> what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your
> intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I
> don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know that
> the evidence shows."
To single out fantasy for testing assumes in advance it is suspect. If you
wanted to be "scientific", you would instead propose testing the question
of how the genre of fiction read affects children psychologically. Since
reading preferences are self-selected, you'd then be faced with the fact
that you can't distinguish cause from effect. You'd need to divide children
into groups and force them to read only what you allow, all without clueing
them in as to what outcome you expect. Or, of course, you could just let
them read a few fairy tales versus some other kind of story, and test them
immediately afterwards. With basically meaningless results.
This is all headed toward the cesspool of pseudoscience that such studies
are liable to unless very carefully thought out and controlled, which in
this case I don't think is going to be possible. Moreover, its premise is
the same kind of purse-lipped, pinch-faced censoriousness which has dogged
the question of children's reading habits for decades. Historically,
science fiction is Eevil. Comic books are Eevil. Yadda yadda yadda, and on
and on endlessly.
What you could do instead if you wished would be to collect data on reading
habits, either of children or for adult recalling what they read as
children, and then attempt to correlate the results with psychological
tests. WITHOUT any lunatic presupposition that any particular subgenera of
children's literature will be correlated with some kind of Eevil.
Sorry, but Dawkins is being a dickhead on this issue, and his approach is
not very scientific.
Brion K. Lienhart
> As far as references to him "joining the hordes of people Concerned
> About Harry Potter" goes, that (as I suspected) appears to be some
> sort of simple-minded headlining by a sub-editor:
>
> "Also, I have no view on Harry Potter. I know nothing about Harry
> Potter, one way or the other. I have never read Harry Potter, and,
> contrary to the More4 report, I never said anything about Harry
> Potter. All I said was that it would be nice to see some RESEARCH on
> the question of the influence of magical stories on children."
>
> Comments 2 and 3 at http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,53
>
> People in newspapers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail evidently
> make it a matter of policy to misrepresent him and perhaps everyone
> else.
Dawkins is always good for a controversy. Anybody attacking HP is good
for a controversy. Dawkins utters the words "Harry Potter", it doesn't
matter what he actually said about them, the press see gigantic dollar
signs exploding all over the place.
chuck c.
You mean like Ray Bradbury's stories?
CC
Gene
_IlZfUnZ2dn...@comcast.com:
> Dawkins utters the words "Harry Potter", it doesn't
> matter what he actually said about them, the press see gigantic dollar
> signs exploding all over the place.
What Dawkins sad about Harry Potter was that children's literature with
wizards and spells is anti-scientific. Hence, Dawkins is claiming, without
reference to any studies whatever, that Potter is anti-scientific. The
supposedly "scientific" studies he is proposing would merely be to find out
if being anti-scientific is Eevil. But of course, we know the answer to that.
The man is full of shit, and that people defend him on *this* newsgroup is
spineless and pitiful.
Gene
482427...@17g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
>> So, yes, stories with overtly fantastical elements are worse!!!
> You mean like Ray Bradbury's stories?
The worst is probably Lewis Carroll, because it is so illogical. It's
probable that no scientist or mathematician ever grew up reading Carroll, and
I think Dawkins should fund a study to fund out.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>No. Non- and Anti- are different prefixes for a reason. All fantasy is
>non-scientific. Very little is anti-scientific, in that it actually
>preaches that science and scientists are wrong.
Anti-scientific fantasy is often marketed to a different audience than
us.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Damien Sullivan
>In article <ge9sgo$4po$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com says...
>> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
>
>According to Dawkins, apparently so. However that guy must be rather
Where did he say that?
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
>>Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
>>common with cultish folk:
>
>Sigh. Dawkins should stick to evolution, which he's dead right about, and
>shut the hell up about anything else. He's really a pontificating
Where did he pontificate in that article?
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
Attributing things to people they didn't say sounds like brainrot to me.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
>Nicholas Waller <test...@aol.com> rote in news:f8d7062f-d07d-4b7f-9009-
>7f4285...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>Sorry, but Dawkins is being a dickhead on this issue, and his approach is
>not very scientific.
How do you know what his approach is going to be based on a few quotes
in a news article and a 4 minute interview video, in neither of which he
mentions anything more specific other than an intent to research?
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
>What Dawkins sad about Harry Potter was that children's literature with
>wizards and spells is anti-scientific. Hence, Dawkins is claiming, without
He said, if not quote-mangled, that "bringing children up to believe in
spells and wizards" was anti-scientific. Which it would be. Reading
fantasy fiction is, of course, not bringing children up to believe in
spells and wizards.
Honestly the quotes seem a bit confused to me, which might be brain rot,
or just might be bad off-the-cuff remarks in an interview. But he
didn't commit himself to anything, certainly nothing justifying the
reactions.
-xx- Damien X-)
Gene
news:c6hkg4hq0kbq10lli...@4ax.com:
> Anti-scientific fantasy is often marketed to a different audience than
> us.
Wjo was Cradle of Saturn marketed to?
Gene
> Attributing things to people they didn't say sounds like brainrot to me.
Pathjetic. Do you r4eally think someone who claims fan6tasy is "anti-
scientific: is worthy of respect on a group devoted to fantasy?
What a turkey.
Gene
> Where did he say that?
In the interview we are discussing, Stupid.
Gene
> How do you know what his approach is going to be based on a few quotes
> in a news article and a 4 minute interview video, in neither of which he
> mentions anything more specific other than an intent to research?
His moronic comments suffice.
Gene
> He said, if not quote-mangled, that "bringing children up to believe in
> spells and wizards" was anti-scientific. Which it would be. Reading
> fantasy fiction is, of course, not bringing children up to believe in
> spells and wizards.
Dawkins whole point is that maybe it is. Don't you agree with your Maximum
Leader?
Damien Sullivan
Except he didn't say that.
-xx- Damien X-)
Gene
> Except he didn't say that.
What in hell do you think "bringing children up to believe in spells and
wizards" means, given that the subject is children's fantasy literature?
Bill Snyder
Remember the narrator on that lawn-sprinkler-rainbow video that
someone posted a link to a few days back?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Matthias Warkus
W. Citoan
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
The actual interview was done by Channel 4 and is on video. You can
find it at their site:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/dawkins+warning+over+fairy+stories/2640487
- W. Citoan
--
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
-- Graffiti
Silk
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
>
> Two questions:
>
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
Silk
Also Dawkins's 'scientism' seems slightly religious.On the other hand
he gets cred for being married to a former Dr Who girl
Nicholas Waller
> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
> common with cultish folk:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-sp...
>
> Two questions:
>
> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
>
>
>
> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements oronethat
> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
Though not directly referencing Dawkins' comments (which weren't about
Potter), this seems to have some passing relevance to the general
discussion: the people running the blogs Biology In Science Fiction
and Almost Diamonds are doing a panel on science fiction at Science09
and soliciting comments from science bloggers in advance -
"Science blogging conference Science09 decided to survey science
bloggers about their feelings on science fiction, and the results were
surprisingly negative. At the very least, science experts don't seem
to think scifi is promoting scientific literacy — and it may actually
be making people more clueless, rather than less."
http://io9.com/5092284/science-fiction-is-making-you-more-clueless-about-science
Nick
Gene
586139...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
> At the very least, science experts don't seem
> to think scifi is promoting scientific literacy
Well, duh. Fortunately, that's not its purpose.
Nicholas Waller
> Nicholas Waller <testo...@aol.com> rote in news:2cd3733a-3682-49e7-8116-
> 5861397ec...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> > At the very least, science experts don't seem
> > to think scifi is promoting scientific literacy
>
> Well, duh. Fortunately, that's not its purpose.
I didn't rite it, I quoted it (I don't like the scifi term,
personally).
But the more interesting end of the quote was that sf "may actually be
making people more clueless, rather than less", which is why it has
some bearing on the rest of this thread (albeit Dawkins likes science
fiction and said nothing about Potter, etc etc); ie., are some of the
fictions we are told making us generally less rational-minded.
Nick
Robert Bannister
> On 29 Oct, 14:38, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> Richard Dawkins joins the hordes of people Concerned About
>> Harry Potter, which interestingly finally gives him something in
>> common with cultish folk:
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-sp...
>>
>> Two questions:
>>
>> Is fantasy anti-scientific?
>>
>> What about SF stories that get the science-of-their-day wrong?
>>
>> Actually, a third question:
>>
>> What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements oronethat
>> plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
I didn't see the original message, so I'm piggybacking on Nick's -
apologies if the attributions seems strange.
My feeling is that 1) a great deal of science would look like
magic/fantasy to earlier generations, and if you want sf to be
restricted to existing science, it would be very boring.
2) There seems to be some disagreement in this forum about what
constitutes fantasy: a lot of rasw readers apparently hate time travel
and yet are quite happy with FTL travel even though this necessarily
includes an element of time travel - where's the logic?
3) When we get to some of the more esoteric theories about cosmology, I
find things like the Big Bang very little easier to cope with than
creationist stuff - it all sounds pretty fantastical to me. I won't even
think about those particles that are supposed to exist in 2 places at once.
BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
ever tackled this.
--
--
Rob Bannister
trag
> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
> ever tackled this.
I think the idea is that the speed of expansion and the speed of light
limit mean that you can never reach/observe the edges anyway, so the
question is meaningless. However, I may be wildly wrong because I am
not a well educated physicist.
In one of Niven's stories he did have a man in a brussard ramjet reach
the edge of the universe and start curving around--I think. There
was some mention of it at the very end of the story.
I don't remember the name of the story but it was the one with a
paranoid guy on meds, who falls off his meds commits murder gets back
on the meds and ends up in a ramjet with an autodoc that can keep him
alive forever, being chased by the husband of his victim in another
ramjet. And there was some stuff with comm lasers, but I'll leave
out that spoiler. Just mentioning it so someone doesn't chime in to
remind me that I forgot it. :-)
In the last volume of Blish's "Cities in Flight" they go to the very
center of the universe. Not the same thing, but worth mentioning, I
think.
Stephen Baxter ends almost every book with the heat death of the
universe. Not really relevant at all, but I just like mentioning
it. ;-)
raymond larsson
@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, tr...@io.com says...
> On Nov 19, 4:56 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
> > universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
> > stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
> > ever tackled this.
Where are the edges of a sphere to something that is confined to its
surface ?
> In one of Niven's stories
[...]
> I don't remember the name of the story but it was the one with a
> paranoid guy on meds, who falls off his meds commits murder gets back
> on the meds and ends up in a ramjet with an autodoc that can keep him
> alive forever, being chased by the husband of his victim in another
> ramjet. And there was some stuff with comm lasers, but I'll leave
> out that spoiler. Just mentioning it so someone doesn't chime in to
> remind me that I forgot it. :-)
"The Ethics Of Madness"
William December Starr
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> said:
> 2) There seems to be some disagreement in this forum about what
> constitutes fantasy: a lot of rasw readers apparently hate time
> travel
???
> and yet are quite happy with FTL travel even though this
> necessarily includes an element of time travel
Since the author gets to make up his own rules, no it doesn't.
-- wds
Gene
@mid.individual.net:
> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
> ever tackled this.
Glad to hear it. But alas, Tau Zero rather suggested the universe had edges.
If you want to find out about this very interesting topic, read some popular
science books, not science fiction. Or, of course, there's always Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Gene
@x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
>> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
>> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
>> ever tackled this.
>
> I think the idea is that the speed of expansion and the speed of light
> limit mean that you can never reach/observe the edges anyway, so the
> question is meaningless.
That's the horizon, not the edge.
David DeLaney
>BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
>universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
>stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
>ever tackled this.
A finite universe does not need to have edges at all.
The surface of the Earth is of finite extent; where are ITS edges? Same
thing can happen in more than three dimensions.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
> ever tackled this.
Murray Leinster - "Sidewise in Time"
Reason given for catastrophe in the story has to do with a finite
universe. Our finite universe is drifting through something that is not
space/time - Leinster calls it (I think) hyperspace. Our universe is one
of the many drifting through this hyperspace. And they interact via
forces not dissimilar to gravity. Catastrophe in the story happened
because another universe was passing too close!
--
<http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/search/label/Murray%20Leinster?max-results=500>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
>> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
>> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
>> ever tackled this.
>
> A finite universe does not need to have edges at all.
>
> The surface of the Earth is of finite extent; where are ITS edges?
Up and down.
> Same
> thing can happen in more than three dimensions.
So the edges of the universe are Past and Future.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Howard Brazee
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
>universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
>stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
>ever tackled this.
What's interesting is that we can see galaxies that are so far away
that the time it takes light to reach us is greater than the age of
the universe. The expansion of space-time moved them beyond what at
first glance seems impossible.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Robert Bannister
> In article <b745b48e-6e58-4bec-a11f-8593312e46c6
> @x14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, tr...@io.com says...
>
>> On Nov 19, 4:56 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, I was thinking only yesterday: according to current theory, the
>>> universe is finite, so what's at the edges? I've read a couple of
>>> stories that explored the Big Bang, but I don't think any writer has
>>> ever tackled this.
>
> Where are the edges of a sphere to something that is confined to its
> surface ?
Cunning! But why should anyone/anything be confined? We don't think we
are confined to our terrestrial sphere, and in the case of the universe,
I thought we were inside the sphere.
--
Rob Bannister
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Four dimensional sphere-equivalent, we're embedded in the 3-D
surface-equivalent.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
A: Think about it. Come on, you can figure it out.
A:>> When half the group posts top and the other half posts bottom.
Q:>>> What's even more annoying than topposting?
Q:> Why would that be annoying?
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in news:ge9sgo$4po$1
> @reader1.panix.com:
>
> > What's worse: a story with overtly fantastical elements or one that
> > plays at being mimetic fiction while being in fact pretty fantastical?
>
> mutual friend Doug Adams? He can't be too worried.
I had no idea he was was married to Lalla Ward until I read that.<g>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalla_Ward
And yes, hundreds of people here, and among Doctor Who fans, are
evidence that you can read or watch fantasy as children and still
believe in the scientific principle as an adult.
On the other hand, given how irrational the United States has been the
last 28 years, he is right to be concerned. Like believing 'trickle
down economics' wasn't voodoo, or that ditching the fairness doctrine
so that the side of the political spectrum with both all the money and
the most fanatical True Believers can get away with lying to everybody
else without consequences.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> >7f4285261...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> >Sorry, but Dawkins is being a dickhead on this issue, and his approach is
> >not very scientific.
>
> How do you know what his approach is going to be based on a few quotes
> in a news article and a 4 minute interview video, in neither of which he
> mentions anything more specific other than an intent to research?
By pulling it out of his ass? It's ironic to disparage Dawkin's
worries about irrationality by using the same techniques of irrational
people to 'win' the argument.
Gene
@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> How do you know what his approach is going to be based on a few quotes
>> in a news article and a 4 minute interview video, in neither of which he
>> mentions anything more specific other than an intent to research?
>
> By pulling it out of his ass? It's ironic to disparage Dawkin's
> worries about irrationality by using the same techniques of irrational
> people to 'win' the argument.
I gave specific reasons. You two arrogant dickheads might want to read what
they were before yapping about alleged irrationality. That would be the
rational thing to do.