Realistic Sci-fi
Mark Salmon
many people dislike it, but the space exploration detailed in it is
very realistic -- which I love about sci-fi.
Does anyone know of any other authors who do this well?
I've tried McDevitt but everything but THE ENGINES OF GOD seems
amateur, like someone else wrote it; I've read Bradbury, of course,
but I'm after more "real" sci-fi.
If you have suggestions, please email me at poetic_...@yahoo.com.
Thank you!
Ms
jtingle
news:df153ab8.02012...@posting.google.com...
> I've just finished Aldrin/Barnes' ENCOUNTER WITH TIBER. I realize that
> many people dislike it, but the space exploration detailed in it is
> very realistic -- which I love about sci-fi.
>
> Does anyone know of any other authors who do this well?
>
> I've tried McDevitt but everything but THE ENGINES OF GOD seems
> amateur, like someone else wrote it; I've read Bradbury, of course,
> but I'm after more "real" sci-fi.
I'd go with middle-Clarke (Earthlight, A Fall of Moondust, etc.) Those were
super-realistic and somewhat interesting in their day. They're outdated
now, but not really by much.
Stay away from Clarke's wild side (Childhood's End, The Lion of Komarre,
etc.) Unless you like Teilhardan heresy.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Simon
news:df153ab8.02012...@posting.google.com:
I've not read the Buzz Aldrin book, but two examples of attempts at very
realistic space-sf, with near-current technology, are Ben Bova's "Mars",
and KSR's "Red Mars".
Simon
Dave O'Neill
> many people dislike it, but the space exploration detailed in it is
> very realistic -- which I love about sci-fi.
>
> Does anyone know of any other authors who do this well?
>
> I've tried McDevitt but everything but THE ENGINES OF GOD seems
> amateur, like someone else wrote it; I've read Bradbury, of course,
> but I'm after more "real" sci-fi.
Baxter - Voyage
philipm
"Dave O'Neill" <da...@atomicrazor.com> wrote in message
news:ruA48.28329$Ph2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Do you mean "about machines" instead of fantasy which is about "humans"?
There is nothing realistic about science. Only people who can't handle human
emotion think that is true.
Philip
Mark
You don't get emotional about change? Science is about the way the
universe operates and changes over time. The way we think and feel is
a part of how the universe works. When we discover something new
about the universe, the universe "changes" in our understanding and we
tend to have emotional reactions to that.
So what's not real?
Mark
Johnny1A
Heinlein has his moments, in his earlier works, especially what are
often mis-cast as his 'juveniles'. Try "The Man Who Sold The Moon",
"Space Cadet",
"The Long Watch (I recommend this one on several levels), "Space
Jockey", "Requiem" (not really a space story, but realistic in a way),
and "Misfit".
Also, you might try "Rocket Ship Galileo" for a very early look at a
vision of what might have been, and especially "Space Cadet", which
involves somewhat realistic space flight as a basic part of the plot.
Avoid the longer 'adult' Heinlein works like the plague in this
context, stuff like "Stranger In A Strange Land", "Time Enough for
Love", etc. These are definitely fantasy, and a good deal less
'realistic' fantasy than Tolkien's work, or even Alan Garner or C.S.
Lewis fantasies.
Shermanlee
Ed H.
> > many people dislike it, but the space exploration detailed in it is
> > very realistic -- which I love about sci-fi.
> > Does anyone know of any other authors who do this well?
Realistic SF? Try my "3rd World Products" series.
Also read my intro page and bio to see where the realism comes from.
Ed Howdershelt - Abintra Press
Science Fiction & Semi-Fiction
http://abintrapress.tripod.com
philipm
news:78b1aacb.02012...@posting.google.com...
My assertion was that people who call 'science mumbledygook' themed sci-fi
"realistic" while ignoring the "realism" of fantasy usually aren't very good
with emotions. I'm not sure how that relates to the belief that you ascribe
to me which seems to be that "in science nothing ever changes".
What's not real about science themse sci-fi books is anything found in them.
I am much more likely to predict how my favorite wizard acts than I am to
use my extensive "science" background to predict how a particular sci-fi
author will misuse some scientific sounding verbs and nouns.
Philip
Mark
> > > There is nothing realistic about science. Only people who can't handle
> human
> > > emotion think that is true.
> > >
> > > Philip
> >
> >
> > You don't get emotional about change? Science is about the way the
> > universe operates and changes over time. The way we think and feel is
> > a part of how the universe works. When we discover something new
> > about the universe, the universe "changes" in our understanding and we
> > tend to have emotional reactions to that.
> >
> > So what's not real?
> >
> > Mark
>
> My assertion was that people who call 'science mumbledygook' themed sci-fi
> "realistic" while ignoring the "realism" of fantasy usually aren't very good
> with emotions. I'm not sure how that relates to the belief that you ascribe
> to me which seems to be that "in science nothing ever changes".
>
> What's not real about science themse sci-fi books is anything found in them.
> I am much more likely to predict how my favorite wizard acts than I am to
> use my extensive "science" background to predict how a particular sci-fi
> author will misuse some scientific sounding verbs and nouns.
>
> Philip
Well, unless you mistyped, you did not say "there is nothing realistic
about science mumbledygook themes sci-fi"--you said (and I left that
quote in just to be clear) "there is nothing realistic about science."
You've now made a blanket statement about science-based sf novels
that what is not real about them is anything in them. I can only
assume your prejudice is over the science part, based now on two
separate assertions, and so I repeat the question--in science, what's
not real?
In other words, it seems that you are asserting that people who work
in science and are interested in science and scientists, albeit in
fictional settings, are incapable of realistic experiences or that the
experiences they have are not realistic. The novel mentioned in the
post you original replied to--Stephen Baxter's "Voyage"--is a novel
which is *very* realistic on all levels, science and emotion. I can
only conclude that you did not read it.
Gregory Benford's forays into "scientist as character" have been
highly realistic in emotional terms--"Timescape", "Cosm", even the
more thriller-styled "Artifact"--and still dealt with science
believeably.
However, if your basing your assertion on "Star Trek" and its ilk,
then no wonder--but that leaves all the rest of the genre, which is
ill-served by such comparisons.
Mark
philipm
> Well, unless you mistyped, you did not say "there is nothing realistic
> about science mumbledygook themes sci-fi"--you said (and I left that
> quote in just to be clear) "there is nothing realistic about science."
> You've now made a blanket statement about science-based sf novels
> that what is not real about them is anything in them. I can only
> assume your prejudice is over the science part, based now on two
> separate assertions, and so I repeat the question--in science, what's
> not real?
>
[see below]
> In other words, it seems that you are asserting that people who work
> in science and are interested in science and scientists, albeit in
> fictional settings, are incapable of realistic experiences or that the
> experiences they have are not realistic. The novel mentioned in the
> post you original replied to--Stephen Baxter's "Voyage"--is a novel
> which is *very* realistic on all levels, science and emotion. I can
> only conclude that you did not read it.
>
> Gregory Benford's forays into "scientist as character" have been
> highly realistic in emotional terms--"Timescape", "Cosm", even the
> more thriller-styled "Artifact"--and still dealt with science
> believeably.
>
> However, if your basing your assertion on "Star Trek" and its ilk,
> then no wonder--but that leaves all the rest of the genre, which is
> ill-served by such comparisons.
>
> Mark
Aha! Ad-hominem atacks on Star Trek! You must be a troll! :)
I meant to type --- there is nothing realistic about "science mumbledygook"
themed sci-fi.
I have read steve baxter's books and I like them. I think you need to think
less about me and my "prejudices" and more about what "real"
and "scientific themed mumbledygook" vs "fantasy themed mumbledygook" means.
Science has no special claim on "real", nor does the use of "science" in the
everyday world give science or science priests any special standing. Far
more people misuse "scientific" facts than misuse "fantasy" facts. I would
say that based on real world usage (not sci-fi/fantasy book related) someone
who uses a "scientific" vocabulary deserves to be treated with more
suspicion than someone who uses a fantasy vocabulary.
Lets be clear here. On the scale of intelligent people fantasy readers are
much higher than star trek readers who are much higher than steve baxter
readers.
You know, "real" is like stuff that happened like and stuff.
Philip
Dave O'Neill
Voyage is an alternative history SF book about a mission to Mars - its based
heavily in reality, hence mentioning it.
You're reply doesn't make all that much sense in this context. If I had
meant other Baxter books, I would have mentioned the title. I only
mentioned this one because it fitted in with the thread.
Ok?
--
Dave O'Neill
Principle Word Wraggler - Atomicrazor
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Dave O'Neill
>
> "Dave O'Neill" <da...@atomicrazor.com> wrote in message
> news:ruA48.28329$Ph2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "Mark Salmon" <poetic_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:df153ab8.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > > I've just finished Aldrin/Barnes' ENCOUNTER WITH TIBER. I realize that
> > > many people dislike it, but the space exploration detailed in it is
> > > very realistic -- which I love about sci-fi.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of any other authors who do this well?
> > >
> > > I've tried McDevitt but everything but THE ENGINES OF GOD seems
> > > amateur, like someone else wrote it; I've read Bradbury, of course,
> > > but I'm after more "real" sci-fi.
> >
> > Baxter - Voyage
> >
> >
> Space exploration is not "realistic".
On what grounds?
> Do you mean "about machines" instead of fantasy which is about "humans"?
No, I mean grounded in reality - like Countdown is realistic etc...
>
> There is nothing realistic about science. Only people who can't handle
human
> emotion think that is true.
I don't follow your logic. Science can be very emotional. How about
"Flowers for Algernon" - very science based and one of the most emotional SF
books in the world. Or, for that matter, much of Wyndham's SF - Day of the
Trifids or The Midwych Cuckoo's etc...
Mark
> themed sci-fi.
In which case, I'll agree that a great many works of so-called science
fiction are lacking in their relationship to the Real--but only in the
same way in which a good many mysteries, detective thrillers,
westerns, romances, war novels, and so forth are lacking in such a
relationship. Adventure subsumes verisimilitude a good deal of
fiction.
>
> I have read steve baxter's books and I like them. I think you need to think
> less about me and my "prejudices" and more about what "real"
> and "scientific themed mumbledygook" vs "fantasy themed mumbledygook" means.
> Science has no special claim on "real", nor does the use of "science" in the
> everyday world give science or science priests any special standing.
I see where the problem lies. Science has no "priests" as such.
Priests of any sort tend to support their beliefs even when those
beliefs have been completely discredited. Scientists, while holding
onto their beliefs tenaciously, more often than not drop them when
they have been thoroughly discredited. This is not priestly behavior.
"MumbledygooK" is any cause has no meaning. But then to go on and
claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
recourse to the unknowable.
Far
> more people misuse "scientific" facts than misuse "fantasy" facts. I would
> say that based on real world usage (not sci-fi/fantasy book related) someone
> who uses a "scientific" vocabulary deserves to be treated with more
> suspicion than someone who uses a fantasy vocabulary.
What are fantasy "facts"? The term itself is an oxymoron.
Perhaps you have a point about someone who uses the
vocabulary--especially if that someone clearly does not know what is
meant by the vocabulary--but I would tend to feel that someone who
uses a fantasy vocabulary "in the real world" is at least unreliable.
But you can make that claim about anyone who uses any vocabulary
without understanding it.
However, if you mean that someone who uses science as the basis for
his/her world view, then I'm not sure what you mean by "deserving to
be treated with more suspicion"? You mistrust someone who has a
rigorous (as opposed to rigid) standard for what is claimed as fact?
Why would that be?
>
> Lets be clear here. On the scale of intelligent people fantasy readers are
> much higher than star trek readers who are much higher than steve baxter
> readers.
Now who is making ad hominem attacks, and not just on a genre but on
people at large? I have found no significant difference in the
intelligence of any of the groups you mention. I have found
differences in the relative degrees of skepticism.
So let us be clear--you're saying that people who read Baxter are
*dumber* than people who read, say, Jordan? Which implies that people
who grasp science and technology are somehow less intelligent than
people who grasp magic swords and talismanic rings?
>
> You know, "real" is like stuff that happened like and stuff.
The mind boggles. What?
Mark
Vegard Valberg
> snip
> > I have read steve baxter's books and I like them. I think you need to think
> > less about me and my "prejudices" and more about what "real"
> > and "scientific themed mumbledygook" vs "fantasy themed mumbledygook" means.
> > Science has no special claim on "real", nor does the use of "science" in the
> > everyday world give science or science priests any special standing.
>
> I see where the problem lies. Science has no "priests" as such.
> Priests of any sort tend to support their beliefs even when those
> beliefs have been completely discredited. Scientists, while holding
> onto their beliefs tenaciously, more often than not drop them when
> they have been thoroughly discredited. This is not priestly behavior.
Are you serious? I mean forgive me but the main reason that a scientific
theory goes down the drain tends to be that all it's supporters have
died. Now scientists as a group may fit into your definition, but if you
look at individual scientists you are looking at a new priesthood. Of
course even in regular religions doctrines do change, so it would seem
that the idea of the scientists as a priesthood is very valid today.
> "MumbledygooK" is any cause has no meaning. But then to go on and
> claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
> misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
> concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
> when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
> claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
> talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
> recourse to the unknowable.
Well that is science's claim, though some people might want to read up
on Feyerabend.
> snip
---
--
- Vegard Valberg
My e-mail adress is <Vval...@online.no>,
that is two v's, not one W.
Mark
> Are you serious? I mean forgive me but the main reason that a scientific
> theory goes down the drain tends to be that all it's supporters have
> died. Now scientists as a group may fit into your definition, but if you
> look at individual scientists you are looking at a new priesthood. Of
> course even in regular religions doctrines do change, so it would seem
> that the idea of the scientists as a priesthood is very valid today.
You could make the same observation about any profession. Where
distinctions are made are in the distinctions of practice between
fields. True, there are some scientists who fit the description of
priest, but they are not the majority and by no means are ultimately
representative of the whole. You could turn it around and
state--quite accurately--that there are priests who do not fit the
description (or prescription) of a priest, yet they, too, are
anomolous is their field and in the history of the field.
The assertion that scientists are the priesthood of a new religion is
a claim made by lay people who have little understanding of the field
itslef and probably little understanding of science. Priests, on the
other hand, quite unabashedly make such claims for themselves.
As for the change in doctrines, there are two answers: first, that's
not true across the board--the argument between Einsteinian physics
and quantum physics went on during the lifetimes of the opponents and
the field changed its view from one to the other in that time (keeping
in mind that quantum physics does not destroy Einsteinian physics,
merely makes it a subset) and thereby overturned a paradigm *while
most of the principle players still lived*. That's one example. A
more recent example is concerned with the theoretical description of
deepspace gamma ray sources--everyone involved is still alive and
theories have fallen (and everyone is still alive). Secondly, in
those instances wherein death claims the lives of some of the
proponents, you see merely that sometimes it simply takes that long
for a new theory to emerge and become established. New scientists
aren't waiting in the woods for the old lions to die before springing
their heresies on the world.
>
> > "MumbledygooK" in any case has no meaning. But then to go on and
> > claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
> > misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
> > concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
> > when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
> > claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
> > talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
> > recourse to the unknowable.
>
> Well that is science's claim, though some people might want to read up
> on Feyerabend.
Read it. It's crap. He would be almost correct if science were only
a rhetorical field, but it's not--science actually says something
about reality. Paul Feyeraband's entire argument was postmodernist
and rhetorical. Talk about a combination that has no relation to
Reality...
Mark
>
> > snip
> ---
philipm
> > Space exploration is not "realistic".
>
> On what grounds?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe its all those FTL spaceships and transporters and
stuff. And maybe its the people who never go to the bathroom.
>
> > Do you mean "about machines" instead of fantasy which is about "humans"?
>
> No, I mean grounded in reality - like Countdown is realistic etc...
Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about and wouldn't be able
to understand if it was explained to them, is not realistic. And yes,
reality does depend on your education level.
philipm
> I see where the problem lies. Science has no "priests" as such.
> Priests of any sort tend to support their beliefs even when those
> beliefs have been completely discredited. Scientists, while holding
> onto their beliefs tenaciously, more often than not drop them when
> they have been thoroughly discredited. This is not priestly behavior.
Now, you're being completely unrealistic. Have you met many scientists?
>
> "MumbledygooK" is any cause has no meaning. But then to go on and
> claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
> misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
> concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
> when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
> claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
> talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
> recourse to the unknowable.
Science is a method for making up patterns which are not yet shown to be
false. It has no special relation to observed reality. People can usually
intuit stuff a lot better and faster than any scientist.
>
> Far
> > more people misuse "scientific" facts than misuse "fantasy" facts. I
would
> > say that based on real world usage (not sci-fi/fantasy book related)
someone
> > who uses a "scientific" vocabulary deserves to be treated with more
> > suspicion than someone who uses a fantasy vocabulary.
>
> What are fantasy "facts"? The term itself is an oxymoron.
"Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" is an example.
>
> Perhaps you have a point about someone who uses the
> vocabulary--especially if that someone clearly does not know what is
> meant by the vocabulary--but I would tend to feel that someone who
> uses a fantasy vocabulary "in the real world" is at least unreliable.
> But you can make that claim about anyone who uses any vocabulary
> without understanding it.
>
> However, if you mean that someone who uses science as the basis for
> his/her world view, then I'm not sure what you mean by "deserving to
> be treated with more suspicion"? You mistrust someone who has a
> rigorous (as opposed to rigid) standard for what is claimed as fact?
> Why would that be?
Experience :)
>
> So let us be clear--you're saying that people who read Baxter are
> *dumber* than people who read, say, Jordan? Which implies that people
> who grasp science and technology are somehow less intelligent than
> people who grasp magic swords and talismanic rings?
Yep. I'm not sure I like Jordan though.
How does it feel to have discovered that your training with numbers means
nothing?
>
> >
> > You know, "real" is like stuff that happened like and stuff.
>
> The mind boggles. What?
>
> Mark
Exactly
Philip
Andrew Wheeler
>
> > > Space exploration is not "realistic".
> >
> > On what grounds?
>
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe its all those FTL spaceships and
> transporters and stuff. And maybe its the people who never go
> to the bathroom.
Hey kids! Shooting enbarreled fish can be fun and educational!
A) I'm not aware that fantasy novels have noticeably more scenes of
defecation than SF novels, can you provide some examples? (Or
distribution studies?)
B) Your encyclopedia should have an entry for "Apollo Program." Read it.
C) I've noticed fantasy novels tend to have a lot of "stuff," as well.
How does this effect your argument? Discuss.
> > > Do you mean "about machines" instead of fantasy which is
> > > about "humans"?
> >
> > No, I mean grounded in reality - like Countdown is
> > realistic etc...
>
> Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about and
> wouldn't be able to understand if it was explained to them,
> is not realistic. And yes, reality does depend on your
> education level.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't, as the Ghost Dancers found out to their
chagrin. They were *sure* that their magic shirts would stop bullets.
And sure + wrong = dead.
Reality *is.* That's why we call it "reality." Sticking your fingers
in your ears and whistling doesn't change anything.
You really are a remarkably silly person.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
No Ideas But In Things!
David Allsopp
<p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> "MumbledygooK" is any cause has no meaning. But then to go on and
>> claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
>> misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
>> concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
>> when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
>> claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
>> talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
>> recourse to the unknowable.
>
>Science is a method for making up patterns which are not yet shown to be
>false. It has no special relation to observed reality. People can usually
>intuit stuff a lot better and faster than any scientist.
Let me get this straight. You're typing on a keyboard made from oil and
refined metals, watching the letters come up on a light-emitting screen,
in order to use a few grams of silicon etched finer than the eye can see
with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tiny quantum-mechanical
devices, in order to send a message that will travel via optical cables
(and possibly satellite links), to be read by thousands of people across
the whole world, all of whom could reply within a few hours, and you are
actually saying, I mean really actually truly making the claim, that
*science has no special relation to observed reality*?!?
I give up.
--
David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base.
Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
Michael Altarriba
Man (or, to be accurate, some people) are not rational animals... they
are rationalizing animals. If you want to see -real- wilful ignorance,
try having a discussioni of the validity of evolutionary theory on a
web-based discussion group some time. I could show you the scars...
Mark
> >
> > I see where the problem lies. Science has no "priests" as such.
> > Priests of any sort tend to support their beliefs even when those
> > beliefs have been completely discredited. Scientists, while holding
> > onto their beliefs tenaciously, more often than not drop them when
> > they have been thoroughly discredited. This is not priestly behavior.
>
> Now, you're being completely unrealistic. Have you met many scientists?
Evidently quite a few more than you have. But again, that's
irrelevant since it's entirely personal.
>
> >
> > "MumbledygooK" is any cause has no meaning. But then to go on and
> > claim that science has no special claim on the "real" is at best
> > misleading and at worst a complete denial of what science is. Science
> > concerns itself with what is materially "real" and changes its views
> > when that "reality" is found to be different. It has a far stronger
> > claim on the "real" than any other discipline (as long as we're
> > talking about the material realm) and can defend its claims without
> > recourse to the unknowable.
>
> Science is a method for making up patterns which are not yet shown to be
> false. It has no special relation to observed reality. People can usually
> intuit stuff a lot better and faster than any scientist.
People "intuited" for centuries that the world was flat, the center of
the universe, and at one time "intuited" that the brain was nothing
more than an organ for cooling the blood. Beyond that, a great many
people "intuit" that they can trust the companies they work for not to
screw them and that if they ignore disease symptoms the disease will
"go away." People "intuit" a lot of "stuff" that ain't true and quite
a bit that actually ends up hurting them badly. But for the record,
science exists *because* some people actually began to observe
reality. It therefore has a very special relation to said reality.
Pattern-recognition is only one part of science.
But more to the point, no factual, accurate descriptions of reality
have emerged from any other discipline, conditional though those
descriptions may be.
>
> >
> > Far
> > > more people misuse "scientific" facts than misuse "fantasy" facts. I
> would
> > > say that based on real world usage (not sci-fi/fantasy book related)
> someone
> > > who uses a "scientific" vocabulary deserves to be treated with more
> > > suspicion than someone who uses a fantasy vocabulary.
> >
> > What are fantasy "facts"? The term itself is an oxymoron.
>
> "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" is an example.
It is a fact that such statements are made in fantasy novels. This is
based on no observable fact in nature.
To argue (I assume you hold to this view) that SF has as much
relationship to reality because it contains things like FTL drives and
time travel, I will not argue strenuously--except to say that in some
special cases, science has demonstrated the possibilities of these
things occuring in nature--action-at-a-distance and quantum
"tunneling"--to at least give a vague nod toward these things. But I
would not hold either of these things up as arguments that either
fantasy or SF is somehow better at dealing with emotion and human
interaction, which I believe you suggested to be the case in your
initial post.
> >
> > Perhaps you have a point about someone who uses the
> > vocabulary--especially if that someone clearly does not know what is
> > meant by the vocabulary--but I would tend to feel that someone who
> > uses a fantasy vocabulary "in the real world" is at least unreliable.
> > But you can make that claim about anyone who uses any vocabulary
> > without understanding it.
> >
> > However, if you mean that someone who uses science as the basis for
> > his/her world view, then I'm not sure what you mean by "deserving to
> > be treated with more suspicion"? You mistrust someone who has a
> > rigorous (as opposed to rigid) standard for what is claimed as fact?
> > Why would that be?
>
>
> Experience :)
Ambiguous. Are you saying that a scientist cheated you? Told you a
lie upon which you based some action that later harmed you? And did
so *because* he/she was a scientist rather than just a human being?
>
>
>
> >
> > So let us be clear--you're saying that people who read Baxter are
> > *dumber* than people who read, say, Jordan? Which implies that people
> > who grasp science and technology are somehow less intelligent than
> > people who grasp magic swords and talismanic rings?
>
> Yep. I'm not sure I like Jordan though.
> How does it feel to have discovered that your training with numbers means
> nothing?
That is a frankly fatuous statement. You have demonstrated only that
you dislike the idea that there is a functioning discipline that
actually describes reality. As Mr. Wheeler states in his reply, you
are a very silly person.
>
> >
> > >
> > > You know, "real" is like stuff that happened like and stuff.
> >
> > The mind boggles. What?
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> Exactly
You would make an excellent New Age thinker.
Mark
Helgi Briem
(Mark) wrote:
>You would make an excellent New Age thinker.
Now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one LOL.
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
Mark
> to understand if it was explained to them, is not realistic. And yes,
> reality does depend on your education level.
No. One's ability to deal with reality may depend on one's education,
but reality is unaffected.
To confuse description of reality with reality itself...well, I
suppose you could blame education (or lack thereof) for that.
Mark
philipm
> Let me get this straight. You're typing on a keyboard made from oil and
> refined metals, watching the letters come up on a light-emitting screen,
> in order to use a few grams of silicon etched finer than the eye can see
> with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tiny quantum-mechanical
> devices, in order to send a message that will travel via optical cables
> (and possibly satellite links), to be read by thousands of people across
> the whole world, all of whom could reply within a few hours, and you are
> actually saying, I mean really actually truly making the claim, that
> *science has no special relation to observed reality*?!?
>
> I give up.
> --
> David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity
Base.
> Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
You have described THINGS. Things which may or may not be real. These things
have nothing to do with "science". This is just one more example of how
people completely misuse the word science and overload it with all kinds of
elitist meanings. And if you question them they say you are stupid, in a
very anti-scientific manner, and "give up".
Philip
philipm
> > Science is a method for making up patterns which are not yet shown to be
> > false. It has no special relation to observed reality. People can
usually
> > intuit stuff a lot better and faster than any scientist.
>
> People "intuited" for centuries that the world was flat, the center of
> the universe, and at one time "intuited" that the brain was nothing
> more than an organ for cooling the blood. Beyond that, a great many
> people "intuit" that they can trust the companies they work for not to
> screw them and that if they ignore disease symptoms the disease will
> "go away." People "intuit" a lot of "stuff" that ain't true and quite
> a bit that actually ends up hurting them badly. But for the record,
> science exists *because* some people actually began to observe
> reality. It therefore has a very special relation to said reality.
>
> Pattern-recognition is only one part of science.
>
> But more to the point, no factual, accurate descriptions of reality
> have emerged from any other discipline, conditional though those
> descriptions may be.
>
I said nothing about pattern recognition. I said science is pattern
creation. And if the pattern doesn't fit, you make up a new one out of your
ass. How's that for fantasy?
I'm glad to hear you say that intuition has no place in science. I agree.
That is why most scientists are complete failures. They have to irrationally
stumble around in the dark many many times, all the while giving completely
contradictary "theories" and losing major credibility.
> > > What are fantasy "facts"? The term itself is an oxymoron.
> >
> > "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" is an example.
>
> It is a fact that such statements are made in fantasy novels. This is
> based on no observable fact in nature.
The word "nature" was no-where in my sentence. You asked about facts, not
reality.
> > > However, if you mean that someone who uses science as the basis for
> > > his/her world view, then I'm not sure what you mean by "deserving to
> > > be treated with more suspicion"? You mistrust someone who has a
> > > rigorous (as opposed to rigid) standard for what is claimed as fact?
> > > Why would that be?
> >
> >
> > Experience :)
>
> Ambiguous. Are you saying that a scientist cheated you? Told you a
> lie upon which you based some action that later harmed you? And did
> so *because* he/she was a scientist rather than just a human being?
>
Yep. The "scientific" method is used to justify many an atrocity.
Witness that state of crime BEFORE DNA testing.
Witness so called domain experts trotted out a trials to pray in scientific
sounding terms.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So let us be clear--you're saying that people who read Baxter are
> > > *dumber* than people who read, say, Jordan? Which implies that people
> > > who grasp science and technology are somehow less intelligent than
> > > people who grasp magic swords and talismanic rings?
> >
> > Yep. I'm not sure I like Jordan though.
> > How does it feel to have discovered that your training with numbers
means
> > nothing?
>
> That is a frankly fatuous statement. You have demonstrated only that
> you dislike the idea that there is a functioning discipline that
> actually describes reality. As Mr. Wheeler states in his reply, you
> are a very silly person.
Yeah its to bad that science doesn't describe reality and more than fantasy
describes reality. If it did, I would like it more.
Philip
philipm
able
> > to understand if it was explained to them, is not realistic. And yes,
> > reality does depend on your education level.
>
> No. One's ability to deal with reality may depend on one's education,
> but reality is unaffected.
>
Oh, I disagree. Just ask the person and listen to what they say.
> To confuse description of reality with reality itself...well, I
> suppose you could blame education (or lack thereof) for that.
>
> Mark
Had you studied more science you would have learned all about "seeing is
believing". Know anything about quantum mechanics?
Philip
philipm
> > Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about and
> > wouldn't be able to understand if it was explained to them,
> > is not realistic. And yes, reality does depend on your
> > education level.
>
> No, I'm afraid it doesn't, as the Ghost Dancers found out to their
> chagrin. They were *sure* that their magic shirts would stop bullets.
> And sure + wrong = dead.
>
> Reality *is.* That's why we call it "reality." Sticking your fingers
> in your ears and whistling doesn't change anything.
>
> You really are a remarkably silly person.
>
> --
> Andrew Wheeler
> Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
> No Ideas But In Things!
I had to think a little harder. Good counter example with the indians.
In this case it is not the reality of magic shirts that is in question.
It is simple ignorance that magical bullets are magical items that are more
powerful than magic shirts.
For the Ghost Dancers, "Reality" was most definitely "Not". It behaved
nothing like they expected it to behave.
Philip
Dave O'Neill
Read Flowers for Algernon and come back, there's a good lad.
Marc Dionne
<p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm sorry to have included so much - I just couldn't bear to cut any
part of this exchange.
So - philipm - are you, by any chance, from California?
--
Marc Dionne, Ph.D. | dio...@stanford.edu | (650) 724-8064
Schneider lab, Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University
Andrew Wheeler
>
> <several other people, whose attributions philipm snipped, further proving his knowledge of and expertise in advanced technology>
>
> > > > What are fantasy "facts"? The term itself is an
> > > > oxymoron.
> > >
> > > "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" is an example.
> >
> > It is a fact that such statements are made in fantasy
> > novels. This is based on no observable fact in nature.
>
> The word "nature" was no-where in my sentence. You asked
> about facts, not reality.
The closest dictionary I have to hand (American Heritage, 3rd edition,
1992) defines "fact" as:
1) Information presented as objectively real.
2) A real occurrence; an event.
3a) Something having real, demonstrable existence.
3b) The quality of being real and actual.
[and so on]
What's the definition of "fact" on your Bizarro World? Do you have
*any* definition of "fact" that does not have, at its core, the
requirement that said "fact" be true?
Let me give you an example of a fact -- "It was commonly believed in
medieval Europe that the unicorn, a one-horned animal resembling a
horse, had magical powers."
And here's another one -- "There is no such creature."
Andrew Wheeler
>
> For the Ghost Dancers, "Reality" was most definitely "Not".
> It behaved nothing like they expected it to behave.
I thought you just said that reality depended on your education level?
Logically, then, bullets would only hurt people who know what bullets
are. This is demonstrably false.
And pretending anything that actually works is "magic" is just about
the sloppiest kind of thinking possible. I never actually expected to
*meet* a cargo cultist...
Andrew Wheeler
>
>Mark Tiedemann wrote (attribution re-inserted)
>
> >philipm wrote:
>
> > > Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about
> > > and wouldn't be able to understand if it was explained to
> > > them, is not realistic. And yes, reality does depend on
> > > your education level.
> >
> > No. One's ability to deal with reality may depend on one's
> > education, but reality is unaffected.
> >
> Oh, I disagree. Just ask the person and listen to what they
> say.
So reality is *defined* by what people say? You're not from California
-- you're an Ivy League deconstructionist.
(Or a remarkably successful troll -- that's always a possibility.)
Ok, let's take that theory and run with it. I say that you're dead.
Reality is defined by my speech (as you've just claimed). So what are
you now?
philipm
I agree with both. And my fact was also a fact:
"Unicorns have a horn on their forehead".
Actually I am willing to bet you that more people would say that my
statement was true and factual than would agree with either one of your
"facts". The first one is kind of questionable, but I'll give it to you
because I am charitable.
You know, you don't have to hurt yourself.
If you don't know whether something is true or factual, just ask!
Preferably more than one person!
Is this just too dificult for you?
Philip
philipm
> > > > Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about and
> > > > wouldn't be able to understand if it was explained to them,
> > > > is not realistic. And yes, reality does depend on your
> > > > education level.
> > >
> > > No, I'm afraid it doesn't, as the Ghost Dancers found out to their
> > > chagrin. They were *sure* that their magic shirts would stop bullets.
> > > And sure + wrong = dead.
> > >
> > > Reality *is.* That's why we call it "reality." Sticking your fingers
> > > in your ears and whistling doesn't change anything.
> > >
> > > You really are a remarkably silly person.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wheeler
> > > Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
> > > No Ideas But In Things!
> >
> > I had to think a little harder. Good counter example with the indians.
> > In this case it is not the reality of magic shirts that is in question.
> > It is simple ignorance that magical bullets are magical items that are
more
> > powerful than magic shirts.
> >
> > For the Ghost Dancers, "Reality" was most definitely "Not". It behaved
> > nothing like they expected it to behave.
>
> I'm sorry to have included so much - I just couldn't bear to cut any
> part of this exchange.
>
> So - philipm - are you, by any chance, from California?
Why do you ask? Are you a hippie? Or are you going to blame me for your
state's energy deregulation problems? I like compliments too you know. :)
Philip
philipm
> So reality is *defined* by what people say? You're not from California
> -- you're an Ivy League deconstructionist.
>
> (Or a remarkably successful troll -- that's always a possibility.)
>
> Ok, let's take that theory and run with it. I say that you're dead.
> Reality is defined by my speech (as you've just claimed). So what are
> you now?
A better question would be what kind of person would talk to a dead man?
Hmmmmm? A cra.... oh sorry. No trolling. I get it. Must be gentle with the
wee ones.
Philip
philipm
> Logically, then, bullets would only hurt people who know what bullets
> are. This is demonstrably false.
No its not. If you don't know what a bullet is, you don't know what hurt
you, do you now?
>
> And pretending anything that actually works is "magic" is just about
> the sloppiest kind of thinking possible. I never actually expected to
> *meet* a cargo cultist...
Oh great. Just because I don't agree with you I am some kind of
transportation cultist. Are you in the transportation mafia? I'm not quite
sure what your point is, but go ahead and post, It's an expensive country.
Philip
Andrew Wheeler
Well, no, because -- as you just ignored -- a fact must be *true*.
Unicorns do not actually exist, so any statements which claim that
they are real are not facts.
A fact is not a fact because you *agree* with it. This is not a
difficult concept to master; my three-year-old son understands the
difference between what he *wants* and what *is.*
Let me repeat, because this is important, that I gave you the
definition of "fact" and you completely ignored it. You are using
"fact" in a completely Humpty-Dumpty way; unlike anything resembling
what anybody else means by the word.
> Actually I am willing to bet you that more people would say
> that my statement was true and factual than would agree with
> either one of your "facts". The first one is kind of
> questionable, but I'll give it to you because I am
> charitable.
"If a million people believe a stupid thing; it is still a stupid
thing." (to -- probably badly -- quote Anatole France)
Again, facts are not decided by popular vote. The earth is not flat
because more people believe it is, and astrology still doesn't work,
despite all the wishing in the world.
> You know, you don't have to hurt yourself.
> If you don't know whether something is true or factual, just
> ask!
> Preferably more than one person!
>
> Is this just too dificult for you?
No, but the real world is obviously too difficult for you. Isn't it
hard to type while wearing one of those snazzy white
hug-yourself-all-the-time jackets?
Andrew Wheeler
You know, there's a word to describe people like you...
The only trouble is -- I still can't make up my mind between idiot and troll.
On the one hand, it would be really hard to be *this* stupid.
On the other, you *are* posting from yahoo...
Michael Altarriba
You make no sense. I don't know if X is true... Say! I'll ask my friend
"Is X true?" Now, what should they do? Ask someone else? Where does this
chain of inquiry end?
We appear to live in a Reality which exists and persists whether we are
aware of it or not, and whether we are directly observing it or not. How
does your concept of "intuition" fit into this?
Upthread, you said:
---------------
I said science is pattern creation. And if the pattern doesn't fit, you
make up a new one out of your ass. How's that for fantasy?
I'm glad to hear you say that intuition has no place in science. I
agree. That is why most scientists are complete failures. They have to
irrationally stumble around in the dark many many times, all the while
giving completely contradictary "theories" and losing major credibility.
---------------
Are you saying that there are no patterns to be observed in Reality? Are
you saying that these observations are somehow invalid? How does your
version of "intuition" compare to observation and experimentation? If it
is superior, how is it superior, and how do we test this assertion?
Michael Altarriba
It is because of Science that we have the knowledge necessary to
construct the THINGS to which you refer. In short, Science appears to be
very successful at describing the structure of Reality. Just what
definition of "science" would you prefer we use?
Mark Atwood
> >
> > And pretending anything that actually works is "magic" is just about
> > the sloppiest kind of thinking possible. I never actually expected to
> > *meet* a cargo cultist...
>
> Oh great. Just because I don't agree with you I am some kind of
> transportation cultist. Are you in the transportation mafia? I'm not quite
> sure what your point is, but go ahead and post, It's an expensive country.
*boogle*
Ok. Either a troll, or a bad AI...
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
philipm
> You make no sense. I don't know if X is true... Say! I'll ask my friend
> "Is X true?" Now, what should they do? Ask someone else? Where does this
> chain of inquiry end?
With the truth. Ever heard of a court of law?
>
>
> We appear to live in a Reality which exists and persists whether we are
> aware of it or not, and whether we are directly observing it or not. How
> does your concept of "intuition" fit into this?
>
> Upthread, you said:
>
> ---------------
> I said science is pattern creation. And if the pattern doesn't fit, you
> make up a new one out of your ass. How's that for fantasy?
>
> I'm glad to hear you say that intuition has no place in science. I
> agree. That is why most scientists are complete failures. They have to
> irrationally stumble around in the dark many many times, all the while
> giving completely contradictary "theories" and losing major credibility.
> ---------------
>
> Are you saying that there are no patterns to be observed in Reality?
No, but I could.
>Are you saying that these observations are somehow invalid?
Certainly. All the time. Repeatedly and often. See encyclopedia.
The whole point about science is that it has almost a 100% observation
falsehood average.
>How does your
> version of "intuition" compare to observation and experimentation? If it
> is superior, how is it superior, and how do we test this assertion?
Deatmatch? Ask some people who are succesfull and get things right a lot.
[I don't think Andrew qualifies :) ]
Philip
philipm
> It is because of Science that we have the knowledge necessary to
> construct the THINGS to which you refer. In short, Science appears to be
> very successful at describing the structure of Reality. Just what
> definition of "science" would you prefer we use?
>
>
An unfounded assertion about fantastical things, some of which you have
never seen, and others which you could not understand. You should use
science to help you.
Philip
Aaron Denney
> philipm wrote:
> > I agree with both. And my fact was also a fact:
> > "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead".
>
> Well, no, because -- as you just ignored -- a fact must be *true*.
> Unicorns do not actually exist, so any statements which claim that
> they are real are not facts.
>
> A fact is not a fact because you *agree* with it. This is not a
> difficult concept to master; my three-year-old son understands the
> difference between what he *wants* and what *is.*
"Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" does not actually imply the
existence of unicorns. It is much more about the definition of what
unicorn is. If you like, pretend that it actually says
"If unicorns existed, and horns existed, and foreheads existed, and
unicorns had foreheads, then unicorns would have horns on their
foreheads."
Or think of it this way -- "All unicorns have horns on their foreheads" is
surely a stronger statement, right? But it means the same thing as
"There are no unicorns that have no horn on their forehead." which
I think you'll be likely to agree with.
Would you dispute me if I said that "a dodo is a flightless bird"?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Michael Altarriba
"unfounded assertion"? So, conclusions based on observation and experimentation are "unfounded" now?
As to what I "could not understand", you have no idea what my limits are.
Dave O'Neill
> Actually I am willing to bet you that more people would say that my
> statement was true and factual than would agree with either one of your
> "facts". The first one is kind of questionable, but I'll give it to you
> because I am charitable.
Just because you or people are ignorant doesn't make them right. Small
point.
Have you read Flowers for Algernon recently?
philipm
"Dave O'Neill" <da...@atomicrazor.com> wrote in message
news:uKP58.41099$4i5.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Never mind, I'll stop driving the truck through the same 10 mile hole on the
border. All out of mexicans! Season is up! Time to pick fruit!
> Have you read Flowers for Algernon recently?
>
>
No, not recently. It's on like every high school C. and I did read it then a
long time ago. It was very moving.
Martin Lewis
news:slrna5etcs...@yak.ugcs.caltech.edu...
> > Well, no, because -- as you just ignored -- a fact must be *true*.
> > Unicorns do not actually exist, so any statements which claim that
> > they are real are not facts.
> >
> > A fact is not a fact because you *agree* with it. This is not a
> > difficult concept to master; my three-year-old son understands the
> > difference between what he *wants* and what *is.*
>
> "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" does not actually imply the
> existence of unicorns. It is much more about the definition of what
> unicorn is. If you like, pretend that it actually says
> "If unicorns existed, and horns existed, and foreheads existed, and
> unicorns had foreheads, then unicorns would have horns on their
> foreheads."
Its even worse than that, hence the philosphy exam I sat:
"Santa Claus has a white beard" Is this true, false or neither?
Martin
philipm
> "Santa Claus has a white beard" Is this true, false or neither?
>
> Martin
>
>
and objective for that person. However that does not prevent this fantasy
fact from being objectively a lot weaker than my fantasy fact which is very
strong.
All this discussion kind of reminds you of ..... SCIENCE!... doesn't it?
Philip
Dave O'Neill
So, in fact, science based SF can be emotional then?
--
Dave O'Neill
Principle Word Wraggler - Atomicrazor
The lowest editorial standards on the web!
Dave O'Neill
Not any brand of science I studied, no.
philipm
>
> Read Flowers for Algernon and come back, there's a good lad.
>
>
I did. And I came back smarter and wiser. Very emotional book. But enough
about me! What about you? Why hasn't your education level changed after 12
years of school? :)
Philip
philipm
> You know, there's a word to describe people like you...
>
I wouldn't focus on our own counting abilities quite yet :)
Philip
philipm
> So, in fact, science based SF can be emotional then?
>
It can, but not as a good rule. I would call that book more fantasy anyway.
Local Solar System space exploration is pretty realistic for most people,
having seen it on so many fantasy things on tv and all.
I wouldn't have bothered to post if the discussion stayed talking about
local solar system fiction.
Philip
philipm
> Not any brand of science I studied, no.
>
>
or, more importantly, ever done any for yourself, you would have found out
that it is terribly terribly hard to have any idea about what the truth
really is.
Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
Philip
Samuel Kleiner
> Let me give you an example of a fact -- "It was commonly believed in
> medieval Europe that the unicorn, a one-horned animal resembling a
> horse, had magical powers."
>
> And here's another one -- "There is no such creature."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here, that we are aware of.
--
Martin Lewis
news:agS58.109676$vH6.6...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > Its even worse than that, hence the philosphy exam I sat:
> >
> > "Santa Claus has a white beard" Is this true, false or neither?
>
> The question is incomplete. Since there are at least two common
> definitions of "Santa Claus" - one of which has a white beard, and the
other
> one looks just like Mommy and Daddy, if you want to be inclusive which of
> the supplied answers fits?
Well, no, not according to the dictionary.
However you can take it up with my examining board if you want, maybe
they'll bump my grade up.
Martin
David Allsopp
<p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> Let me get this straight. You're typing on a keyboard made from oil and
>> refined metals, watching the letters come up on a light-emitting screen,
>> in order to use a few grams of silicon etched finer than the eye can see
>> with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tiny quantum-mechanical
>> devices, in order to send a message that will travel via optical cables
>> (and possibly satellite links), to be read by thousands of people across
>> the whole world, all of whom could reply within a few hours, and you are
>> actually saying, I mean really actually truly making the claim, that
>> *science has no special relation to observed reality*?!?
>>
>> I give up.
>
>have nothing to do with "science". This is just one more example of how
>people completely misuse the word science and overload it with all kinds of
>elitist meanings. And if you question them they say you are stupid, in a
>very anti-scientific manner, and "give up".
>
>Philip
OK Humpty Dumpty, I'll have one more go -- just how would *you* define
the word "science"? You certainly seem to have a different definition
of it from everyone else in the group.
Be sure to explain how using the word "science" to include the physical
products of said activity is a) overloading it and b) elitist.
For extra bonus points, you might like to tell us how to create a world-
wide computer network without "science". Actually, I'll settle for how
to make a computer chip from refined silicon. No, make that "how to get
refined silicon". In fact, a description of how to identify silicon as
an element in its own right will be more than adequate. Or even a
discussion of the concept of "element".
(Note that I'm assuming that all of these actually are real. If they
aren't, then it's solipsism for every one of us...)
PS -- it could be that you're using a different definition of "reality".
Looking at the rest of the thread, that seems more and more likely.
Ron Henry
> I agree with both. And my fact was also a fact
"Facts are simple and facts are straight.
Facts are lazy and facts are late.
Facts all come with points of view.
Facts don't do what I want them to.
Facts just twist the truth around.
Facts are living turned inside out.
Facts are getting the best of them.
Facts are nothing on the face of things.
Facts don't stain the furniture.
Facts go out and slam the door.
Facts are written all over your face.
Facts continue to change their shape..."
-- Talking Heads, "Crosseyed and Painless"
HTH.
--
Ron Henry ronh...@clarityconnect.com
Ought Weblog
http://people2.clarityconnect.com/webpages6/ronhenry/ought.htm
Lois Tilton
> Its even worse than that, hence the philosphy exam I sat:
> "Santa Claus has a white beard" Is this true, false or neither?
And you had to defend all three answers!
--
LT
Ron Henry
> Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
> eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
On the average. Since, while some scientists are only wrong 50% of the
time, others are wrong a staggering 150% of the time!
A.C.
Science (at least the type practiced over the past 200 years) is
rarely ever "100%" wrong; when theories are overturned, at least some
percentage of the former system is retained (relativity and quantum
mechanics didn't completely overturn Newtonian physics, continental
drift didn't mean you threw out everything else in geology, and
Darwinian evolution didn't render all anatomical and paleontological
discoveries of the day obsolete)
Mark
> "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" does not actually imply the
> existence of unicorns. It is much more about the definition of what
> unicorn is. If you like, pretend that it actually says
> "If unicorns existed, and horns existed, and foreheads existed, and
> unicorns had foreheads, then unicorns would have horns on their
> foreheads."
>
> Or think of it this way -- "All unicorns have horns on their foreheads" is
> surely a stronger statement, right? But it means the same thing as
> "There are no unicorns that have no horn on their forehead." which
> I think you'll be likely to agree with.
>
I understand now. You are a Deconstructionist. Words represent the
only valid means of describing reality, therefore what words can say
must be "real"--except that words are unreliable, ergo, nothing real
can be accurately described by them. Ad hoc demonstrandum, reality is
what my words say it is.
Utter crap. But at least I understand now.
I can go on with other things now. Thing being those factual
activities having to do with words and reality...
Mark
Andrew Ducker
@news01.cit.cornell.edu:
> "philipm" <p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
>> eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
>
> On the average. Since, while some scientists are only wrong 50% of the
> time, others are wrong a staggering 150% of the time!
Aah, you obviously had some of the same tutors as I did.
Andy D
Mark
>
> >Are you saying that these observations are somehow invalid?
>
> Certainly. All the time. Repeatedly and often. See encyclopedia.
> The whole point about science is that it has almost a 100% observation
> falsehood average.
>
I gotta ask--where do you get your percentages? Even simple Newtonian
physics is an absolute denial of your assertions, so...what 100% of
what are you talking about and where do you get that data?
Mark
p.s. If your statement is true, it must be based on observation--and
since you cannot rely on observation, it must be, provisionally at
least, false.
Mark
So something has to have been *done* in order for it to support
realism in fiction? Then how does that square with fantasy? 'Sfar as
anyone can tell, magic never happened, anywhere at any time. It's
pure speculation for the purposes of entertainment--as is Science
Fiction.
Mark
Mark
> > > Something that 99% of the human race have no clue about and wouldn't be
> able
> > > to understand if it was explained to them, is not realistic. And yes,
> > > reality does depend on your education level.
> >
> > No. One's ability to deal with reality may depend on one's education,
> > but reality is unaffected.
> >
>
> Oh, I disagree. Just ask the person and listen to what they say.
Reality is not a poll result.
>
> > To confuse description of reality with reality itself...well, I
> > suppose you could blame education (or lack thereof) for that.
> >
> > Mark
>
> Had you studied more science you would have learned all about "seeing is
> believing". Know anything about quantum mechanics?
>
Quite a lot, actually. But to take a subject you don't seem to
understanding and expand that lack of understaning to encompass
Everything, is a magnificent piece of solpsism. I congratulate you,
sir. You are one half a Heinlein Hero.
Mark
Lee DeRaud
<p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> So reality is *defined* by what people say? You're not from California
>> -- you're an Ivy League deconstructionist.
>>
>> (Or a remarkably successful troll -- that's always a possibility.)
>>
>> Ok, let's take that theory and run with it. I say that you're dead.
>> Reality is defined by my speech (as you've just claimed). So what are
>> you now?
>
>A better question would be what kind of person would talk to a dead man?
>Hmmmmm? A cra.... oh sorry. No trolling. I get it. Must be gentle with the
>wee ones.
Oh great, now Yahoo's selling accounts to *dead* people...
Lee
Mark
> I had to think a little harder. Good counter example with the indians.
> In this case it is not the reality of magic shirts that is in question.
> It is simple ignorance that magical bullets are magical items that are more
> powerful than magic shirts.
>
> For the Ghost Dancers, "Reality" was most definitely "Not". It behaved
> nothing like they expected it to behave.
>
> Philip
The flaw here is that, in fact, the Ghost Dancers knew perfectly well
what bullets were, had had plenty of experience with them.
Expectations and Reality often have a strained relation to one
another.
A better example (for your purposes) might be the smallpox epidemics
that eradicated the Indians, in spite of all their Big Medicine. In
Fact, it was smallpox that killed them--their ignorance affected that
not at all.
Mark
Michael Altarriba
It goes like this: Physicists use words. Deconstructionists use words.
Therefore, Deconstructionists are physicists! And, since they are better
at using words, they are better physicists! Alan Sokal already popped
that odious balloon, but some people haven't received the memo yet.
Marc Dionne
<m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> "philipm" <p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > >
> > > And pretending anything that actually works is "magic" is just about
> > > the sloppiest kind of thinking possible. I never actually expected to
> > > *meet* a cargo cultist...
> >
> > Oh great. Just because I don't agree with you I am some kind of
> > transportation cultist. Are you in the transportation mafia? I'm not quite
> > sure what your point is, but go ahead and post, It's an expensive country.
>
> *boogle*
>
> Ok. Either a troll, or a bad AI...
Yeah. I was thinking trollbot....
--
Marc Dionne, Ph.D. | dio...@stanford.edu | (650) 724-8064
Schneider lab, Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University
Dave O'Neill
So, in essense your "problem" with SF is the same as mine with Fantasy (or
Pixie Shit as a good friend calls it) - its dull, boring and on the whole
crap. No internal consistency through the use of magic, cardboard villans,
the same trolled out sterotypes etc...
I pick my reading matter, but I like:
a) Internal Consistency
b) Characters behaving as characters do
c) Good extrapolation from real science or at least a good reason for not
doing so, eg. plot devices (FTL etc)
d) Something mind expanding as Aldis put it
I find none of the above in the fantasy I've read.
Dave O'Neill
> >
> > Not any brand of science I studied, no.
> >
> >
> Ahhh! You see if you had ever actually studied any real experimental
science
> or, more importantly, ever done any for yourself, you would have found out
> that it is terribly terribly hard to have any idea about what the truth
> really is.
Depends if you count an engineering degree and science based A levels as
real experimental science. I do.
>
> Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
> eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
Please go on. This will be fun.
So, which out of the following was 100% wrong:
Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Maxwell, Boyle, Faraday.
Cheers.
Dave O'Neill
"Mark" <mtied...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:78b1aacb.02013...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" does not actually imply the
> > existence of unicorns. It is much more about the definition of what
> > unicorn is. If you like, pretend that it actually says
> > "If unicorns existed, and horns existed, and foreheads existed, and
> > unicorns had foreheads, then unicorns would have horns on their
> > foreheads."
> >
> > Or think of it this way -- "All unicorns have horns on their foreheads"
is
> > surely a stronger statement, right? But it means the same thing as
> > "There are no unicorns that have no horn on their forehead." which
> > I think you'll be likely to agree with.
> >
>
>
> I understand now. You are a Deconstructionist. Words represent the
> only valid means of describing reality, therefore what words can say
> must be "real"--except that words are unreliable, ergo, nothing real
> can be accurately described by them. Ad hoc demonstrandum, reality is
> what my words say it is.
There was a guy on the MSNBC discussion boards like this, he had created his
"perceptual" theory of the universe, essential that what you saw was real
and nothing else was.
Kinda fun until it got boring. He'd never test a hypothesis because he
could "see" the reality.
Mark Atwood
>
> Actually I am willing to bet you that more people would say that my
> statement was true and factual than would agree with either one of your
> "facts". The first one is kind of questionable, but I'll give it to you
> because I am charitable.
"When did ignorance become a point of view?" -- Scott Adams
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Dave O'Neill
*sigh*
So you fail to see that throw this admission your core argument is wrong?
And your level of school is?
Aaron Denney
> >
> > "Unicorns have a horn on their forehead" does not actually imply the
> > existence of unicorns. It is much more about the definition of what
> > unicorn is. If you like, pretend that it actually says
> > "If unicorns existed, and horns existed, and foreheads existed, and
> > unicorns had foreheads, then unicorns would have horns on their
> > foreheads."
> >
> > Or think of it this way -- "All unicorns have horns on their foreheads" is
> > surely a stronger statement, right? But it means the same thing as
> > "There are no unicorns that have no horn on their forehead." which
> > I think you'll be likely to agree with.
> >
>
>
> I understand now. You are a Deconstructionist. Words represent the
> only valid means of describing reality, therefore what words can say
> must be "real"--except that words are unreliable, ergo, nothing real
> can be accurately described by them. Ad hoc demonstrandum, reality is
> what my words say it is.
You might care to read a bit closer. Or at least have the courtesy to not
followup when you don't. I was not supporting the original
poster of this crap, merely trying to point out that Andrew's refutation
of this particular element was not well supported at all.
Math and logic have a well established convention that neither
"All X are Y", nor "No X are Y" establishes that there is in fact
anything that is an X.
If I were to say "red crows are not blue", would you consider that
statement to be false, because there are no red crows?
<plonk>
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Sean O'Hara
>
> >
> > Not any brand of science I studied, no.
> >
> >
> Ahhh! You see if you had ever actually studied any real experimental science
> or, more importantly, ever done any for yourself, you would have found out
> that it is terribly terribly hard to have any idea about what the truth
> really is.
>
No matter what babble Jeff Goldblum spouted in Jurassic Park, science
doesn't claim that everything is unpredictable and we can't
understand reality. Not even quantum physics.
> Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
> eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
>
No. I suspect you don't understand what "theory" means.
--
Sean O’Hara
Now an unemployed college graduate!
“Bring back Janet Reno. Let’s return to killing people in
Texas, please!” -- Get Your Enr On (http://www.mnftiu.net)
Sean O'Hara
>
> So, in essense your "problem" with SF is the same as mine with Fantasy (or
> Pixie Shit as a good friend calls it) - its dull, boring and on the whole
> crap. No internal consistency through the use of magic, cardboard villans,
> the same trolled out sterotypes etc...
>
George R. R. Martin and Guy Gavriel Kay. When magic actually does
appear, it's consistent, the "villains" have brains enough to win,
and the stereotypes only bite people on the ass.
Andrew Wheeler
>
>
>Martin Lewis wrote:
> > "Santa Claus has a white beard" Is this true, false or
> > neither?
> >
> >
> choice is 100% true and objective for that person. However
> that does not prevent this fantasy fact from being
> objectively a lot weaker than my fantasy fact which is very
> strong. All this discussion kind of reminds you of .....
> SCIENCE!... doesn't it?
I just want to note, in passing, that philipm can't count, either --
"true, false or neither" becomes "4 choices." Which really sums up his
whole debating strategy in this thread -- misunderstand everything,
confuse the issue, and misuse words.
I think I'm done beating my head against this particular wall.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
No Ideas But In Things!
William December Starr
"philipm" <p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> said:
> Ahhh! You see if you had ever actually studied any real experimental
> science or, more importantly, ever done any for yourself, you would
> have found out that it is terribly terribly hard to have any idea
> about what the truth really is.
>
> Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
> eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
Troll, or just your garden-variety crank? You be the judge...
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
philipm
> OK Humpty Dumpty, I'll have one more go -- just how would *you* define
> the word "science"? You certainly seem to have a different definition
> of it from everyone else in the group.
I beleive I did already. "Pattern creation", I said. Simple enough really,
Alice.
>
> Be sure to explain how using the word "science" to include the physical
> products of said activity is a) overloading it and b) elitist.
a) Noticing that something fits a pattern you made up has little intrinsic
value.
Using that pattern to find interesting things does. Its all a
**fantastical** voyage of discovery!
b) Like a pimp with a gold cane, a fur coat and a rolls royce you see a ho
and think she is your property and shall work for you forever more.
>
> For extra bonus points, you might like to tell us how to create a world-
> wide computer network without "science". Actually, I'll settle for how
> to make a computer chip from refined silicon. No, make that "how to get
> refined silicon". In fact, a description of how to identify silicon as
> an element in its own right will be more than adequate. Or even a
> discussion of the concept of "element".
Merely read the history of their creation and all shall be revealed.
>
> (Note that I'm assuming that all of these actually are real. If they
> aren't, then it's solipsism for every one of us...)
They are real.... for you.
philipm
>
> Science (at least the type practiced over the past 200 years) is
> rarely ever "100%" wrong; when theories are overturned, at least some
> percentage of the former system is retained (relativity and quantum
> mechanics didn't completely overturn Newtonian physics, continental
> drift didn't mean you threw out everything else in geology, and
> Darwinian evolution didn't render all anatomical and paleontological
> discoveries of the day obsolete)
Do you see the forest or the trees? Did the CEO do all the work or was it
the 10000000 employees of the company. The president caused the recession,
right?
There is the counter example - and than ther is the boring mundane dreary
miserable rule.
First rule of statistics is to throw away the outliers.
Philip
philipm
> And you had to defend all three answers!
>
>
> --
> LT
>
There are four. So what is the fourth?
Philip
philipm
> only valid means of describing reality, therefore what words can say
> must be "real"--except that words are unreliable, ergo, nothing real
> can be accurately described by them. Ad hoc demonstrandum, reality is
> what my words say it is.
>
> Utter crap. But at least I understand now.
>
> I can go on with other things now. Thing being those factual
> activities having to do with words and reality...
>
> Mark
Unfortunately, no. I am not a deconstructionist. I am an intuitive
fantastical scientist. Although I resent being a scientist, I can not help
my nature.
Your lack of understanding does not preclude the existence of any world
views separate from your own.
Philip
philipm
> Therefore, Deconstructionists are physicists! And, since they are better
> at using words, they are better physicists! Alan Sokal already popped
> that odious balloon, but some people haven't received the memo yet.
>
Therefore Deconstructionists (I am not one, no matter how hard you try) use
the same tools physicists use and come to a different conclusion.
Evolution will sort them out. Don't Worry.
Philip
philipm
> There was a guy on the MSNBC discussion boards like this, he had created
his
> "perceptual" theory of the universe, essential that what you saw was real
> and nothing else was.
>
> Kinda fun until it got boring. He'd never test a hypothesis because he
> could "see" the reality.
>
I think I should get a gold medal for testing all the incorrect patterns
people have espoused out of malicious ignorance.
Philip
philipm
> I gotta ask--where do you get your percentages? Even simple Newtonian
> physics is an absolute denial of your assertions, so...what 100% of
> what are you talking about and where do you get that data?
The devil is in the details, not in the exceptions to the overwhelming
mundanity (of which "newtonian" physics is not one)
>
> Mark
>
> p.s. If your statement is true, it must be based on observation--and
> since you cannot rely on observation, it must be, provisionally at
> least, false.
I can and do rely on observation. Don't confuse your eyes with mine.
Philip
philipm
>
> >
> > > To confuse description of reality with reality itself...well, I
> > > suppose you could blame education (or lack thereof) for that.
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Had you studied more science you would have learned all about "seeing is
> > believing". Know anything about quantum mechanics?
> >
>
>
> Quite a lot, actually. But to take a subject you don't seem to
> understanding and expand that lack of understaning to encompass
> Everything, is a magnificent piece of solpsism. I congratulate you,
> sir. You are one half a Heinlein Hero.
>
> Mark
I don't think you know anything about quantum mechanics. If you did, you
would not protest so.
Philip
philipm
>
>
> The flaw here is that, in fact, the Ghost Dancers knew perfectly well
> what bullets were, had had plenty of experience with them.
> Expectations and Reality often have a strained relation to one
> another.
>
> A better example (for your purposes) might be the smallpox epidemics
> that eradicated the Indians, in spite of all their Big Medicine. In
> Fact, it was smallpox that killed them--their ignorance affected that
> not at all.
>
> Mark
I don't know the history in question but I do know you have contradicted
yourself. Either they believed in the efficiacy of their shirts or they did
not.
Get it?
Do you believe in bullet proof vests? How about toughned leather vests?
Philip
philipm
> So, in essense your "problem" with SF is the same as mine with Fantasy (or
> Pixie Shit as a good friend calls it) - its dull, boring and on the whole
> crap. No internal consistency through the use of magic, cardboard
villans,
> the same trolled out sterotypes etc...
>
> I pick my reading matter, but I like:
>
> a) Internal Consistency
> b) Characters behaving as characters do
> c) Good extrapolation from real science or at least a good reason for
not
> doing so, eg. plot devices (FTL etc)
> d) Something mind expanding as Aldis put it
>
> I find none of the above in the fantasy I've read.
>
I think I will let others convince you of your base ignorance about the
merits of books which you can't classify and don't understand.
Philip
Michael Altarriba
My Bad. My message implied that you were a deconstructionist - my post
was a slam against Deconstructionists believing that their text trumped
Physics. Frankly, I couldn't begin to classify your point of view, and I
agree that Deconstructionist wouldn't fit.
philipm
I think the gates are down and the bull is snorting. Personally I am rather
fond of villians being heroes of late.
Philip
philipm
> >
> > Even once you get a fairly stable theory it usually gets overturned
> > eventually. That is why scientists, on the average, are 100% wrong.
>
> Please go on. This will be fun.
>
> So, which out of the following was 100% wrong:
>
> Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Maxwell, Boyle, Faraday.
>
The average there is probably 95% wrong over the collective lifetimes.
The good ones are only 90% wrong *****for the next couple of
lifetimes*******.
Philip
philipm
>
> "When did ignorance become a point of view?" -- Scott Adams
>
That's what I've been saying all along!
Philip
Bill Snyder
<p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I understand now. You are a Deconstructionist. Words represent the
>> only valid means of describing reality, therefore what words can say
>> must be "real"--except that words are unreliable, ergo, nothing real
>> can be accurately described by them. Ad hoc demonstrandum, reality is
>> what my words say it is.
>>
>> Utter crap. But at least I understand now.
>>
>> I can go on with other things now. Thing being those factual
>> activities having to do with words and reality...
>>
>> Mark
>
>Unfortunately, no. I am not a deconstructionist. I am an intuitive
>fantastical scientist. Although I resent being a scientist, I can not help
>my nature.
If "intuitive fantastical scientist" translates to "long winded,
uneducated wackjob, and boring at that," then you're a scientist, all
right.
<plonk>
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David Johnston
Ah. A crazy person. How nice.
ke...@hplb.hpl.hp.com
"philipm" <p_skipmeandun...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> First rule of statistics is to throw away the outliers.
>
You are Philip Outlier and I claim my five pounds.
--
Chris "statistical" Dollin
C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html
C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html
Dave O'Neill
Sorry, your word doesn't make it so.
If you wish to make this rather bold assertion, could you explain where they
were "95%" wrong, and why you think it is so.
For example, what is wrong with the Theory of Evolution?