(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Gerry Quinn]

From: Lee Berman 


> >> But 10,000 years hence won't some people snicker at the ridiculous belief in 
> >> "science" we have; laughing at such folly as neurology and sub-atomic physics 
> >> as we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding brooms?

> > Gerry Quinn: Some people do even now.  However, I don’t think our understanding 
> > of such matters is likely to be reversed, though it may be deepened.
 
> Well of course you would think that. Your belief in science is akin to the ancient
> Greek's belief in Zeus or a Medieval villager's belief in witchcraft. If asked, they
> would predict a future in 2011 where knowledge and belief in Zeus or witches would 
> remain intact though perhaps deepened. 
I thought this kind of relativism was one of the concepts that have been superseded!  Are you trying to resuscitate the Science Wars?
There’s a difference between science and the study of Zeus and witches (and the ideas of the ancients regarding these may well retain validity in their own sphere, but not the sphere of science). 

 
> I hope you won't try the argument that Zeus' thunderbolts and witches crop hexings was 
> fake while sub-atomic physics and neurosurgery are real. Ancient experts predicted 
> thunderstorms and crop failures and they were usually right and came to be believed.
> You have never seen an electron and you have not done original research on the subject.  
> Electricity seems to work so you believe the experts who tell you how it works. Same for 
> brain surgery when you submit to the knife. Belief in science and technology is fully a 
> matter of faith as much as mythology/religion.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.  The epistemology by which we learn the truths of science is different and more robust than the epistemology which led to the type of explanations you are talking about.

Now for purposes of discussing Gene Wolfe’s books, the balance tilts a little more in your direction compared to the study of the natural world.  Nevertheless, the books describe a universe that, like our own, is under the rule of natural and permanent laws.  The speed of light will be about the same in a million years, even if we can measure it more accurately.  It was the same when it was first usefully measured in the seventeenth century, though Romer was out by about 20%.

 
> > When I say there is no magic in the Sun books, I’m not talking about fakery, just saying 
> > that it is the kind of universe that runs on natural rather than magical laws.
 
> I tend to agree. But don't discount fakery. Wolfe doesn't, as Jerry's quote illustrates.
> In our discussion on inhumi you expressed the belief that they really do achieve escape
> velocity using muscles and survive for long periods in the void because Wolfe doesn't worry 
> much about natural laws in his work.      

He doesn’t worry too much about accurate science.  But natural laws are very important to him.  It’s the sort of world he’s creating that matters, not the exact laws that are applicable.

- Gerry Quinn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111222/ee0690b1/attachment-0003.htm>