(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ

[António Pedro Marques]

No dia 9 de Jan de 2011, às 12:36, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> escreveu:

> 
> 
>> Antonio Pedro Marques: I think I've asked more than once whether or not you understand the concept 
>> of falsifiability and its importance, but I don't recall getting an answer.
> 
> If you have been reading my posts and are aware of my background in science and academia, then perhaps
> you can realize the rudeness of your question.

Other than a recent allusion to something to do with tetrapod phylogeny, I'm afraid 
It must have escaped me. The question is in earnest. 

> But I will answer now as I would always answer that 
> question: Scientific principles are very useful in understanding the real world, which is (seems to be)
> a place created by vast, natural and ultimately incomprehensible processes.
> 
> In my opinion these principles are less useful in understanding fiction and other art which is the creation 
> of a much smaller world by a human intelligence for a specific purpose/meaning. In my opinion Gene Wolfe is 
> very aware of this distinction as he writes and is very aware of his role as Creator in the worlds he creates.

That's all very well, and I did mention the limits of falsifiable hypotheses. But the fact remains that a work of art, and fiction, is part of the real world. 

How, without some kind of falsifiability or meta-falsifiability, can one tell between one's visions of Gene Wolfe's work and one's own visions detached from it? You've been asked this more than once, will you answer it now?

> In my opinion Gene Wolfe is aware that fiction/art has the power to inspire intuition and visions in ways that
> science does not. He wields this power in ways that few authors can. No, I do NOT think visions and intuition
> can be "falsified" by others. They are personal truths. When someone reports a personal truth they have felt
> I consider it insulting for others to try to falsify it. Contribute, yes. Falsify, no.

It's good that you've finally admitted it: you consider that this list is the place to share your visions, that others are welcome to build on them, but never to point out problems. I seriously doubt anyone agrees with this last part*, but it's nice that you've admitted once and for all. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find many others interested in discussing your visions if all they can do is to say amen to them. If I'm misrepresenting this, then please correct it.

(*) With exceptions, of course. As I've tried to explain in the past, sometimes one offers an idea as possible, and everything that follows is only dependent on it being possible, not certain. In that case, of course comments on how said idea is not necessarily certain are out of line. 

>> This is where, in my completely worthless and inconsequential opinion, you often though of course not always fail, 
>> and it doesn't help that you snap under critique. Also, I for an unspecified number am becoming tired of the rudeness 
>> in some of your replies.
> 
> Feel free to do a survey of all my posts. You will find that my replies mirror the tone of the post I am responding
> to, be it polite, rude, friendly, mean, serious or humourous.

Then it's your assessment of the tone of the thing you're responding to that must be off.

> I am what I am. 

(Is this a way to say that you're not susceptible of improvement? That's a singularly unfortunate thing if true.)

Being what you are has brought you into conflict. While others have pointed out specific bits of your *behaviour* that they think are undesirable, you have repeatedly called *them* wholesale unimaginative, limited, coercive and hypocrites. It's a bit late to pretend to have the moral high ground. Since you seem genuinely puzzled why things have become the way they are, I'm trying to provide you with an explanation which, I believe, is simple and accurate. The idea is for you to be able to do your stuff in a way that is more useful for others, so that others in turn may be able to respond in a way that is more useful to you. But what's the result? You feel obliged to reply point by point how you think the explanation shouldn't apply. Which of course leads us nowhere. Is it my time to say that this is my vision and you're free to contribute but nothing else?

The alternative, if you're not willing to mediate a bit on how to get along better, is to stop whining about how others are mean to you. 

> On an unrelated topic, where is James lately? I highly miss his contributions.

I hope he's having some nice time somewhere which leaves him none for us.