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

[Lee Berman]

>Antonio Pedro Marques: Well, first of all, let me say that it's nice that we're talking now, kind 
>of at least.
 
Okay..I think. I don't think we have much common ground but at least we are communicating that we
disagree?
 
>I think you forgot to say somewhere that you're still operating on the realm 
>of metaphor. Because of course what you're describing is falsifiability 
>applied to physical and chemical analysis, but there's nothing about 
>falsifiability that is tied to physical phenomena.

Actually there is. I will quote the godfather of the laws of conducting science, Karl Popper, who said:
 
>In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it 
>is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
 
I think it might be wise to step back now and then and remember the definition of the word "fiction".
 
>Falsifiability is simply the corollary of predictiveness. Where you have a 
>theory, you have prediction; and prediction can be tested. If you have a 
>Inire-is-evil theory, then you sort of have a prediction that somewhere 
>there should be evidence of a sinister side to him.
 
Heh, I can't believe you went there. Are you (or others) really thinking that when the word "theory" is
used in regard to understanding a Wolfe story that the word is meant in strict scientific definition?
How do you propose to test predictability for a theory on fiction? Have the author re-write the 
characters using test and control populations of characters? Gather hundreds of first-time readers and...
well, I needn't go on. It seems silly. I've always understood that the word "theory" is used in the arts 
in the loosest sense, not the scientific sense. I can testify that this same word is used with similar 
meaning in other discussions of other works of art. Now and then I add "gestalt vision" or "personal 
understanding" to qualify the use of the word "theory" but it would be silly to do that all the time when
most people (I hope) understand the meaning of the word in this context.
 
Regarding Father Inire I do not have a "theory" which says he is "evil". I have had a general sense that
he is best understood not just as an alien but as an analog to a Greek sort of god. This understanding
has served me well and has been supported in my readings of Long/Short Sun and other Wolfe works.
His measure of "evil" might best be evaluated in the same way one might evaluate the good/evil to be
found in a mythological god. For those who see no mythology in Wolfe's stories, hey..I am comfortable
with that. You may understand the story in your own way.
 
>In that regard, what can you counter to Gerry's Daleks except for the impression that Gerry doesn't believe 
>them one bit?
 
I noticed a thread about Daleks but I didn't read any of it so I can't really comment. Gerry used the term once
or twice in a different post so maybe I understand his intention. I remember once a long time ago when I was
in a college philosophy course, one student asserted to the class that he knew he had a soul. I countered by
asserting I had an invisible turnip in my kidney. The class laughed. The other student felt bad. I felt bad.
I should have asked him more about what he knew, rather than make fun of him. I have grown wiser and kinder
since those days. I am more aware that what I don't know can be as important as what I do know and that other
people's thoughts and feelings are as valid as my own. I recommend this direction in personal growth as a 
human being.