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

[Lee Berman]

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: You are using too narrow a definition of "prediction" and "falsifiability."

Perhaps, but remember I am not bringing up these terms myself, only responding to the accusations
of other people using these terms.
 
>In the case of literary discussion, the "available evidence" is the text at hand, as a whole and in parts.
 
I would add literary and other sorts of allusional links and authorial interviews and such but, sure
that's okay with me.
 
>If, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with an idea I that also explains some 
>details of his encounter with He-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction.
 
Sounds like James's "theory". Which I liked. Yet certain authorities deemed it falsified, unlikely, 
non-predictive or whatever. So who am I to believe, them or you?
 
Since "prediction" implies a future event, I personally think of the concept as a "connection"- one part
of the text or evidence linked to another. My own personal code is that I won't post an idea unless it has at
least two such connections. Happily, Wolfe usually provides me with more than two. Yet again, the authorities 
feel that if one contradicting bit of evidence is found, the whole idea is falsified, disproven, etc. Again, 
who to believe, them or myself? Should we take a vote?
 
As somebody recently suggested, Gene Wolfe himself knows how ruined his work would be if he gave away all the
"correct" answers. If correct answers would enhance his work, then he would give them. In my view, those
who correct everyone else to allow only their own interpretations to be valid are striking a blow in ruining 
the work. Luckily this List is not all there is.
 
>I am not suggesting that literary criticism and theory have the epistemological status of the sciences. 
>I am, however, suggesting that the methods of the sciences can be used to make literary criticism and
>theory more useful.
 
Perhaps. But even here, your words suggest you recognize the much greater difficulty in "proof" and disproof
when it comes to the understanding of art vs. understanding of the natural and real world. I am rather acutely 
aware of how often the ideals of science fail on the basis of human failings. Ego, greed, despotism, 
territoriality, aggression; all these are factors in whether real science decides to accept or falsify a 
hypothesis.
 
How much do these factor in when the subject of the study is fiction and the outcome of little real
consequence? From my experience, about the same.  It is easy enough to stir these hidden agendas into full view. 
I'm sure you've seen them. You've been around here a lot longer than me. How could they be missed? I do my best 
to put mine on open display, anyway. I've stated my goals. They are being accomplished. I am content.
 
The eternal question here- who decides when a connection/prediction is valid and relevant and when it is not?
Can you ever really know (other than for yourself) what is the best answer for a fictional question?
If you know, please tell me. Reveal the Secret Formula. When there is disagreement about fiction...
 *HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO IS RIGHT?*
 
 
(interestingly, my current work project is an investigation of the 10 year impact of the study linking
childhood vaccinations and autism. All the human failings listed above come into play; large sums of money, 
massive egos, cover-ups, fraud, panic and disease outbreaks are all a part of the equation)