(urth) H'mmm

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/18/2011 11:02 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> David Stockhoff wrote (18-11-2011 14:36):
>> On 11/18/2011 9:04 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
>>> I'm completely with Marc on this. Brilliant analogy. The connection
>>> between inhumi and
>>> lianas (and trees and Neighbors) is primarily spiritual. There is a
>>> biological connection
>>> implied because the entire Sun Series has a devotion to the premise 
>>> that
>>> there is a
>>> scientific level of understanding to all spiritual things. Think Dr.
>>> Crane's burst blood
>>> vessel explanation for an epiphany. Crane may be right but he misses 
>>> the
>>> point: the flesh
>>> participates in experiential events but the spirit is what matters 
>>> most.
>>>
>>> It is unfair to try to pin Marc down to explain the specifics of the
>>> biological connection
>>> between vines and inhumi when the text obviously doesn't supply 
>>> them. This
>>> is akin to the
>>> dismissive strategies of our resident Atheist Warriors in here. If 
>>> there
>>> is no hard science
>>> explanation for something, it doesn't exist.
>>
>> Well put. Wolfe shows us again and again that such details are not
>> important. He even offers explanations that are bunk, such as Typhon's
>> explanation of how a flier works.
>>
>> In this case, "nature finds a way" is enough. Nature "red [or green] in
>> tooth and claw," especially.
>
> The problem is that you can do without the science and you can do 
> without the tale but you can't do without both at the same time. Are 
> 500-pound theories to be hung on nothing?

Let me put it another way. Science rests on evidence. Evidence can be 
faked. Science can be faked. That's why it's called science fiction.

Look! A ray gun!