(urth) H'mmm

[António Pedro Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote (18-11-2011 16:22):
> 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!

But when you got neither true nor fake evidence...