# Hard SF



## Specfiction (Sep 16, 2006)

Any hard SF fans on the forum? The UK has given us Clarke and Benford (although Benford is an American, I sense he likes the SF climate in the UK). Currently the UK has spawn Alastair Reynolds and, of course, there's Greg Egan (from Australia) who is probably the hardest SF author I've ever read.

What's the climate like now for hard SF--and why?


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 16, 2006)

Not me 
It's Ursula Le Guin and Doris Lessing all the way 

I liked hard SF when I was younger, though. Clarke was the writer introducing me to Science Fiction. But now I've got all obsessed with social science and ideas and theories and all that stuff, and SF is such a great genre for it.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 17, 2006)

Have you read Clarke (and Baxter's) kind-of recent book "Light of other Days?" It's more poignant social commentary than anything else. I mention this one because it’s recent. I think the problem with the word "hard" in describing Hard SF is that it paints the wrong image in many people’s minds. Some of the most powerful social and political commentaries, I think, are in books that "some" might classify as hard SF. Perhaps it could be called SF for mainstream readers because that's where most of the hard SF writers of this kind go.

Another fantastic example of what I'm talking about are the books of Stan Lem like “His Master's Voice,” which I consider a work of genius. Lem considered himself a mainstream writer even though his books had a "Science" fiction theme.

Another (of many) book of this kind is Greg Bear's "Queen of Angels." This is a very difficult book to read, that's why it's not more popular. I think if Bear had made it a little more accessible, it would have been a runaway best seller among people who read things like Brave New World—the mainstream public.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 17, 2006)

Generally speaking, "hard" sf has been in a bit of a slump as far as popularity (not necessarily talent) goes; in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century, and has been turning to more fantasy-oriented work, and to things that are more familiar and rely on older superstitions and folk beliefs ... a not uncommon trend in literature, and one that changes over time.

Nonetheless, there's still a fairly good fan base for the harder types of sf; it's just not quite as large as the fantasy base at present.


----------



## chrispenycate (Sep 17, 2006)

I suppose I must be considered a fairly "hard" science fiction reader; and yes, I have read"The light of other days", though I haven't yet found the paperback of "Sunstorm" and is "The light of future days" a misprint or something else I should be searching for?) Baxter himself has written some quite hard SF.
And, not british, but have you read any books from the Forward family ( Robert L.plus Martha Dodson & Julie  Forward)?


----------



## Coops (Sep 18, 2006)

I'm a hard SF kinda guy
Niven, Asimov, Brin, Benford, Bear, etc.
Analog Science Fact and Fiction subscriber for 20 years.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2006)

> ...in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century,...



Do you think that the modern world as embodied by western culture has produced a world with greater problems for the individual than the middle ages (the dark ages)? Are the 7th century conflicts reemerging in the 21th century due to scientific advance or to an abandonment of scientific culture by the west?

PS I'm a big fan of Robert L Forward...


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 18, 2006)

Specfiction said:
			
		

> Do you think that the modern world as embodied by western culture has produced a world with greater problems for the individual than the middle ages (the dark ages)? Are the 7th century conflicts reemerging in the 21th century due to scientific advance or to an abandonment of scientific culture by the west?
> 
> PS I'm a big fan of Robert L Forward...


 
Certainly it would be difficult to say objectively that it's more difficult in any obvious sense. But I think that the scientific learning of the past two centuries has tended to hit on a substrata of human thinking, and cause severe questioning of the myths people actually have lived by for most of human existence, without providing anything nearly so comforting to replace it. However lacking in factual basis, this mythology did provide a necessary psychological cushion for dealing with such problems as arise in life, especially in turbulent times. In that sense, yes, I think it has had that effect -- most people simply are neither trained nor interested in learning how to cope with scientific realities; they like the comfort of the ideas they grew up with and what takes away from that is often seen as inimical to the quality of life, at least on an emotional level. Without such myths to fall back on, we become less able to cope with the tensions, causing them therefore to increase rather than be periodically bled off somewhat.

This is not, I hasten to add, the fault of science or of learning, but of our inability to cope with the vision of the universe such learning inevitably brings about. And while, on the surface, we of the west are not abandoning the scientific culture (largely because of the technological conveniences it provides), we are, I think, abandoning the scientific point of view -- never truly embraced by most people to begin with, save perhaps for a very brief period from the latter 19th through mid-20th centuries -- in favor of a strong neo-mysticism to replace the myths that no longer stand up under scientific scrutiny; hence the proliferation of so many pseudoscientific doctrines for the past 150 (or thereabout) years. For all the surface changes we are, underneath, still very much the primitive faced with the unknown in the darkness, and our emotions have not evolved on nearly a par with our technological advances.

One of the best quotes I've ever come across to express this paradoxical situation is from H. P. Lovecraft -- a scientific rationalist (his own term was mechanistic materialist) who nonetheless understood the importance to human beings of myth and myth-making -- and is the opening paragraph to his story "The Call of Cthulhu":

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyag far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Again, note that it is not the revelations of science but our inability to cope with such because of our innate makeup, that the narrator is commenting on; and this is because of the loss of humanocentrism in the universe, much as the heliocentric view of the solar system replaced the earlier geocentric view and caused immense psychological turmoil in its wake ... among those educated and knowledgeable enough to even think about such issues. Then, as now, the majority of people, though they are aware of being taught that the earth revolves around the sun, do not feel this on an emotional level ... exactly the opposite, in fact. We need to feel that importance, and science leaves no room for doubt that ours is a very tiny place in a very vast cosmos which grows increasingly complex with each new discovery. Certainty has been taken from us, even the positivism of the nineteenth century, and we are left with, at best, probabilities; and that is not at all comforting to human beings, nor something we've ever been equipped to handle at all well.

So, yes, in that fashion, it is a world beset with more problems than that of the 7th or the 14th centuries, or the world of early Mesopotamia, or any other period... because there was something to hold onto that was accepted fairly well by all strata of society as veracious. Now that is gone, at least on an unconscious level -- which is where most of the psychological aspects that control our emotional reactions are processed -- and therefore it's a more troubling world; but it's something we can't turn back from without the collapse of civilization, which brings about a whole different can of worms (vast death tolls among them). Nonetheless, people are seeking those same comforting dogmas, and finding them wanting, yet clinging to them... and, as anyone who understands psychology knows, one resents a loved one who has died (and therefore abandoned you), yet clings to that memory all the more fiercely; and this causes much more free-floating rage and resentment against all things that may be associated with that loss ... both scientific culture and multiculturalism.

There's also the speed with which such ideas are promulgated and spread, something that has never before been the case... and the accessibility of such ideas to all strata of society in industrialized nations, as well -- again, something that has scarcely been the norm throughout history. All of these things tie into what I was stating; there are other aspects, but I think I've gone on far too long as is.

I hope that this provides a useful answer to the question ... and maybe some further story ideas (which would be very nice, I think) arguing from any side of the issue.


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 18, 2006)

Specfiction said:
			
		

> Have you read Clarke (and Baxter's) kind-of recent book "Light of other Days?" It's more poignant social commentary than anything else. I mention this one because it’s recent. I think the problem with the word "hard" in describing Hard SF is that it paints the wrong image in many people’s minds. Some of the most powerful social and political commentaries, I think, are in books that "some" might classify as hard SF. Perhaps it could be called SF for mainstream readers because that's where most of the hard SF writers of this kind go.


Yeah, I read Light of Other Days long ago, during my Clarke craze. Which means I was younger, less patient, less concerned about ideas and more about action (is this what it's like being young? Going just a few years back in time and finding a complete stranger?). In effect, I didn't like the book very much, and (practically) skipped several parts of the ponderous storyline, although I still remember the essence.

A more recent book is The Wreck of _The River of Stars_ by Michael Flynn. This is a book I identify as hard SF, but which deeply explores the relations between the diverse characters who make up the crew of an old, outdated space freighter. Some reviewers critizise the book for this, but I think it makes it all great.

Which leads to the question I should have asked beforehand: What _is_ "hard" SF? I basically associate it with stories in which the writer strives to get his/her physical/technical facts correct. This does, frankly, not interest me much. Of course a strict technical regime in a book could provide very concrete and palpable frames and limits for its society, and establish facts to which the society has to adjust, but does all this really _need_ to be grounded in _our_ physcial reality? As long as the story setting retains a strict internal consistence, I mean?

But anyway, what do other people associate "hard SF" with?





			
				 j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, "hard" sf has been in a bit of a slump as far as popularity (not necessarily talent) goes; in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century, and has been turning to more fantasy-oriented work, and to things that are more familiar and rely on older superstitions and folk beliefs ... a not uncommon trend in literature, and one that changes over time.


As always, JD, your posts are a rewarding read, and I wish I had the time and experience to formulate my views through such long, detailed and reflected texts as your latest post. But I believe I might still have something to add, a differing view:

I don't think Fantasy is an antithesis to "Hard" SF, rather the opposite. I think much of what is popularly know as "High Fantasy" (Jordan, Eddings etc.) might, at a closer peek, turn out to be "Hard" SF that has "survived", that has been able to adapt to the, can I call it the paradigm shift in Speculative Fiction from Science Fiction to Fantasy? You see, I believe I can point out certain similarities between HF and, at least, the classic HSF:
- High Fantasy is usually very occupied with providing a very physical and consistent setting. Novelists spend much time to develop detailed maps, measuring out the world in miles and kilometers, and write long appendices about their setting. They establish a definite internal logic in their setting, and they follow it slavishly.
- High Fantasy magic is usually highly institutionalized. It is set within very strict systems of rules and laws, and most importantly, costs and limits of use. Magic is taught at schools and academies, or from old tutors, and it has usually gone through various paradigm/stage shifts through history, like our science. Magic serves the functions of science in Fantasy.
- High Fantasy characters usually strive to follow rationalist behaviour patterns. They have a quest, a goal, which their full conscience is directed at reaching. They have to relate to other characters as either benefactors (will help me reach my goal) or antagonists (will hinder me from reaching my goal). Even their irrational actions (a usual element of "idiot plots", to progress an otherwise non-existent character intrigue) seem to follow a rational pattern. To win, they have to overcome the irrationalism.

But apart from that, I agree with you that we're abandoning the scientific point of view. Although I believe this can be split into at least three distinct directions. 
One is Post-Modernism (which we all love to make fun of), a reaction to the inhuman and alienating ideas of Modernism. I believe Post-Modernism today by far has been replaced with Rational Choice Theory, its antithesis. 
Rational Choice claims to be science, occupying itself with "solid facts" and rational thinking, but it refuses to take into account the vast ambivalences of the human mind that psychology, sociology and anthropology are constantly unearthing. In effect, it is a pseudo-science. 
The third direction is the more popular and basic anti-intellectualism that I feel is becoming prevalent in today's West. Anti-intellectualism might be caused by the vast storages of science and knowledge we have created; completely incomprehensible for the young, unprepared mind. Young Norwegians drop out of High School and College at increasing rates. Academics become more asociated with "dusty, detatched old professors" and "besserwissers", lacking "real knowledge". People gather around affective ideas like religion or the nation.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2006)

> I hope that this provides a useful answer to the question ... and maybe some further story ideas (which would be very nice, I think) arguing from any side of the issue.



Yes, this is one of the most articulate and sober answers to this question that I have seen. Obviously, you are very thoughtful and have a fairly clear understanding of the "subjective" big picture. I think you hit the nail on the head, humans are emotional-subjective animals (I hope this characterization doesn't offend anyone) embedded in an existence that is, at an observational level, orthogonal to our subjective sense.

There is another level of the problem as well. Few people make the very important distinction between technology and science. As Feynman says in one of his essays, "people like the gadgets, but they don't understand what science is..."

Do you think this emotional disconnect is reflected in the popular culture--for example much of sales and media are driven by young people. Here in America, a popular talk-show host asked people on the streets of NY if the moon orbited the sun or earth. 10% of the respondents knew the right answer. Clearly 90% of those answering this question thought that this superficial tidbit of objective knowledge was of no importance to them. And this is not science, this is a factoid derived from scientific analysis. 

Now recall the mythical importance of eclipses in the ancient world. Lives were saved or lost, wars were waged or paused on the basis of this completely irrelevant “natural occurrence.”


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2006)

> I don't think Fantasy is an antithesis to "Hard" SF, rather the opposite.



If one defines science in terms of the scientific method, i.e. that which requires reproducible proof, and one characterizes fantasy as that which is based on the supernatural and requires faith, then these two things must be dialect opposites.

In Matt Young's book "No Sense of Obligation," he observes, "there are people that think something is true simply because they think it is." However, for passengers on a plane at 40,000 feet, truth is not arbitrary.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2006)

> It's Ursula Le Guin and Doris Lessing all the way



What is hard SF--I don't know, and I've never liked the adjective “hard.” I used that only because people have an idea about it, i.e. "I don't know what he said, but I know what he means..."

I like LeGuin too. Her father was a famous Berkeley anthropologist and she is an anthropologist by training. It shows in her work. I consider her books/stories Lathe of Heaven, The Disspossed, and The Left Hand of Darkness hard SF. Why? Because they purport the rationalist view. I think Asimov and Sagan characterize this well in their ideas of "Rational Humanism."


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Sep 18, 2006)

Interesting.  I never thought of Le Guin as writing hard SF.  But if we define hard SF as an interest in getting the science right, then she fits:  there's no FTL travel in her books, just the ansible, and certainly her anthropological and sociological science is careful and consistent with current theory.

On the other hand, the resolution of the plot in a hard SF novel usually depends on some scientific point rather than on a emotional point--and the resolution of _The Left Hand of Darkness_ is decidedly based on interpersonal relationships, not on science.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2006)

Yes, that's why I think the designation hard SF is lousy. However, when you say it like that, people sort-of-know what you're talking about. For me, good hard SF is not about gadgets, it's about the human condition in a "rational" universe where some new possibility becomes open to investigation.

BTW Who knows, maybe FTL is possible--I can tell you that no one really knows. You can have FTL and not violate Relativity. The only real constraint for me in hard SF is that whatever it is, can not rely on magic or the supernatural. And like Clarke says, "For a very advanced civilization, technology could "appear" as magic" (but it's not--like the ansible).


----------



## chrispenycate (Sep 18, 2006)

Ah. You split it hard (science fiction) rather than (hard science) fiction, the hard sciences being the ones in which we can get repeatable, predictable results to experiments (physics, chemistry, even at times biology and medecine) and the soft sciences being those whre you can't reasonably do an experiment at all, and the results are statistical or descriptive (sociology, psycology, cosmology) There ought to be a class between the two (firm sciences, where you can do the experiments but not control the conditions sufficiently well to get consistent results, like meteology and advertising) and one outside soft (fuzzy sciences, where the experiment is adjusted to get the required result, and any data _not_ supporting the preordained result are not explained away, simply ignored {and we all know "sciences" like that; and the big problem is, they're not nescessarily all bogus, just so ill organised}) 
And in soft (science fiction) you presumably are allowed magic, and wish fulfilment, provided you apply the right (fashionable) geekspeak (come to think of it you can do that in hard science fiction too, as long as your premises are consistant).


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 18, 2006)

Specfiction said:
			
		

> If one defines science in terms of the scientific method, i.e. that which requires reproducible proof, and one characterizes fantasy as that which is based on the supernatural and requires faith, then these two things must be dialect opposites.


I didn't mean to say magic _is_ science in Fantasy, I meant it serves a similar function in the plot. That a writer of "hard SF" can easily switch to writing Fantasy without having to change his/her style. Besides, from the point of view of a Fantasy character, magic might seem completely natural and plausible, just as our current level of knowledge does to us. Magic seems to function as a force of nature. In China Miéville's world Bas-Lag, for instance, there is a craft called "thaumaturgy", which is wielding magic as a natural force for instrumental purposes.


> What is hard SF--I don't know, and I've never liked the adjective “hard.” I used that only because people have an idea about it, i.e. "I don't know what he said, but I know what he means..."
> 
> I like LeGuin too. Her father was a famous Berkeley anthropologist and she is an anthropologist by training. It shows in her work. I consider her books/stories Lathe of Heaven, The Disspossed, and The Left Hand of Darkness hard SF. Why? Because they purport the rationalist view. I think Asimov and Sagan characterize this well in their ideas of "Rational Humanism."


I agree that the term is inadequate, but the way I see it, "hard" SF primarily utilizes natural sciences, while "soft" SF explores the ideas of social sciences and the Humanities. This seems to me to be the most obvious place to draw the line. And, after all, you've got to have _some_ science in SF, otherwise it's just Space Fantasy or whatever


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 18, 2006)

Thadlerian: First, thanks for the kind comments. Second ... I think we're pretty close in our perception of this, actually. And in reading your response, I'm reminded of the fact that a great deal of modern fantasy is derived as much from the writers who wrote for Campbell as from Tolkien ... in the way they handle their worlds. They take Anderson's comments on how to create a world seriously, and go about graphing things (scientific method) rather than building a world intuitively from their interpersonal interactions (as older writers in fantasy such as E. R. Eddison or James Branch Cabell would have done). (In this batch of "Campbell" writers, I'm thinking of such as L. Sprague de Camp, Lester Del Rey, Fletcher Pratt -- who seems to have straddled the two camps in his work, actually -- and their literary descendants, such as Lin Carter -- for whom, though having a fondness, I have little critical regard; but who did object to horses in fantasy worlds other than Earth because of the unlikelihood of such a species evolving elsewhere independently -- Vance, Anderson, etc.) So, yes, in that sense, you're quite correct: Magic is handled in a rationalist, almost mechanistic manner as opposed to the mystical, muddly way that _some _writers have done before; or, in the better literature, in the logical (though not scientific) manner required simply by good storytelling and good writing, where internal consistency is paramount. Very good points indeed.

I think my major point was that, yes, we seem to be abandoning rationalism for a very muddly sort of wish-fulfillment view of things -- quite understandable, but it can nonetheless be fatal not only to accomplishing things such as maintaining our current level of civilization (without an interest in the sciences, those properly trained to develop new technologies, with an understanding of the science behind them, will become less and less), but quite possibly to our survival, in the long run. And, yes, it is very true -- and long noted -- that people in general confuse "science" and "technology" (something else HPL chid his young correspondents -- especialy Frank Belknap Long -- about). But, frankly, I'd say that's because, in modern society, the technologies tend to have the same "magical" character to most people that the paraphernalia surrounding various religious systems have had in the past. We simply aren't even trying to train people to understand the bases of science, let alone its spreading implications; in large part because a truly scientific, rationalist point of view is ineluctably opposed to a non-rationalist, mystical or religious view of how the universe works. Both have their place in our makeup, but one is only supported by our emotional biases toward seeing patterns whether they are there or not, and the other is supported -- as noted here -- by the scientific method, which requires that something be repeatable and (don't forget the importance of this) falsifiable; an aspect that mystical and religious systems implicitly deny, as to do otherwise would mean they do _not_ supply the emotional reassurance which is at the very heart of our need for them.

Again, sorry for the long (and in this case, I'm afraid, somewhat ill-managed) response. Basically trying to clarify a point and pass on a thanks and agreeement with Thadlerian.


----------



## Dave (Sep 18, 2006)

Great discussion, I can't add much. I like 'hard' SF whatever that does actually mean, because I'm also interested in how the new technology shapes the future society as much, if not more than, as the new technology itself.

I just wanted to add on the subject of magic being the science in fantasy, has anyone read the 'Magic Goes Away' books by Larry Niven? That turns what you said on it's head. It is a logical (as opposed to high) fantasy series in which magic is explained as a non-renewable resource. Set in 12,000 BC, the stories detail how mana, the source of magic, is running out and is replaced by engineering.

And then there is the so-called Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And I don't fully understand the growing disillusionment with science by the general public. It certainly isn't the fault of scientists. It is the politicians, lawyers and journalists who need to have things in either black or white. The scientific method, and the resulting hypothesis or theory, has never been claimed to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is just something that works until it can be disproved and replaced with something better. The demise of basic science education, the lack of any understanding of the concept of risk analysis, and the mis-reporting of research has reflected badly on scientists.

But, I think that disillutionment has changed our perceptions of the future, and that is reflected in the books being written. Probably a gross generalisation here, but in older books it was common to read that with science, in the future, anything was possible. Now it is much more common to read about Dystopian futures in which science has been unable to solve the worlds problems, or has created them itself.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 18, 2006)

Good points, Dave. I think that perhaps it was the "scientific positivism" of the latter nineteenth century that got the idea into the public's heads that science was "the truth"; and then later events, such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the space race, the horrific disasters with some of the spacecraft, etc., etc., etc., has caused a backlash of disillusionment as a result. This is not, by any means, the whole of the problem, but I think it has played a part. Not meant to be either facetious or disrespectful, but ... the people were given a new god, and then their idol turned out, as the phrase has it, to have feet of clay....


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Sep 18, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> You split it hard (science fiction) rather than (hard science) fiction, the hard sciences being the ones in which we can get repeatable, predictable results to experiments (physics, chemistry, even at times biology and medecine) and the soft sciences being those whre you can't reasonably do an experiment at all, and the results are statistical or descriptive (sociology, psycology, cosmology)



That's the split as I always thought it to be.  And I prefer to use that split to distinguish between hard SF and the rest of SF.  

But, Chris, why can't you "reasonably" do an experiment in sociology or psychology?


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 19, 2006)

Brown Rat said:
			
		

> But, Chris, why can't you "reasonably" do an experiment in sociology or psychology?


There are several reasons for that. If you define an experiment as a controlled setting in which you can alter one variable at a time and elliminate any spurious (random) variables, you would, in sociology, have to completely control the circumstances of the lives of a relatively large number of people. It would be unethical to perform this experiment on people without giving them a choice whether or not to participate. In other words, you need volunteers. And here's the paradox: Volunteers would be aware of being part of an experiment, and might react or respond in a different way than they would if they were unaware.
Just like Reality TV: You don't see how people behave in their natural environment, you see how people behave when they know they're on TV.

But all this is irrelevant when you take into account that you're working on human individuals, not atoms or cells. A human being is made up of his or her unique experiences, which would have had different effects on different people under different circumstances. They're impossible to monitor with any reasonable accuracy. The effect is you'll get a near infinite amount of spurious variables, and it's very hard to tell which of these variables do matter, and which don't.

(Yay, post #400! For a lurker like me, that's an achievement!)


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 19, 2006)

We used to have a tee-shirt at LBL which said (in Latin): "We give you the truth to within two standard deviations." I must disagree with the comments that the soft sciences are in some sense not as legitimate as the hard sciences (this distinction must not have come from someone in the “soft-sciences”). ALL science is based on the scientific method or else it's NOT science. All science is based on: 

1)	A model of reality that can be tested by experiment.
2)	The statistical correlation of that model with experiment in such a way as to demonstrate “repeatable results.” 

All sciences that do a proper (and this is not easy) analysis of the statistics will come to a conclusion whose truthiness (The Cobert Report) is quantitatively well defined.
A great example of this was the discovery of bacteria around the turn of the twentieth century. People in London were getting sick. Statistical analysis determined within acceptable accuracy that "water" was absolutely correlated to the illness. People had no idea what was going on, but they definitely knew it had something to do with water (from statistics). 

Water samples were sent to South Africa because someone down there had developed a method of dyes for seeing targets under a microscope. Cholera bacteria were discovered.

Science is addictive because of the gadgets. For example, as we debate these issues we are speaking over the “network.” But those who really understand it (first class scientists) carry with them a culture of rationalism. Without that culture, our survivability as a species is definitely in question. Magic can never be seen as science—as soon as you do that, you are back in the dark ages. There can be "subjective" magic within the context of someone's personal experiences, but there must be a clear distinction between subjective and objective reality. The interesting thing for me about what the literary world calls SF is that it may be a barometer of the scientific culture (or lack there of) in the greater society.

Question: in most of what we call SF today, should the word Science be expunged? And if not, why not?


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 19, 2006)

Why not "Magic Fiction" instead of "Science Fiction?" Magic Fiction and Fantasy MFF....


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 19, 2006)

You can easily do _research_ in social science, that's what the survey, qualitative studies, etc. are for. You can also, _theoretically_ do experiments, but my post was a reply to Brown Rat's question about "reasonable" experiments, which are very hard to get right.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 19, 2006)

ANY experiment is really hard to get right. That's why many times models get revised and science "seems" to change. It (reality) really doesn't though, it's just very hard to unravel. That's why it's important to have a network of excellent critical colleagues scrutinizing each other’s work.

Talking about the "soft sciences," I just heard an interview with Freud's daughter on NPR the other day. She is a professor of psychology and has been working for forty years to discredit her father's work. Her central issue is that he had no real data, and no legitimate data analysis.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 19, 2006)

As someone who is educated in a "soft" science (anthropology), I do find a difference between the hard and soft sciences.  You just can't do the same kind of replicable experiments in the social (soft) sciences that you can in the hard sciences, for the reasons that Thadlerian stated.  Personally, I'm not even especially comfortable with the word "science" being attached to things like psychology, sociology, and anthropology.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 19, 2006)

> I'm not even especially comfortable with the word "science" being attached to things like psychology, sociology, and anthropology.



If these are not sciences, then what are they? Psychologists sometimes prescribe drugs, sociologists sometimes formulate public policy, anthropology is always the focus of natural "science" debates--the facts and chronology of civilizations... I recall a conversation I had with anthropologists at UCLA, the whole conversation was about a mathematical model they had derived for the rise and fall of a particular South American civilization. The model was tuned using data they had amassed on the chronology, birth and death due to many factors, pathogens, etc....


----------



## Dave (Sep 19, 2006)

My wife studied Psychology and tells me that it is real science.

The 'softest' science of all must be the study of the Paranormal. I keep an open mind on Telekinesis, Clairvoyance and Telepathy, but I realise that the field is filled with stage magicians and con artists. What I would like to know is why they can't devise experiments to prove definitively that they exist or not? There is a public interest, if they do exist there would be a commerical advantage, and so therefore there ought to be funding available. It stands to reason that the Military must have investigated this before, yet it is still something where people have closed minds - they either believe or they don't believe based on faith not any science fact. There must be some way to design experiments to prove conclusively that they do or don't exist.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 20, 2006)

Well, you know, there are different theoretical models within anthropology.  And some branches of anthropology, such as biological (physical) anthropology, are much closer to what could be considered "hard" science than cultural anthropology, which is my field.  Archaeology is a whole different kettle of fish altogther - studying, for the most part, past rather than current cultures.  But even in archaeology, controlled, replicable experiments are difficult to do when you consider that the site is invariably destroyed in the process of studying it.  Of course, one can do experiments such as attempting to reproduce prehistoric toolmaking technologies.  In addition, technology has come some way to be able to study sites without digging them up, but the fact still remains that to know exactly and in detail what is in a site, it must be excavated...and destroyed.  Anyway, the kind of archaeology that deals with history and chronologies almost completely went the way of the dinosaur in the 1960s, at least here in the States, with the advent of the "New Archaeology" as promoted by Lewis Binford and others.  They're the ones who made archaeology a statistics-dependent science.  Which has its uses, of course, but which I think robbed archaeology of something valuable.  While there are still archaeologists who deal in the older archaeological models, they have been somewhat marginalized by the processualists.

In the same way, some parts of psychology are more "hard" than others, but only psychiatrists can prescribe medications and, at least here in the US, one must be a medical doctor in order to be a psychiatrist.  Psychologists and therapists, on the other hand, cannot prescribe medications.

Sociology, too, can be closer to "hard" science in that it generally studies large-scale, modern cultures in ways that are susceptible to statistical study.  But even there, I would assume that you are aware of the saying that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics".  Statistics can be very pretty, but they are also quite susceptible to manipulation, so that studies can be carried out in ways that the stats will come out in a way that supports the biases of the individual or individuals doing the study.  Needless to say, I don't particularly trust statistics.

I think what is needed is a new descriptive word for disciplines that are somewhere between arts or skills and "hard" sciences, that covers what are now considered the "socal" sciences, which can make predictions, which is one of the things science does, but only imperfectly.  Because I don't have confidence in making predictions that are consistently accurate for human individuals and cultures.


----------



## Thadlerian (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't think there is, nor should be, a fixed definition of "science". Definitions are power. After all, it's a matter of taking and giving meaning and plausibility to other people's work. 

At the university at which I'm studying I think it goes along something like this: The constant testing and retesting of hypotheses, based on theory, by empirical means. The social sciences work well with this definition.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 20, 2006)

I think that all these points are well taken. The only place where I would beg to differ is on the definition of science. Rhetoric has more or less built cynics out of many of us, but science is a place where proof is more important than words. That integrity must be preserved.

Also, statistics, when done properly, are the greatest truth that humans have achieved because they form the mathematical bridge between science and experiment. Statistics don't lie, but liars can manipulate them. Someone who understands statistics, who can insure the quality of the data and the uncertainties in the data taking can reliably assess the correctness of the conclusion.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 20, 2006)

As far as psychologists dispensing drugs, it's a matter of local. Just like nurse practitioners, who dispense some drugs, there are states like Wyoming that allow clinical psychologist to prescribe drugs. Guam has let psychologists prescribe drugs for some time, etc.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 20, 2006)

Well, not here in California, as far as I know.  And, actually it sort of horrifies me that they let someone without medical training prescribe drugs.  Nurse practitioners have medical training, at least, as do psychiatrists.  Unless things have changed significantly, psychologists don't.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 21, 2006)

The most well-know instance of a soft-science portrayed as a hard science in SF is Asimov's Foundation series. In the Foundation, a scientist predicts human history via statistical models for hundreds (thousands?) of years into the future.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 27, 2006)

To change the flow a little, what do people on the forum think of MICHAEL CRICHTON? He's almost never mentioned in SF circles, along with his friend Robin Cook. I once got in touch with his (and Cook's) literary agency and they told me they didn't handle SF writers.


----------



## Coops (Sep 28, 2006)

I've read all of Crichton's works.  They have to be classified as hard SF with the Andromeda Strain ,Sphere, the Jurassic Park novels, The Terminal Man, Prey, and Timeline covering aspects of biology, time travel, nanotechnology, computer-brain interface and alien visitation.
Congo might be on the edges of softer fiction.

Crighton works the time zone between tomorrow and 10 years from now  making his characters as well as his science very believable.  A good example of a popular author who writes hard SF.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 28, 2006)

On Crighton: If you can find a copy of Harlan Ellison's *Approaching Oblivion: Roadsigns on the Treadmill Toward Tomorrow*, Crighton provided a foreword to that addressing his anomalous position, and Ellison's original criticism of him as an sf writer. I don't think his position has ever changed, actually.....

Robin Cook tends to be classified as "medical thriller", which certainly sounds like it can fit easily into sf, if it involves any speculation about medical technological advances and their effects on society.....


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 28, 2006)

I've got to say, though, that with "State of Fear" Crichton has lost a lot of my respect. The book was so bad, I couldn't finish it. It reminded me of the "global warming" version of reefer madness.

In Prey, I liked the Intro more than the book.

As far as Robin Cook, check out Abduction (I think that's what it was). We're talking Atlantis and flying saucers. 

However, after talking to an agent in their lit agency, both Crichton and Cook are very happy not to be associated with the SF genre.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 29, 2006)

Addressing a statement I made earlier, I think the following quote might be of interest:

"This hypocrisy, of course, has to do with the new mysticism or neo-metaphysics bred of the advertised uncertainties of recent science -- Einstein, the quantum theory, and the resolution of matter into force. Although these new turns of science don't really mean a thing in relation to the myth of cosmic consciousness and teleology, a new brood of despairing and horrified moderns is seizing on the doubt of all positive knowledge which they imply; and is deducing therefrom that, _since nothing is true_, therefore _anything can be true_ ..... whence one may invent or revive any sort of mythology that fancy or nostalgia or desperation may dictate, and defy anyone to prove that it isn't _emotionally_ true -- whatever that means. This sickly, decadent neo-mysticism -- a protest not only against machine materialism but against pure science with its destruction of the mystery and dignity of human emotion and experience -- will be the dominant creed of middle twentieth century aesthetes, as the Eliot and Huxley penumbra well prognosticate." -- H. P. Lovecraft, from a letter to James Ferdinand Morton, Oct, 30, 1929 (*SL III*, p.53)


----------



## Dave (Sep 29, 2006)

I didn't even bother to read 'State of Fear' after hearing the plot and reading reviews, yet I've read everything else by him.

He is not the only author who is at pains to avoid the use of the words 'science fiction'.

There are a whole host of more literary worthies who describe themselves as 'speculative fiction writers darling'. We discussed this before in the the {ASciFi} 'Is SF ashamed of itself?' thread. (It has even begun to happen on TV now.)

http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum/22128-is-sf-becoming-ashamed-of-itself.html

Read any interview by Margaret Attwood.

It is all about how much money they can earn in the end. Booker Prize winner = lots. SF writer = little.

PK Dick struggled for years to throw off his SF mantle and be published as a 'serious' author, and make some money, though I see no difference in his writing.

Notice how Iain Banks/Iain M Banks needs two pen names, though I see no difference in his writing either.

HG Wells never had this problem.


----------



## j d worthington (Sep 29, 2006)

Yes... on the use of the term "speculative fiction"... I had a lot more respect for it when it first began to be used, as it was to differentiate between those types of writers (and stories) that came out of a "hard" sciences background or perspective, and those that were at best marginally so, but were more concerned with speculating on trends in societies, even if that took the story more into a more fantastic realm, or outright mythopoeia. That the latter were more often influenced by "literary" classics, whereas the majority of the (then) popular sf writers were coming from a pulp-influenced background is fairly obvious; yet most of these "speculative fiction" writers would have been the first to praise the other camp and acknowledge their influence and importance. Only later did it become so invidious a comparison, it seems.

As far as the "real world" and its perception of sf ... blame that on the lower grade of pulps (for which we Americans are largely to blame, frankly, as Uncle Hugo and his congeners dragged sf out of the literary strata and into faux- (or sometimes honest) engineering manuals and a literary ghetto for a good while ... and the audience aimed at didn't help (nor the cover art, for that matter -- for all I've a perverse fondness for the things, I agree with Kelly Freas that it largely consisted of "the three B's: Babes, Boobs, and BEMs". And, of course, Hollywood, which took the crudest route into such fiction, just as they often did with horror. So, yes, this has had its effect on what a writer gets paid -- something Ellison frequently noted in scolding sf fans for idolizing such writers as Fritz Leiber while paying pennies for their work, as opposed to being willing to pay the same price they would for a hardcover by a "mainstream" writer. (I'm reminded of August Derleth's comments about the release of HPL's *The Outsider and Others*, which was given a pre-publication price of $2.50 through such venues as Weird Tales, and how, when it was published, one "fan" wrote in asking for it for the pre-publication price; when told it was now published and at the intended price of $5.00, he got on his high horse and claimed that he would never pay that much for such a volume. Derleth got a letter from him several years later, when he'd got a copy for -- if I remember correctly -- $25.00, and claiming that he'd got a bargain at that!) Which is a roundabout way of saying that, as far as business practice is concerned, they really are smart to separate themselves from the genre like that... and, frankly, as SFF seems once again to be falling into the trap of hackneyed storylines, particular demands on making a series (or at least a doorstop-sized tome) rather than a modestly-sized book more in keeping with the actual merits of the material, etc., I'm afraid there's more than a little truth to the claim of its insularity.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 29, 2006)

I would add that the publishing industry shares a lot of the blame. Saying this has not made me popular, but my experience indicates that it is true. Marketing requires that you know your target demographic. Complications in consumer's likes and dislikes are swept away by averaging over the least common denominator in a particular category. After talking to agents, I got the distinct impression that unless you somehow develop a following by whatever means, what they can sell in the SF genre is a chapter-book version of a comic book.

The anecdote to all of this is, of course, to have many small or medium size publishers whose tastes and connection to a certain readership vary. With a consolidation of the publishing industry, however, the rush to a least-common-denominator product has accelerated.

A word about Speculative Fiction. Obviously the word “speculative” means different things to different people depending on their backgrounds. There are professions where "to speculate" means to take a situation where facts are known and extend it into scenarios where, at this time, facts are not known but a plausible extrapolation can be made with some non-negligible chance of it being proven later. As in: "Can you speculate on the source of the isotropic signal (fact) that we're seeing in our radio telescope at 3 degrees Kelvin?" The adoption of this meaning, in literary fiction, let’s say, depends on how many people accept it.


----------



## K. Riehl (Jan 8, 2007)

I believe the internet will impact the genre sales in a major way. I worked in the book business for a decade and I saw the "market driver" switch from marketing to internet chat rooms and forums. Word of mouth works online and it is the most utilized form of evaluation by prospective readers. Who do you get recommendations from? I get them from this forum and locals who read the same material.

The observation about small to medium size publishers is right on the money. If you want action, high sorcery, etc.. you look for DAW. Military, space battle, you look for BAEN. This is even more evident in small start up publishers who are trying to develop a identity/style and attract authors to their "stable".

I believe the market is going in a different direction altogether. Small publishers like Meisha Merlin which give support to authors with a small following a chance to continue even after being dropped by major publishing houses. i.e.. Steve Miller and Sharon Lee, Phyllis Eisenstein, Diane Duane and so forth. The fragmentation and proliferation of available stories and genres will only continue. When you combine print on demand ability with wide availability the publishing houses will not have their stranglehold too much longer. The technology isn't there yet, but it isn't far off either.

I can see in 2-5 years a new author having 100% control of his/her stories. You read selections from the website, you want to buy, just enter payment and local kiosk print on demand information. Walk down to the bookstore, grocery store, big box store and pick up your brand new book. Who needs a publisher anymore?


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 8, 2007)

I agree with you, but digging out of the hole that big publishers have dug is going to be difficult. Over the years they have conditioned the audience out there to expect certain things. Having been in business myself, this is what marketers strive for. How can one reliably forecast ROI, simple--normalize the population you sell to. With the arsenal of TV, video games, and "the like," they have been very successful.

A word about the internet. The internet, as you point out, is the next marketing frontier. I like what has happened in music--new artists have been able to short-circuit the record labels and actually make money. My experience in the book business on line has been harder. As an example, look at anyone who has put word of a new (self-published) book on a forum like "Night Shade." Immediately, the usual suspects show up, not having read a word of the book, and start slamming. Many forums think it's okay to talk up a book by a big publisher, but if someone comes and mentions their own book--instant bad vibes. I think in time the net "might" fulfill it's promise as a tableaux of original work, and peoples’ acceptance to "take an honest look," but marketers will fight you every step of the way because you're essentially cutting them out.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 8, 2007)

Am I right in thinking that, though hard science fiction in print may be declining, with a corresponding rise in fantasy, the exact opposite seems to be true in the cinema?


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm not differentiating between fantasy and SF. Although fantasy is not my personal preference, I'm talking about an author having a particular vision, and if professionally presented, having a forum to promote that vision.

As to "hard" SF, it is my preference probably because I've been a scientist all my professional life and see the significance of hard SF as the context of a good story. As for movies--most that I've seen that might be considered by some to be "hard" SF I've thought were pretty bad. For example, most of the stuff on the SF Channel is "unwatchable." 

As an aside, I saw Blade Runner the other day for the first time in a long time--better than I remembered it. How could you not like: "Moments in time, lost, like tears in the rain." Not too bad.

I think the lack of relevant "hard" SF is due to the fact that our society no longer appreciates nor understands the scientific "culture" that has, in reality, brought us to the edge of greatness as a species.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 8, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> I think the lack of relevant "hard" SF is due to the fact that our society no longer appreciates nor understands the scientific "culture" that has, in reality, brought us to the edge of greatness as a species.


 
Summed up by the fact it's now _thirty-four years_ since the last moon landing.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 9, 2007)

That particular line is a very succinct statement of something I've said in many, many posts here, and in arguments/discussions out in the real world. Glad to know I'm not alone in realizing this....


----------



## Pyan (Jan 9, 2007)

You're not alone, jd - it's just a sad fact that the human race seems to have lost its desire to advance. NASA's budget request for this year was 16.8 billion dollars, which sounds a lot until you compare it with the 55 bilion dollars it will cost you to prosecute the situation in Iraq, or the _one hundred billion dollars_ the US will spend on _bottled water_ in the same period.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 9, 2007)

I'm going to revisit something that JD said somewhere in the beginning of this thread that I found fascinating. And because I'm lazy, I'm going to paraphrase rather than finding the quote. It went something like this: "people in the middle ages (or dark ages) were comforted by their beliefs and myths that made the world make sense--science has taken that away, and so for some this is a "less good" age than were the dark ages."

I believe in some part this may be right. I've heard it said before and have never understood it personally. Why would anyone be comforted by a lie or a fairytale?--especially if it meant that believing in such things would limit the scope and breath of the very small time a sentient being has of being something other than an inanimate fixture on the landscape of creation? I must admit, I just don't get it.

This sentiment was reflected in the play Galileo. When one of Galileo’s students comes to him and wants to quit his studies, Galileo asks why. The student admits that although he loves and believes in what Galileo is doing, his parents, who are very religious, and have a life without happiness, suffer from their son's lack of belief in an afterlife--which is, for his parents, their only joy.

This is a sad, disappointing, and pathetic scenario.


----------



## that old guy (Jan 9, 2007)

Dave said:


> HG Wells never had this problem.


 
Nor does Kurt Vonnegut, though I guess only his very early stuff would be considered SF by a purist. But even he complained about having difficulty with shedding the label.


----------



## Parson (Jan 9, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> I believe in some part this may be right. I've heard it said before and have never understood it personally. Why would anyone be comforted by a lie or a fairytale?--especially if it meant that believing in such things would limit the scope and breath of the very small time a sentient being has of being something other than an inanimate fixture on the landscape of creation? I must admit, I just don't get it.


 
I think what is going on here is that we long for comfort. A purely scientific rationalistic point of view for many is not "comfortable" for many people. They long for something that "feels" right. So they rebel at the sharp hard edges on most of science. They rebel at something that takes so much work to understand. They long for a time and a place where you can "wish" things into being. 

But I believe there is more as well. We all know that science does not provide all of the answers that people need, nor is all what passed for science in the past and probably some things that pass for science in our day as well will prove to be false. --- So a common but faulty response is "I will just escape into a world where things are more like I believe they should be." 

This creates the realm of pulp fiction, soap operas, and pop religion. 

This is a great thread! I would like to commend all of the great thinking that went into this. J.D. especially, way to go!


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 9, 2007)

> We all know that science does not provide all of the answers that people need, nor is all what passed for science in the past and probably some things that pass for science in our day as well will prove to be false.



I don't want to beat this thing to death, but I couldn't help responding. First, the short answer to all of this is: "sometimes I don't know" is the best answer to a deep, complicated question. Second, there are some things men and women will probably never know--get used to it. It's a big, complicated universe and we are small, not very bright creatures living on a little speck of it--that okay, it's a beautiful speck to us and we can find subjective fulfillment. Making stuff up is always problematic. Think about needing medical assistance, or having to make political decisions on the basis of make-believe answers to important questions. Many of us in the US have lived through that nightmare these past few years.

Finally, about science. We used to have a tee shirt at LBL--it read, in Latin: "We give you the truth to two standard deviations." 

They once asked Richard Feynman, a certified genius, "do you believe in God?" He answered, "not in the God of any organized religion." They asked why. Feynman answered: "Everyone calls me a genius. I've won the Noble Prize. All my life I've tried to answer at most two simple questions--and in that I've failed. Then, some religious guy comes into the room and says--I know everything--the answers not to simple questions, but to the most difficult. I don't believe him. I think the problem with a guy like that is that he doesn't understand what it means to understand something."---QED


----------



## Parson (Jan 9, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Feynman answered: "Everyone calls me a genius. I've won the Noble Prize. All my life I've tried to answer at most two simple questions--and in that I've failed. Then, some religious guy comes into the room and says--I know everything--the answers not to simple questions, but to the most difficult. I don't believe him. I think the problem with a guy like that is that he doesn't understand what it means to understand something."---QED


 
And that is the difference between "pop religion" and the real kind. The real kind knows that we don't know, but believes into the darkness and finds light.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 10, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> That particular line is a very succinct statement of something I've said in many, many posts here, and in arguments/discussions out in the real world. Glad to know I'm not alone in realizing this....



Re: the fact that people don't seem to realize that it has been so long since the last moon landing...

What amazes me is that people don't, in general, seem to realize either that the International Space Station has been continuously occupied since July 2000, around six and a half years, or that before that Mir was almost continuously occupied (I think there were a couple of short periods when it was not) for nearly 10 years.

So, while there aren't many of them, there are people living in space and have been for quite awhile.  It's a start.


----------



## Dave (Jan 10, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> So, while there aren't many of them, there are people living in space and have been for quite awhile.  It's a start.


And in a way, that is harder. The Moon landings were only something like 3 or 4 days there, 3 days on the surface, and 3 or 4 days back. Living in Space for a year with the effect of zero-G on muscles and bones is a different thing entirely. Longer missions will be necessary in the future, and while NASA put it's efforts into meeting Kennedy's goal, the USSR instead built space stations and unmanned probes.

But the point being made was the amount of money being spent now.


pyanfaruk said:


> NASA's budget request for this year was 16.8 billion dollars, which sounds a lot until you compare it with the 55 bilion dollars it will cost you to prosecute the situation in Iraq, or the _one hundred billion dollars_ the US will spend on _bottled water_ in the same period.


 People who resent money being spent on space research should note that.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 10, 2007)

I wish I could remember the senator's name, or where to find the information on this.... A few years ago, there was a discussion of what was being spent on the space program, and how much better it would be to spend it "at home". This senator had his staff look up all the things that we've gained from the space program.... it made a manuscript roughly the size of the Houston phone directory. And those are things that are used frequently, many every day. Any investment in the space program pays *big* dividends in our daily lives; it might help if people were made more aware of that somehow... Anyone know of any sites that list such benefits?


----------



## Dave (Jan 10, 2007)

Just off the top of my head I know Teflon and WD-40 both came from the Apollo Progam. 

I know my life would have been much harder without those. All those mornings trying to start a car with a damp distributer, and all those minutes cleaning frying pans!!


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 10, 2007)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but: IC's were made small by NASA--that's a big one. And rad-hard IC's are almost solely the province of NASA. When I was with the SSC we had 4800 contracts in 33 states for hi-tech development including:

3D processors

optical computing

low temp physics and liquid helium compressors

super conducting metals and manufacturing of super conducting wire (whose price fell by a factor of 10 in three years due to that research)

advanced parallel computing networks

hybrid semiconductors--very fast

advanced simulation software--Boing is designing the new 787 totally by simulation, hypersonic flow design of reentry vechicles is now done by simulation.

I could go on, but you get the picture....


----------



## Dave (Jan 19, 2007)

Dave said:


> Just off the top of my head I know Teflon and WD-40 both came from the Apollo Progam.


it appears that the top of my head might be wrong on those.

I was listening to the Robert Elms show on BBC London. Someone (I can't remember who) was promoting their new book called 'A Century of Technology'. He said Teflon was invented by Tefal in the 1950's. He said it is a popular urban myth that it came from the Space Program, and that the military always overplay the effect of war on developing technology; that due to the lead times of development, most technology used in warfare was invented prior to the war beginning.

That is not what I always believed. I thought that 'Necessity was the Mother of Invention' and the times of war not only bring great need and unlimited money, but a more focused approach. I'm pretty sure Radar was not around before WWII. 

It was an interesting discussion. The other thing he said was how most inventions fail, often failing in a big way. He cited Atomic Aeroplanes as an example. In the 1950's everything was going to be Atomic. What they forgot was that all that Lead shielding weighs too much for an aeroplane to carry.

I guess that is very off-topic. Sorry about that!


----------



## Parson (Jan 20, 2007)

Dave,

I'm afraid WD 40 also falls outside the space program, or at least mostly, because according to WD 40's web site: In 1953, a fledgling company called Rocket Chemical Company and its staff of three set out to create a line of rust-prevention solvents and degreasers for use in the aerospace industry, in a small lab in San Diego, California.

But, your point is still valid. Pure research in whatever field, but especially space, is never wasted in the end. But you have have to have a long range view of things. This is hard to sell to most investors. The American (dare I say Western?) mantra is: "What have you done for me TODAY!?"


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 20, 2007)

Hmmm. Just found some sites that may help answer some of these:

NASAsolutions: Benefits of the Space Program

Ethical Atheist - Benefits of the Space Program

NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products

New Science: The Space Station Benefits Everyone (02/06/01)

There are actually quite a number of places that address this point available....

And for those who are looking for a book on the subject:

*Biomedical research and technology benefits of the space program : hearing before the Subcommittee on Space of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, June 15, 1992. *

*by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Space.*


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 13, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Any hard SF fans on the forum? The UK has given us Clarke and Benford (although Benford is an American, I sense he likes the SF climate in the UK). Currently the UK has spawn Alastair Reynolds and, of course, there's Greg Egan (from Australia) who is probably the hardest SF author I've ever read.
> 
> What's the climate like now for hard SF--and why?


Yep
Hal Clement,George O Smith,U name the lot


----------



## Specfiction (Mar 14, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> Yep
> Hal Clement,George O Smith,U name the lot



Looks from your forum name that you've found the right thread. As a Hard SF Fan, is it as important that the story uncover some facet of human nature or society as well as vivid and realistic portrayal of science? Do you like adherence to the mundane, or do you perfer speculative science?

What do you not like in contemporary hard SF?


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 15, 2007)

Aha,another ANALOG reader!

I have a collection(mostly secondhand that goes back to the sixties).
Yeterday I read Mike Flynns the Common Goal of Nature,which I thought was pretty good(well worked-out aliens)

Keep well
HardScience Fan


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 15, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Any hard SF fans on the forum? The UK has given us Clarke and Benford (although Benford is an American, I sense he likes the SF climate in the UK). Currently the UK has spawn Alastair Reynolds and, of course, there's Greg Egan (from Australia) who is probably the hardest SF author I've ever read.
> 
> What's the climate like now for hard SF--and why?



Yes, a longtime ANALOG reader,feel free to respond to that.
Cheers


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 18, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Looks from your forum name that you've found the right thread. As a Hard SF Fan, is it as important that the story uncover some facet of human nature or society as well as vivid and realistic portrayal of science? Do you like adherence to the mundane, or do you perfer speculative science?
> 
> What do you not like in contemporary hard SF?



First of all,I haven't read any SF(hard or otherwise) for nine years,haven't bought any new boox for nine years, so I am very much NOT up to date.I suddenly couldn' be bothered anymore. Some sort of psychological change had taken place which I still can't explain.My reading diet up to that moment most of U would have called severely deficient (no Mote in Gods Eye,nothing by Gregory Benford,nothing by R.L.Forward,no Arthur C.Clarke,etc,NO Fantasy whatsoever).By the way,I intensively dislike SciFi
as the standard abbreviation for U know what.Later on I will probaly read
the other posts in this thread.Now if I would start reading SF again(on a regular basis,that is),the story will have to be with fully fleshed-out characters,well worked out sociology,and adherence to the inner logic which should be in any story. Characters should be more than props.Aliens should be believably alien.If U wonder,do I have any background in science?No,not at all.I used to read Scientific American,before it went down the drain,like to read NATURE and SCIENCE,and have bought serious
scientific literature(as read by the scientists themselves,that is the kind of literature(mostly journals, published by Wiley,Elsevier and Springer).Hard going at first,but gradually,your understanding of the subject matter .Have to go  now,I'll be back later


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 20, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Looks from your forum name that you've found the right thread. As a Hard SF Fan, is it as important that the story uncover some facet of human nature or society as well as vivid and realistic portrayal of science? Do you like adherence to the mundane, or do you perfer speculative science?
> 
> What do you not like in contemporary hard SF?



Have read you email.Interesting,would like to know what branch of science U're working in,feel free to mail again.
Like everybody,I have to divide my spare time rationally;I have started reading Sf sporadically again(nothing more elaborate than novelettes, actually:Bradley Denton's Rerun Roy,Donna and the Freak (magaz.of F and SF,good yarn by the way),but will absolutelutely NOT give up my science reading.The processes of science,heuristics,forward and backward modelling,groundtruthing, experimentation,peer review, statistical validation,etc.,are all very fascinating.I think if someone tried to put all that in a hard SF novel,it would turn most people off.I believe that science can be speculative(or even imaginitive),or sometimes even should be.
Let me give U an eaxmple of a good SF movie: *the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.*Besides being,emotive,zany,purposefully confusing,very funny(offbeat,though),it featured the impact of technology on human lives;
Good points:terrific acting,special effects not overplaying the sensational acting,intelligent script.And most of all,what any good SF should do,*IT MAKES YOU THINK.*Me reading a full length sf or fantasy novel again in the near future through the recommendations of people on this forum would have to involve a terrifc amount of PR.
Does anybody know of a good mavie that shows the influences of science and technology,for good OR bad,on humanity?
OK signing off now,before I start to ramble.
Keep well


----------



## Dave (Mar 20, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> Does anybody know of a good movie that shows the influences of science and technology,for good OR bad,on humanity?


I'd have to think about it more, but not many. Most SciFi movies are of the action/thriller/horror type. There are elements of what you want within many films, but films need to appeal to a larger audience than a book does, so they appeal to the lowest common denominator. The kind of film you are describing would actually ask the audience to think too hard.

Having said that, there are some - _Gattaca_ comes to mind. Maybe _The Island_, _Minority Report_ to some degree.

Certainly many of the rash of cyberpunk films in the late nineties where people are wired up to a Virtual Reality super-Internet and have memories uploaded and downloaded.



Parson said:


> Pure research in whatever field, but especially space, is never wasted in the end. But you have have to have a long range view of things. This is hard to sell to most investors. The American (dare I say Western?) mantra is: "What have you done for me TODAY!?"


This is down to economics, or in reality, the way we use cost-benefit analysis to measure economic viability. The benefits of anything 5 years hence are tiny in comparison to the benefits right now, so small as to be insignificant in most cases.

Now that many science companies are run by accountants rather than by scientists there is the problem.

And there is an answer to an earlier question of mine in this thread.





Dave said:


> I keep an open mind on Telekinesis, Clairvoyance and Telepathy, but I realise that the field is filled with stage magicians and con artists. What I would like to know is why they can't devise experiments to prove definitively that they exist or not? There is a public interest, if they do exist there would be a commerical advantage, and so therefore there ought to be funding available. It stands to reason that the Military must have investigated this before, yet it is still something where people have closed minds - they either believe or they don't believe based on faith not any science fact. There must be some way to design experiments to prove conclusively that they do or don't exist.



MoD hoped psychics could find enemy | Britain Today | Global | Telegraph



> The MoD last night refused to discuss the possible applications of such a technique, but said that the study had concluded there was "little value" in using "remote viewing" in the defence of the nation.
> 
> "The remote viewing study was conducted to assess claims made in some academic circles and to validate research carried out by other nations on psychic ability," said a spokesman. "The study concluded that remote viewing theories had little value to the MoD and was taken no further."



Apparently, they had them looking for Osama Bin Laden but after spending £18,000 got no results.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 10, 2007)

Did anyone see Sunshine--the film by Danny Doyle (I wrote a review on this forum)? Sunshine was probably the first attempt at hard SF I've seen in the Cinema in as long as I can remember. Anybody else see it? What did you think?


----------



## Stenevor (Sep 10, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Did anyone see Sunshine--the film by Danny Doyle (I wrote a review on this forum)? Sunshine was probably the first attempt at hard SF I've seen in the Cinema in as long as I can remember. Anybody else see it? What did you think?


 
I thought it was pretty good but could have been better. The stalker/slasher sections towards the end should have been ditched, they almost ruined it for me. The human errors/accidents were keeping the tension high enough without introducing a blurry monster onto the scene.


----------



## ScottSF (Sep 18, 2007)

I can't stand limp Science Fiction.  Lots of big posts here but I want to read them all when I have time.  I just wanted to mention that if you can write hard sci-fi you have a much better chance of getting published.  In the Writers market book publishers are always looking for it.  They probably get a lot of Star Wars type fantasy on their desks.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2007)

ScottSF said:


> I just wanted to mention that if you can write hard sci-fi you have a much better chance of getting published.  In the Writers market book publishers are always looking for it.



Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. After talking to "many" agents and publishers, my own opinion is that they run away from hard SF. That's pretty much the reason why you see so little of it from new authors, and when you do, it "has" to have certain pop culture or formulaic aspects to it. Many old timers like Greg Bear are trying to write thrillers to get out of SF. If there was a demand from publishers, you'd see a lot more of it by "new" authors.


----------



## ScottSF (Sep 18, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think this is true. After talking to "many" agents and publishers, my own opinion is that they run away from hard SF. That's pretty much the reason why you see so little of it from new authors, and when you do, it "has" to have certain pop culture or formulaic aspects to it. Many old timers like Greg Bear are trying to write thrillers to get out of SF. If there was a demand from publishers, you'd see a lot more of it by "new" authors.


 

hmm.  I was basing my post on going through Writer's Market not too long ago but, one distinction was that perhaps I was looking at publishers for short stories, i.e. fiction magazines.  Haven't looked in recent years.

I've written some stories that my blur a few lines but I never feel I could do enough research to make something Hard Scifi.  Perhaps if I didn't have a day job.  Sounds like you are a writer as well.  Good luck to you on getting published and stretching all our minds.

-a Newer Author I really enjoy is John Meaney.  His stuff is well thought out and I perticularly find his main characters inspiring.  Some of the secondary and tertiary characters could use some fleshing out but there are some wonderful concepts going on in his work.


----------



## Specfiction (Sep 18, 2007)

ScottSF said:


> -a Newer Author I really enjoy is John Meaney.  His stuff is well thought out and I perticularly find his main characters inspiring.  Some of the secondary and tertiary characters could use some fleshing out but there are some wonderful concepts going on in his work.



I will be sure to keep an eye out for Mr Meaney's work.


----------

