Fantasy is alive and well, SF is dying... why?

[The Judge]

Yes,, Sparrow, I agree. But there are more things in heaven and earth...

Since Hamlet deploys the 'more things' philosophy after he has seen and spoken to a ghost, and shortly before he goes bonkers, I'm not sure how valid it is as a reasoned argument...

J

 

[blacknorth]

Since Hamlet deploys the 'more things' philosophy after he has seen and spoken to a ghost, and shortly before he goes bonkers, I'm not sure how valid it is as a reasoned argument...

J

lol, your Honour - it is not a reasoned argument - it is an appeal, an exhortation, it's research and development, it's open-ended, open-minded insight.

Gura slan an scealai.

 

[HareBrain]

A colonel at the breakfast table deploys the "more things" line when discussing ghosts with Michael Hordern's professor in the 1968 film of "Whistle and I'll Come to You". Hordern's professor returns with "There are more things in philosophy than are dreamt of in Heaven and Earth". Which seems pretty clever, until he goes insane after being molested by a bedsheet. Let those nay-sayers beware!

 

[The Judge]

... he goes insane after being molested by a bedsheet.

The mind boggles...

J

PS Does anyone know what blacknorth said? My erse is a little rusty... (any man -- or bear -- who makes any kind of pun out of that will receive formal Judicial Disapproval)

 

[Sparrow]

May the bearer of the news be safe


I think Smokey the Bear, not Ursa, said it.


Go mbeannaí Dia duit

 

[blacknorth]

That's a pretty topical translation, your honour, I'm willing to let it stand.

Harebrain - I appreciate the reference. Seriously, for me, what was frightening was not the sheet (never the sheet) but Michael Hordern's extraordinary response.

 

[j d worthington]

But I think that's a false dichotomy. I see no *inherent* contradiction between someone having a mystical inner-reality and a scientific world-reality. Possessing the former needn't stop someone having the most scientifically and critically informed word-view around.

Of course, such people at present are vanishingly rare. But it might be that the antipathy towards (or wilfull ignorance of) science by some "genetic mystics" could be eroded by a greater sophistication in thought about objective/subjective realities, when each is appropriate, and when each is inappropriate - none of which would deny science anything.

Anyway, whether anyone agrees or not, this is the first time I've tried to get these thoughts in order, and it's been an interesting experience.

No, there isn't a contradiction on that level; they are actually both very important parts of the human psyche, and inevitable results of our evolutionary development. The problem, however, comes when the mystical overcomes the ability to accept solid evidence in favor of something which is either not supported by any save the most shaky evidence, or flies outright in the fact of all the evidence which we have ever accrued. The emotional tendency to appreciate the numinous is something which enriches life, but taken as a way to make decisions about what is the genuine nature of reality or not it is a recipe for disaster.

blacknorth: no, we will never find all the answers, that is quite correct. But this is no reason to accept things which contradict what we have found out about how the universe works, unless they have some very good supporting evidence behind them.

And to me they are guesses because Dawkins has never been to Tau Ceti in the same way I have never seen a ghost.

But they aren't guesses; a guess does not depend on evidence (or is made in reaction to very little, often misleading, evidence). They are models of the world and the universe around us based on verifiable, testable, repeatable results of experiment and evidence-gathering. When something is so finely honed that it can make the sort of accurate predictions that, say, quantum theory makes, then that is a very long way from a guess, and is much more likely to be an accurate model of the fundamental workings of the universe than any ideas which evolved in earlier periods in humanity's history, when we had neither the tools nor the experience to gather information on anything approaching this degree of precision.

Harebrain - I appreciate the reference. Seriously, for me, what was frightening was not the sheet (never the sheet) but Michael Hordern's extraordinary response.

Mmmm... the problem for me here is, that they didn't present that which would make such a reaction considerably more reasonable (after all, the sheet moving in such a fashion could be someone hoaxing him) -- the fact that it presented "a face of crumpled linen", as James put it....

Now, before moving onto the next bit, I'd like to state (for those who aren't aware) that I have a large proportion of the mystic in my own emotional makeup, and can well appreciate all the subtleties and overtones that can add to life; otherwise, I doubt I would be the avid reader of weird fiction that I am, nor favor the type of weird fiction I do, which is concerned at least as much with awe, wonder, the sublime, and the numinous, as it is with evoking fear per se. My problem with the whole mystical thing is as stated above. On no other level do I have any complaints, nor do I feel it is something we need to get rid of.

Now, on that topic... here's a bit of strangeness: after posting those earlier comments, this morning before leaving for work, I was reading an essay by Prof. Dirk W. Mosig (now Yōzan Dirk W. Mosig), "Lovecraft: The Dissonance Factor in Imaginative Literature", in his Mosig at Last: A Psychologist Looks at H. P. Lovecraft. I've had this book on my shelves for some time, but not yet read it. Yet this morning, I came across the following (pardon the length, but I think you'll see why I include it):

Although Lovecraft was obviously ahead of his time, his insights into the detrimental effects of new knowledge have not been entirely unique.[...] As [Leon] Festinger [author of A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance] points out, when two ideas are in a state of dissonance there will be pressure for one or both of them to change; when an item of information clashes with our beliefs, we can minimize the importance of the datum in question, distort the information, deny its existence, or we can change our belief. But beliefs die hard, particularly beliefs to which we have become firmly committed, and even more so if the commitment has been one that was made without sufficient justification. It is often easier to reject the dissonant information, to ridicule and downplay its importance or its validity, or to reduce the dissonance by seeking the social support of others who agree with us. There is security in numbers; the more there are who will agree with us, the less we are likely to opt for the other avenue of dissonance reduction, namely the discarding of obsolete beliefs and the acceptance of a new vision of reality. Lovecraft indeed seems to question whether most people, if not all, are able to accept a highly dissonant vision of reality without "going mad from the revelation." Naturally if the threatened belief is trivial or unimportant it can be given up quite readily; but this is hardly the case with ideas which are central or critical in our existence, such as the belief in the meaninglessness of our lives and the existence of a purpose in the universe (although our acquiring such beliefs is merely the result of the accident of birth plus a process of social conditioning). Rather than discard such pivotal ideas, most peole are likely to opt for other avenues of dissonance-reduction, including insanity.

It would seem that regrettably Lovecraft was not too pessimistic in predicting the coming of a new dark age, if we regard as trends towar the latter the current and frantic fads and obsessions with security-inducing superstitions and supportive beliefs -- the renewed interest in astrology, the occult, religion, witchcraft, chemical dependencies, the paranormal, and the countless cults springing up everywhere -- all the psychological props and crutches providing cognitive consonance. We have all seen the sorry spectacle of masses of "believers" clinging desperately to assorted explanatory fictions and doctrines, and practicing a myriad of safety-fostering rituals.[...] Tragedies such as the People's Temple incident in Guyana and the Rancho Santa Fe case in San Diego have robbed us of the soothing and self-deceptive assumption that all such trends are essentialy harmless. An objective observer might be amused to notice how we try to reduce our own dissonance by attempting to isolate such tragic events and by providing countless "explanations" for the mass suicides. One is startled to realize that if the trend continues, the new dark age envisioned by Lovecraft (himself a scientific rationalist) may be here much sooner than he expected, and one might soberly add that although such a new era could provide safety and cognitive consonance for the masses through some level of psychological conformity, its horrors are liikely to pale those of the Middle Ages and of Lovecraft's nightmares combined.

But perhaps it is not too late yet to reverse the trend, and there is reason for hope. Certainly theories such as that of cognitive dissonance are encouraging signs, for they provide us with consistent frameworks to understand human behavior, and can serve as springboards to attempt to modify or influnce the actions of man -- perhaps the new dark age can still be averted. However insidious, automatic, or unconscious the operation of dissonance-reduction mechanisms, our awareness of their action in shaping our decisions, perceptions, and behaviors cannot but help to enhance our chances to control the direction of such changes.

-- pp. 91-93​

Which, essentially, is what I am arguing for here: a better understanding of the genuine knowledge about the universe enhances our abilities to make informed decisions which interact with the existing realities, rather than our wishes or hopes of what those realitie may be; and science fiction itself can be a very good tool for introducing such concepts to people in an entertaining, thought-provoking manner via using what we have learned about the universe -- as well as familiarizing people with the practice of the scientific method and critical thinking -- via dramatic storytelling and creation of modern, mythic interpretations of events.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

The references to personal worldviews and genre preferences here are fascinating to me because as a lifelong atheist (we actually do exist), I've found myself frequently drawn to works by writers like GK Chesterton, Gene Wolfe, Cordwainer Smith, Rusell Kirk, RA Lafferty and several others who seem to have been deeply religious and to include some form of religious apologia or parable in many of their works. I'm usually conscious of this - and sometimes annoyed or impatient, esp. when Chesterton makes one of his somewhat lame digs at atheists (like many theists, he is convinced we have a god-shaped hole in our souls; a natural belief if you believe in souls at all, I suppose) or Wolfe seems to telling a tale that is predicated largely on the notion of salvation or atonement (The Urth Of The New Sun). And yet I find that their faith somehow gives more gravitas to their tales, especially when these are tales with a horrific elements, because they have a more immediate sense of evil than many a wishy-washy festive season believer or washed-out agnostic.

But the same gravitas can be found in writers who have a strong conviction of some kind without being theists; Lovecraft, of course, and the nihilist Ligotti. While I have my reservations about Mieville's Marxism (although less so than if he had characterised himself as a Communist rather than a Marxist) it does add a conceptual weight to some of his works.

I suppose that like the estimable Mr. Worthington, there are mystical aspects to my psyche which govern my aesthetic choices, while in practical matters I act on reason (in so far as a flawed human creature actually can).

 

[The Judge]

I'm not remotely as qualified as j.d. to comment on either the original thread question or the very interesting detour the thread is making at the moment. Reading the Lovecroft extract, though, reminded me of a piece of research I read about how much weight people give to evidence. Basically, a non-smoker will assess scientific evidence about the dangers of smoking as being highly credible without requiring more; a smoker will not - he will question it, look to see if he can ascribe hidden motives to the scientists, do everything but believe it readily. This, of course, isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the evidence may be flawed, or the researchers may have been funded by rabid anti-smokers and have skewed their findings accordingly. But ultimately the smokers won't believe it without a great deal of hammering home because it is not in their interests -- as they see it -- to do so. The good news is, some of them do listen eventually.

J

 

[J-WO]

Dawkins On Tau Ceti would be an amazing title for a vintage SF novel. A free smilie to anyone who knocks up a cover for it!!!

 

[Urien]

It is very hard to be an intellectual blank canvas, especially north of about 35 years old.

What TJ said about smokers is generally true: Humans are strong supporters of what they want to be true. Once an opinion or behaviour is established and fixed it is almost impossible to change that opinion or behaviour. It is part of you, a person will ignore evidence that contradicts their opinion or behaviour pattern; this is known as a disconfirmation bias. They will also seek out and exaggerate the importance of evidence that supports their existing opinion and behaviour patterns; this is known as a confirmation bias.

These patterns are deeply ingrained, an assault upon them will (at a conscious or sub-conscious level) be seen as an attack upon the individual. This is why most people become distressed if their behaviour/opinions are repeatedly challenged (no matter how politely).

Every day one moves to support one's own self-image (opinion/behaviour set). A simple example is what papers do you read? In the UK if you're left wing it's probable you read the Guardian, thus predominantly reinforcing your pre-existing opinions and reasoning, if right wing it's likely you read the Telegraph, thus reinforcing existing opinions. We seek out what reinforces who we already are, and avoid that which challenges it. Of course there are exceptions, but to change a deeply held opinion in middle age typically involves a traumatic break with your past life experience.

Quite how this moves through to entertainment preferences, books, games, TV; I don't know and haven't read a great deal of research on the subject.

 

[HareBrain]

This stuff about cognitive dissonance, smoker's blindness and confirmation bias all reminds me of something I've thought for a long time, that one of the best ways forward for the human race would be to make psychology a compulsory educational subject. It can only be beneficial for people to become conscious of how they subconsciously work. If they are aware that they operate under a confirmation bias, it might be a start in getting them to question whether it's right for them to do so.

 

[Sparrow]

Psychology without Philosophy would be rather useless, in my opinion. Teach an understanding of the mind and then teach them how to think critically or at the very least give them the basics.

At anyrate, the parents groups and religious groups (usually one in the same) here in America, would come out of the woodwork protesting the inclusion of Philosophy into a high school curriculum. They would demand "equal time" to teach the kiddies their end of philosophy.

 

[blacknorth]

Oh well.

I think we forget sometimes just how dark it is for some people, how long their journey out of the darkness is, and how much of it they may bring with them, knowing or unknowing. The romantic in me wishes to believe that such a journey, made with the best of intentions, is as epic as a voyage to the stars, but social mobility and FTL drives are in short supply of late.

 

[HareBrain]

Psychology without Philosophy would be rather useless, in my opinion. Teach an understanding of the mind and then teach them how to think critically or at the very least give them the basics.

I agree, at least the critical-thinking and logic bits of philosophy. I also think the basics of neuroscience should be part of the psychology cirriculum.

At anyrate, the parents groups and religious groups (usually one in the same) here in America, would come out of the woodwork protesting the inclusion of Philosophy into a high school curriculum. They would demand "equal time" to teach the kiddies their end of philosophy.

Sadly, I agree there too. Though I'm not sure it need be much of a problem. If the critical thinking/logic was well-enough taught, it should easily overpower the irrationality of the other side (well, OK, that's not taking into account the comfort-factor, and the external socialisation operating on the students).

One possible disadvantage I've thought of for teaching much psychology is that it eventually erodes the concept of free will, which is probably necessary for the smooth-ish running of society.

 

[j d worthington]

On that last point -- not necessarily. Along with the evidences against free wll in the usually accepted sense, are guidelines for making informed choices which offset the more disastrous aspects, such as relieving people of the idea that they aren't morally responsible for their actions. It's a complicated issue in dealing with how the human mind works, but the two really aren't incompatible.

As far as teaching philosophy -- I'd be for such but yes, it would meet tremendous resistance as a course in philosophy. Critical thinking, however, does not need to be a part of such a course, but can be included in almost any course, from home economics to sports to the sciences to English Lit. Critical thinking applies to just about any field you choose to mention, and therefore any field can benefit from having this included as part of the curriculum.

 

[blacknorth]

Erm, sorry, it took my feeble brain about a day to process a reply, probably because it's turned so cold and wet here in the land of contractor druids.

But they aren't guesses; a guess does not depend on evidence (or is made in reaction to very little, often misleading, evidence). They are models of the world and the universe around us based on verifiable, testable, repeatable results of experiment and evidence-gathering. When something is so finely honed that it can make the sort of accurate predictions that, say, quantum theory makes, then that is a very long way from a guess, and is much more likely to be an accurate model of the fundamental workings of the universe than any ideas which evolved in earlier periods in humanity's history, when we had neither the tools nor the experience to gather information on anything approaching this degree of precision.

JD - I would need to be a pretty poor reader of science fiction not to have picked up some knowledge of how science operates when evolving theories and models and proving them and so on. What I am mostly talking about, and what I should have made clearer - apologies for that - is the fiction. The weird and numinous, of which you speak, often operates largely at the proving stage, where the possibility of doubt, of the unexpected and the dramatic and the horrific, exists. If there's still 0.1 percent of a possibility of doubt remaining, then you'll find me there as a reader. To a certain extent, you'll find me there as a person too, and, to my mind, a lot of 20th century scence fiction is there. And this is where I go back to the original question of the thread - so long as science continues to prove in the manner of a joyous iconoclast, it may well be damaging the scope of its fictional arm. Whole sub-genres may have to be reclassified - it was remarked in another thread that if Faster Than Light travel is proven to be impossible then surely all SF books using it as a premise become Fantasy - its suddenly about as useful as dwarves and elves. Of course, I don't believe that for a moment, because these books are speculating about possibilities and have their place as scientific mythology regardless of proving. But I would extend the same courtesy to the weird, so long as it is frameworked by, yes, a cognitive dissonance (which is very similar to Harebrain's posts earlier).

Mmmm... the problem for me here is, that they didn't present that which would make such a reaction considerably more reasonable (after all, the sheet moving in such a fashion could be someone hoaxing him) -- the fact that it presented "a face of crumpled linen", as James put it....

Here's something I found interesting. Years later Hordern performed a reading of the CS Lewis novel The Last Battle - when it came to the moment when Ginger the Cat enters the shed and is terrified into reverting to a dumb animal, I was forcibly struck the similarities, both in performance and theme.

Anyhow, that's all - I should quit now before I get the urge to transport any more scientists to distant stars. I can do it, y'know.