Science + Fantasy, where reality meets possibility

What is “science fantasy”?

Science fiction contains elements of science (i.e. the rational) whether from our current technologies or from technology only theorized. Fantasy contains elements not only inexplicable (i.e. by science) but whose explanation does not seem to be a problem to the world of the story.

The earliest version of this type of tale was “Magic Inc.” by Robert Heinlein, though that story was structured to be strictly science fiction. Many readers do not think it falls strictly within the boundaries of that genre but it certainly pushes the boundary layer a bit.

Magic and science.
The fantastic in the daily world.
It is like imagining six impossible things before breakfast, and then writing the story.

And, yes, it is supposed to warp your perception.

Advertisements

Maybe Not Science, But…

On Friday, I stepped outside for a break and encountered a co-worker scowling upward at the dark clouds overhead and the light sprinkling.

He looked at me. “What’s this shit, huh? The weather service said it was supposed to be clear and sunny!”

“I don’t know.” I shrugged. “Maybe that’s why they call meteorology a science.”

He responded with a disgusted grunt and turned back to the dark clouds. “More like Scientology.”

I wonder if he meant it was more like a religion… or… ?

the Last Velikovskian

Several years ago, Alfred de Grazia attended yet another Velikovsky symposium and looked around. There were few faces that he recognized and those faces were now spouting a different mantra.

It had seemed to him that all the people brought together by Immanuel Velikovsky had spun-off in their own directions since Velikovsky’s passing. They had each taken their own slant on Immanuel’s work and run with it.

After the symposium, De Grazia said he felt like the man alone in the wilderness: there was no one there who still followed what Velikovsky had said. They called it a Velikovsky symposium but there was really very little of the old man remaining.

Hence, De Grazia styles himself “the Last Velikovskian standing”.

Actually, that makes two of us.

Though it has become quite fashionable to knock Velikovsky’s thesis, I find it still works for me. Perhaps not all the details but most of them as well as the broadstrokes. Both his history and the cosmology. All the researches I had previously done find so many answers in his works.

Dwardu Cardona wrote about the Saturnian cosmology theory and said it answers all the questions from the past. Funny, I read it and came away with more questions than when I started.

So, call me crazy, but that’s the sort of science / fantasy world I live in.

Fantasy and Science

Theories in science, especially on the vague outskirts, lends itself to ideas that are a bit further than science could claim. This is the realm of fantasy.

Forms of propulsion in fiction can outstrip the confines of the purely scientific world. A lot of this stuff has a scientific basis but some – occasionally – goes a little further and taps into things from realms where science does not tread.

Magic is the basis of most fantasy, at least that of the epic sort. Tolkein, Eddings, and the like steep their tales in the stuff.

But what of the borderlands between the two?

Heinlein’s “Magic Inc” was a marvelous excursion into a magical world viewed scientifically. Sure there was magic but it followed rules and “scientific” theorems.

The magic in the Harry Potter stories attempted to stay “true” to the history of the arcane arts but fell far short of any sort of “science” of magic.

I think a lot of what we today call “parapsychology” – the sixth sense, e.s.p., and such – though still considered pseudoscience, is tantalizingly close to what we know of fringe science.

Sure, it’s fantasy, but it is almost science.

an Inconvenient “Oops!”

It should have been obvious to everyone when these guys changed their stand from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”… and now I hear they prefer the term “Climate Chaos”.

As if changing the name made the idea so much more relevant or the “science” more correct but it was, at best, half-baked pseudo-science run amok and at the worst: political activism at its most heinous.

I can imagine the whole thing started when one guy happened to notice the graph of the CO2 levels seemed to match the rise in temperature. Naturally, he assumed since they were so closely aligned, they must be related. He must have pointed this out to some wizard who yelled “Eureka!” or “Bingo!” or whatever it is these charlatans yell when they suddenly see a vast array of dollar signs.

When Al Gore made his mighty splash, the thing had been in lock-step between the two graphs for several years and it seemed a pretty good bet. But then the graph lines diverged. Many held their breath, waiting for the sanity to return to the graphs but no such luck. Others are struggling mightily to find another graph that matches what we are seeing. Perhaps the one labeled “per capita donut consumption by police officers in relation to the number of… blah blah blah.”

I’ve seen better progressed horoscopes align to natal readings than this stuff. You see, the natal horoscope presents the basis for the annular chart done every year since birth but it also established the starting point for the “progressed chart” which works on the scalar model of one day to one year. In this manner, the angles calculated for the thirtieth day since the nativity relates to the thirtieth year.

Simple, huh? Yes, but very math intensive!

What?! You exclaim, that is a pseudo-science!!

Well, so is this climate change bunkum. And at least the progressed horoscopes make a better predictive model than these guys have latched onto. Next time fellas, do some research yourself before you cast aspersions.

The entire global warming (a.k.a. climate change a.k.a. climate chaos) pseudo-science was based on a graph that did not go back far enough. Claiming the CO2 produced by Man could not have caused the last two know periods of global warming but that sort of “evidence” did not interfere with the pseudo-science of these global warning prophets of doom.

So, today we find that the “rapidly rising temperatures” we had been told to fear had somehow leveled off even as the CO2 levels continued to rise. The first couple of years brought very little notice… two years could just be a little blip. But now that ten such years have passed, they are getting worried.

Even the big names in the global warming racket are starting to doubt the theory. One guy from Germany (Dr. Hans von Storch, the Lead Author of the U.N. IPCC) now claims it appears the theory is “seriously flawed”. That’s a start, I suppose, although “non-existent” is closer to the truth.

Unfortunately, most of the pedantic followers of the warming litany still cling to their faith that the – *cough* *cough* – science of global warming will be vindicated.

Well, don’t hold your breath.

The funniest thing about this whole story is the fact that there are still websites and bloggers out there clinging desperately to the con that they will not entertain any interruptions from sanity.

I swear… these guys give pseudo-scientists a bad name!

Most pseudo-sciences are not nearly this bogus.

Healthy Skepticism

Carl Sagan had a bit to say about skepticism in his essay “The Burden of Skepticism,” originally published in the Fall 1987 issue of Skeptical Inquirer:

“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble.
“Some ideas are better than others. The machinery for distinguishing them is an essential tool in dealing with the world and especially in dealing with the future. And it is precisely the mix of these two modes of thought that is central to the success of science.”

Sagan was completely skeptical about Immanuel Velikovsky and his thesis. In the 1974 AAAS meeting where he was to “debate” Velikovsky, Sagan grandstanded for the reporters and disappointed those people who were interested in hearing a serious debate on the topic. Not the most healthy of skeptical responses. Many scientists claim Sagan’s botching of the debate was what gave new energy into the Velikovsky “problem”. If he had done his part with a little more focus, the Velikovsky movement could have been stopped in its tracks.

On his show “Cosmos”, Sagan said he has disappointed in the scientific community’s response to Velikovsky but he never apologized for being one of the primary attackers on Velikovsky. Sagan’s main agenda has always been about promoting Sagan, regardless of the venue. Humans are that way, self-promoting is a survival mechanism.

Many scientists have taken differing views on the impact of Velikovsky’s work. I always figured the most important thing to come out of it was the use of myth as a tool for understanding the ancient past. I may be the only one with that view.

Jerry Pournelle discussed it on his website and thought the most important part of Velikovsky’s work was his helping to break the hold uniformism had on the study of geology and evolution. Today we have evolved what could be called “punctuated evolution” aided in part by the obvious catastrophes Velikovsky had brought into the spotlight.

Alfred de Grazia has his own take on the Velikovsky Affair and about the only work being done in the scientific field evolving from Velikovsky’s work is Talbot and Thornhill’s “electric universe”.

Still, the “healthy skepticism” called for by Sagan needs to be applied in all areas of study. One never knows when something of importance can come from even the most obscure sources.

We are still so far from understanding everything about the universe and who knows from where the next stroke of genius may come.

an Article of Faith

After two articles about the Science Storm Troopers on the internet, I think I should mention another thing.

In the original post of 6/16, “Skeptics or Storm Troopers?”, I said :”The rudeness of the commenter is certainly obvious but another part of this trend is subtler and far more unsettling.”

I did not go into the “other part” of the trend since then but I suppose I should since I find it very disturbing.

This fevered behavior by these storm-trooping commenters seems a lot like the behavior of people who have recently converted to a new religion or had been “born again”. It’s an annoying habit but can be overlooked by the circumstance of the conversion.

In other words, it looks all right from a religious viewpoint but taken in a scientific context it can only spell bad news.

Science is a discipline about wonder and inquiry. Admittedly, there are times in the past where certain persons in a discipline will overstep their calling and actively suppress certain branches of inquiry but it goes with all human endeavors, I suppose.

But having rabid sycophants attacking anyone practicing inquiry is not good for the victim or for science in general.

Science should not become a new age religion.

A little skepticism is good but mindless adherence to dogma is so very unbecoming.

More Storm Troopers

Another example of random-bad-behavior-giving-science-a-bad-name was on an educational page.

The poster saw an article about microwaved water doing harm to plants. The article has been around for years and it is always flamed when it appears.

No different this time.

Even though the educator merely suggested teachers try it with their students and see what results they get, the storm troopers descended and got ugly very quickly.

One claimed it had been disproved repeatedly so there was no point. Another claimed it violated some “Law”. Another one – more snide – suggested the poster take the refresher course Physics 101. Still another accused the poster of being a technophobe, distrusting something as simple as microwave technology.

All very classic examples of rude people thinking they know it all.

And at the end of this long line of doomsayers, came a refreshing post by a teacher in New Jersey.

She said, yes, by all means, try the experiment with your class. Her class did it and she was amazed to see the microwaved water actually harmed the plants.

By this time, the troopers had finished their storming and moved along to attack the next unwary poster.

The only problem with all this is that the only “scientist” in the group actually tried the experiment rather than relying on the mountain of hearsay on the web saying such an experiment would be pointless.

People who seemed to have gotten their basic “scientific degrees” in reading skeptical websites need to get off their high horses.

Let’s leave the science to people willing to do the footwork, not simply regurgitate what someone else has said.

It may be skeptical but it is far from insightful, and completely devoid of use.