More New Definitions from Ratch

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ratch, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    To the ineffable all,

    "Science fiction" is a oxymoron. If it were true science, it would not be fiction. It is a class of literature where the laws of physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics and gravity, get raped and violated thoroughly and repeatedly. It should really be called psuedo science.
     
  2. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    What it "should" be called is not relevant. It is called "science fiction." Do you have a title to recommend? Or are you just phishing for another debate?
     
  3. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    I think it is relevant. Things should be called what they are. I did recommend a title for that particular literature. Just got back from vacation, so I could use a little give and take.

    Ratch
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    You're outvoted (again).
     
  5. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    It's not so much the device's functionality that is the big deal, but what happens to people/humanity/the world if something like that appears.

    Some SF can be very silly, indeed, and hardly distinguishable from fantasy. My list of authors gets smaller all the time because not too many of them know enough science to make anything pass the willing suspension of disbelief test.

    It probably gets down to taste. I always get wiped out by Theodore Sturgeon's story, "The Man Who Lost the Sea". My wife read it and just shrugged, said 'that couldn't have happened" and was unaffected.
     
  6. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    Bill_Marsden,

    A concensus of agreement is not a proof of truth.

    Ratch
     
  7. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Like I said, I like hard scifi. It's called hard because the evidence isn't in (or at least at the casual level) to prove or disprove. Given time, most scifi goes soft, where the facts don't match the story line.

    A lot of good concepts and inventions came from scifi authors, from the periscope (Jules Vern) to the waterbed (Robert Heinlien). The space elevator concept was invented by two writers independently (Arther C. Clark, can't quite recall the other), it may yet come to pass.
     
  8. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Nope, but in this case arguement is meaningless, which makes arguing with you a waste of time. You lose, again. I am now setting my twit bit on for your posts.
     
  9. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    beenthere,

    Yes, we found that out when Orson Wells put his theatrical production skills to work, didn't we?

    I can agree with that.

    Never read that one, but I opine that it was not entertaining to your spouse. I notice that many of the story lines seem to gravitate toward social conditions, and how they are affected if something peculiar happens. The improbable event is the vehicle used to make a situation appear that can be made into plots and subplots by the author.

    Ratch
     
  10. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    Bill_Marsden,

    It may not be what you agree with, but it is hardly meaningless. It does express an opinion about what "science fiction" means.

    What did I lose several times?

    I know you mean something, but I am clueless about what it is.

    Ratch
     
  11. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Don't be obtuse. You were asked for a title within the genre, not a title for the genre. Either contribute, or be gone.
     
  12. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    The title of the literature within the genre is for the author to designate, not me. Explain what you are looking for better.

    Ratch
     
  13. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Ratch, you are about as dumb as a box of rocks. The library title is fiction, science. Look it up.
    Hey here's an idea. Go to the "C" section look up Clarke, Arthur. In the library, not on the internet.
    So, what book, you've read, can you reccomend?
    Dan
     
  14. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    I don't know what you are smoking, old man, but what I am looking for was stated clearly in the first post of the other thread. You didn't give a rip about the first post of the other thread, though. You just wanted an excuses to argue.

    So here ya go! Your very own thread! I said "contribute or be gone." You made your choice.

    Enjoy it!
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2008
  15. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Dan, I know Ratch can often elicit an emotional reaction. I sympathize and empathize. We do, however, have a strict "no ad-hominem" rule here at A.A.C. - please limit yourself to the points of discussion and stop insulting boxes of rocks. erm... I mean stop insulting forum members. Yeah.
     
  16. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Thingmaker,
    With all grace and wit I apologise if I have exceed the bounds of AAC's graciousness. However, emotion has nothing to do with my response. Just a fact.
    Incorrect assessment of common knowledge is, as uncouth as it may seem to those considering themselves "knowledgeable," no reason to argue points inconsistent with common knowledge.
    Dan
     
  17. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    floomdoggle,

    Could you explain why you think so? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    No, the category is science fiction. The title is what the author gives it.

    For what purpose?

    Recommend with respect to what?

    Can you prove that "fact", or at least explain what it is and why you believe it to be true?

    Could you point out the incorrect assessment of common knowledge, and the points inconsistent with common knowledge?

    Ratch
     
  18. Distort10n

    Active Member

    Dec 25, 2006
    429
    1
    I prefer, "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."

    About sums it up for me. :cool:
     
  19. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    thingmaker3,

    I have never smoked. Sorry I cannot help you pick out a book.

    I wanted to express an opinion. Once done, it is not right to shirk from defending it. It takes two to argue, and your response seemed to be quick and eager.

    So I have, and I will enjoy it if someone participates.

    I hope he knows that I can be convinced, but not bullied.

    Ratch
     
  20. Ratch

    Thread Starter New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    1,068
    3
    Distort10n,

    Or fantasy is "imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained, and a supposition based on no solid foundation."

    Science fiction, besides being an oxymoron, is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."

    Ratch
     
Loading...