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.

 

It should really be called psuedo science.

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?

 

thingmaker3,

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?

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

 

You're outvoted (again).

 

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.

 

Bill_Marsden,

You're outvoted (again).

A concensus of agreement is not a proof of truth.

Ratch

 

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.

 

Bill_Marsden,



A concensus of agreement is not a proof of truth.

Ratch

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.

 

beenthere,

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.

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

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.

I can agree with that.

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.

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

 

Bill_Marsden,

Nope, but in this case arguement is meaningless, which makes arguing with you a waste of time.

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

You lose, again.

What did I lose several times?

I am now setting my twit bit on for your posts.

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

Ratch

 

I think it is relevant. Things should be called what they are. I did recommend a title for that particular literature.

Don't be obtuse. You were asked for a title within the genre, not a title for the genre. Either contribute, or be gone.

 

thingmaker3,

Don't be obtuse. You were asked for a title within the genre, not a title for the genre. Either contribute, or be gone.

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

Ratch

 

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

 

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

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!

 

Ratch, you are about as dumb as a box of rocks.

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.

 

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

 

floomdoggle,

Ratch, you are about as dumb as a box of rocks.

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

The library title is fiction, science. Look it up.

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

Hey here's an idea. Go to the "C" section look up Clarke, Arthur. In the library, not on the internet.

For what purpose?

So, what book, you've read, can you reccomend?

Recommend with respect to what?

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.

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

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.

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

Ratch

 

To the ineffable all,

"Science fiction" is a oxymoron. If it were true science...

I prefer, "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."

About sums it up for me.

 

thingmaker3,

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.

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

You didn't give a rip about the first post of the other thread, though. You just wanted an excuses to argue.

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

Enjoy it!

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

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.

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

Ratch

 

Distort10n,

I prefer, "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible."

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