YAHOO users are idiots

[Kuciwalker]

I never said anything about having to be technically proficient, that is Snoopy. I do agree with him that there must be some specualtion on how scientific or technical progress could affect human beings. That you find Asimov's own formulations on psychohistory implausibl does not remove that it remain a story about how a man would handle discovering a way to basically tell the future that they arrived to scientifically.

You might as well call LOTR sci-fi, as it speculates "hmm what would happen if this entire mythology I invented were correct?"

[Kuciwalker]

You and Imran are on one side, Snoopy and I on another. Is your definition of sci fi as simple as "any story with space travel and robots?"

I've said it a dozen times in this thread: anything that uses a substantial number of science fiction tropes is science fiction. That's what genres are. A set of works that share some conventions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You might as well call LOTR sci-fi, as it speculates "hmm what would happen if this entire mythology I invented were correct?"

No, not at all. Again, the determining factor is a story specualtion of where scientific or technical progress could land someone or humanity. I think it rather obvious that there is no attempt whatsoever to do so in fantasy.

Just as there is no attempt at speculation in Star Wars - there is no speculation in Star Wars - the space stuff is there as setting and flavor, not as an important part of what the story is about.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I've said it a dozen times in this thread: anything that uses a substantial number of science fiction tropes is science fiction. That's what genres are. A set of works that share some conventions.

The disagreement here is on what conventions or tropes would make something sci-fi. Just having Spaceships and robots are not enough.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

God. Are we having the 'what fits in what box' discussion again?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The disagreement here is on what conventions or tropes would make something sci-fi. Just having Spaceships and robots are not enough.

There aren't any requirements on "which tropes". They just have to belong to the genre.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There aren't any requirements on "which tropes". They just have to belong to the genre.

Not all sci fi stories use robots or space travel, so that is not a unifying characteristic of the genre. And some tropes are used amongst many genres, like the comic sidekick.

If you are unwilling to provide a definition of the genre, how can you say that you know which tropes or conventions set it apart from the larger subset of fantasy?

You basically seem to be going on the "I know science fiction when I see it" definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Not all sci fi stories use robots or space travel, so that is not a unifying characteristic of the genre. And some tropes are used amongst many genres, like the comic sidekick.

Did I say "a science fiction story is one that uses all science fiction tropes"? (Hint: no.) It's one that uses a "substantial number".

If you are unwilling to provide a definition of the genre, how can you say that you know which tropes or conventions set it apart from the larger subset of fantasy?

1) I have provided a definition of the genre.

2) It's pretty easy to agree on whether something is a sci-fi trope or not. Is it in a substantial number of science fiction stories?

Yes, that's circular. It's also obviously correct. Science fiction is a label given by people to a set of similar works, i.e. ones that generally share conventions. We label this hazy cloud of stuff "science fiction" because we see it as, in general, different from lots of other hazy clouds. Some of the hazy clouds, though, are really close to it, so much that they aren't really distinct as different ends of one big, long, stretched out hazy cloud. e.g. sci-fi and fantasy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

1) I have provided a definition of the genre.

2) It's pretty easy to agree on whether something is a sci-fi trope or not. Is it in a substantial number of science fiction stories?

Yes, that's circular. It's also obviously correct. Science fiction is a label given by people to a set of similar works, i.e. ones that generally share conventions. We label this hazy cloud of stuff "science fiction" because we see it as, in general, different from lots of other hazy clouds. Some of the hazy clouds, though, are really close to it, so much that they aren't really distinct as different ends of one big, long, stretched out hazy cloud. e.g. sci-fi and fantasy.

Sorry, but your circular definition is most certainly "not obviously correct" because otherwise there wouldn't be the sort of arguements amongst the sci fi community that exists. Again, look at the link I provided.

The difference here is that I and Snoopy try to make an arguement for a basic and still expansive definition, while you acknowledge that your definition is inherently circular. And no, just because most people use the term does not mean they understand it - just look at what happens to the term "theory." Does it make Star Wars any less a movie if it is labelled space opera, or just fantasy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
HOw exactly is the Foundation series out?

The entire premise of the series when it began centered on the idea of someone creating a theory of social sciences so precise that it could basically tell the future, and then how the creators of this theory attempted to use it or control it. You can't get more sci-fi that that.

Uh... seriously? What in the story changes if, say, instead of Seldon's psychohistory, you have a soothsayer who gets his knowledge from an innate knowledge? All psychohistory is, is a way to get a soothsayer into a modern times story which involves space.

And if we are opening up social sciences to "sci-fi" then you are letting quite a bit in, aren't you? And it goes against what you said earlier about sci-fi being reactions to technological advances. No advances in social sciences is considered a technological advance. Freud's theories when they were first posed were not technological advances.

And, in addition, genre terms are defined by the society at large and not by a few people who wave definitions that a small few think defines the genre. Regardless of how stupid you think the masses are, they have the power.

I mean, Hell, when the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame (in Seattle) has Star Wars stuff (and the Hall includes George Lucas), its hard to argue that its the fault of ignorant masses!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Uh... seriously? What in the story changes if, say, instead of Seldon's psychohistory, you have a soothsayer who gets his knowledge from an innate knowledge? All psychohistory is, is a way to get a soothsayer into a modern times story which involves space.

And if we are opening up social sciences to "sci-fi" then you are letting quite a bit in, aren't you? And it goes against what you said earlier about sci-fi being reactions to technological advances. No advances in social sciences is considered a technological advance. Freud's theories when they were first posed were not technological advances.

Scientific or technical advances. A social science created through empiracal observation and study would be a scientific endevour.

And, in addition, genre terms are defined by the society at large and not by a few people who wave definitions that a small few think defines the genre. Regardless of how stupid you think the masses are, they have the power.

Power to what? The question here is, what is science fiction. Saying its what people say it is is generally not the best way to define something, because when you are forced to actually ask individuals, well, ho knows what the hell they will say. Its always a cheap device to say "the people" because you aren;t the people and its impossible to ever ask "the people,", only individual persons. Again, this whole thread began with disgust at what some people thought was "great sci fi."

I mean, Hell, when the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame (in Seattle) has Star Wars stuff (and the Hall includes George Lucas), its hard to argue that its the fault of ignorant masses!

Given that a Hall of Fame needs to pay the bills, its hard for them to reject the fanboys. I wouldn;t blame the people running it for making the economically sound decision.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see anything outrageous in Star Wars. ...

You have a death star which uses directed energy to blast apart planets. You have handheld laser rifles. You have beam swords. You have hyperspace drives, that require navigational calculations. You have energy shields.

I don`t see how any of this is unhindered. It all follows scientific principles that we know of today, expanding their application and scope.

But the energy required to explode a planet is outrageous: many thousand times greater than the energy output of a star, from a power plant millions of times smaller than the star.

The biggest thermonuclear warhead detonation to date, compared with the size and mass of the Earth, is puny. If you scaled up a human head to 8k miles across that nuke couldn't even pop a pimple.

To blow up a planet with matter-antimatter annihilation would require a mass of antimatter about an order of magnitude smaller than the planet itself.

Science fiction would use the Death Star to blast the surface of the planet for weeks, torching entire forests, turning cities into slag, and vaporizing lakes of water. Then it has to go back to the shipyard for the 1000-hour overhaul.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
The difference here is that I and Snoopy try to make an arguement for a basic and still expansive definition, while you acknowledge that your definition is inherently circular. And no, just because most people use the term does not mean they understand it - just look at what happens to the term "theory." Does it make Star Wars any less a movie if it is labelled space opera, or just fantasy?

According to Godel, all logic is self-referential. You just refuse to admit yours is as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

But the energy required to explode a planet is outrageous: many thousand times greater than the energy output of a star, from a power plant millions of times smaller than the star.

Millions of times smaller?

All you need is to store the entire output of the sun for a week.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/death-star1.htm

If you've ever burned a leaf with a magnifying glass you understand the basic principle behind the Superlaser. When a magnifying glass is held at the correct angle between the sun and a leaf, the sunrays are focused through the lens. These rays intersect under the lens and at the point of intersection a beam of heat is created that burns the leaf. The sun is the source of power and the lens is the focus.

The main cannon and eight tributary lasers fire beams that converge at the outer perimeter of the Superlaser dish in an amplification nexus.


The Superlaser has a massive lens built around a huge synthetic focusing crystal. The lens is known as "the Eye" and is surrounded by eight tributary lasers. There are also four back up lasers in case any of the main eight tributaries fail. All of the tributary lasers can be angled for targeting. This allows the Death Star to aim the Superlaser within a certain field of fire without having to turn the entire station. The main cannon and eight tributary lasers fire beams that converge at the outer perimeter of the Superlaser dish in an amplification nexus. A main beam then blasts from the nexus to the intended target.

The Death Star's Superlaser derives power directly from the hypermatter reactor. The lasers convert and focus the full power of the reactor to create the beams. So going back to our magnifying glass example, the Superlaser is like a series of large magnifying glasses focusing the entire power of the reactor (which is like a small sun) into one huge beam to destroy a planet, rather than a few rays of light to burn a leaf.

Say the amplification is double, that means you only need each tributary laser to be 1/16th the power necessary to destroy the planet, or about the total power given off by the sun in 3 days.

[Krill]