First and foremost, I'm startled and delighted at the quality and quantity
of, uh, discourse I've prompted. It certainly bodes well for the list.
My most frequent reaction to the posts has been that we need to be more
precise about which of several overlapping, sometimes fuzzy, meanings we
are using.
"Science" as a method of inquiry has, IMNSHO, proven itself as a way of
approaching certain large, important areas of Truth.
"Science" as a human activity, especially a collaborative, communal human
activity, is subject to a variety of problems. I assume that members of
the list don't need this amplified!
To an extent, Heather was referring to this distinction
>Neil -- I was not debating that certain laws of physics seem to be
>unimpeachably rigid. The original question was about _hard_ science as
>sexist. _Hard_ science (among which physics) pretends to fully describe
>reality. The problem is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that
>constitutes "reality" which is not in the realm of _hard_ science. And is
>therefore *devalued*, in terms of describing reality, when contrasted with
>hard science. That's all. Note that under the laws of quantum mechanics,
>either your fascist, sexist pig or your pagan feminist may or may not
>splatter. =) The odds are pretty heavy that they will, however, you're
right.
And Farah referred to my second definition
>Science is also a discourse between competing theories.
Timmi Duchamp also emphasized the collaborative nature of "real science".
Some of the recent hard sf writers do try to portray this. Benford and
Bear come to mind.
my apologies to the poster of this for losing your name as I shuffled notes
for this global response:
>I want the right to take on whatever approaches
>feel valuable. I am also wary of any approach which condemns by
>association. Hard sf does not have to be sexist. It claims, after all, an
>objectivity. That it does not always live up to this is something that
>can be worked on, and in fact the genre demands that it be worked
>on.
A more elaborate distinction needs to be made of the various implications
of "hard" and "soft" in the sciences, and of "hard sf".
My understanding of the basic meaning of "hard" science is that it deals
with "hard" facts, things which may be measured or calculated precisely, in
contrast to "soft" facts which intrinsically have less precision.
"Hard science fiction" means to me science fiction centering around
engineering, where "answers" are very quantifiable, and the "correctness"
of solutions can be measured. I don't think I've seen much use of
soft-science fiction of soft science-fiction.
I agree with Nicola Griffith:
>It's my opinion that "hard sf" is much more about technology than science.
and disagree with Mike Levy:
>I would argue that to the
>extent that the phrase "hard science fiction" means anything today, it's
>simply a political concept used to describe the work of a group of
>generally (although not exclusively) conservative or libertarian science
>fiction writers, most of whom are male, most of whom center their stories
>on physics and engineering.
My understanding of the "hard" is more to do with the sciences than the
political stance. Sturgeon's _The Skills of Xanadu_ comes to mind.
Neil Rest
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:08 PDT