Login

**Ravenshire** · March 21, 2015 at 11:20 am

Instead of just railing that some loon could use science fiction as the basis of a new religion (Jedi Order, already done) why don't you tell us what you think we can possibly do about it?

One Above All · (This post was last modified: March 21, 2015 at 11:24 am by One Above All.)

(March 21, 2015 at 11:17 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(March 21, 2015 at 11:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why do you think that's even applicable? Personally, I think theres plenty of knowledge to be found in sci fi (any genre, really)......very little to none of which has anything to do with science, or any claims about science. Sci fi, as a genre...is a setting for human drama...you understand that right?

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG,

No, you do not simply utter something and do nothing. If it worked like that everything would be true by default. That is where humans go wrong with everything that comes out of their mouths. You have to test things to prove them.

You want to test known fictional accounts - that is things admittedly fictional in nature - and we're the ones who don't get it? Is there some medication you should have taken that you didn't take? I assure you there is.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: March 21, 2015 at 11:25 am by The Grand Nudger.)

Okay.....but, again, I'm suggesting that nothing you have to say on the matter is even remotely relevant, because..in this case...you're one of the loons with crazy ideas about what sci fi is or isn't. Those behaviors you're trying to make a comment about - you're engaging in them. Sci fi -is not- a claim to any tech, sci, or "the fabric of reality": -whatever. It's a setting for a story - and very often one that is actually about the same sorts of things you..in the real world, struggle with. The setting can help to reduce the noise, so to speak, and magnify whatever issue it is (even if the only issue is pew pew everyone likes a good action story).

LastPoet · March 21, 2015 at 11:29 am

Oh OP , you are one of those guys that doesn't play D&D because it's fictional and has magic stuff in it?

I can do nothing but to feel sadness for you.

Brian37 · March 21, 2015 at 11:33 am

Si fi like all other fiction can be great for metaphor. But when you look back at it, and claim it predicted something, that is no different than a theist who points to their holy books or Aquinus and retrofitting after the fact. The real work that ends up in useful things is always in a testable peer reviewed setting.

Roddenberry did not invent the modern cell phone. Microwave technology existed long before that show and lab scientists are always looking to reduce size. You are projecting backwards if you think that. It would be no different than if you assumed Henry Ford could build a modern Lamborghini back when he was a live.

Si fi does not invent things, si fi writters look at science and use it, it still takes testing and falsification. The reality of science is that there is tons of failure more than success, that is REQUIRED to get to the proven.

You are making the same mental mistake theists do when they look at the abundance of life forgetting that 99% is now extinct. In real science for every universal useful think we know works, there is far more competition and things that end up going nowhere. Just like Newton got physics right but Alchemy was bunk.

You dont retrofit after the fact. In si fi you can find much more in those shows, any show, that will never be a reality. Anymore than claiming men can pop out of dirt. If you can accept it when theists try to co opt science after the fact, then why should si fi be treated any differently?

Making a claim that ends up being true does not mean the person postulating it at the time knows that it will be true or has any working knowledge of what they are claiming might be true in the future. Real science has enough in it that points to freaky stuff without laypeople assuming and gap filling.

Otherwise all I have to do is clam "In the future we will find a snarfwidgit behind all this".

Lemonvariable72 · March 21, 2015 at 11:44 am

...... Who said that the cell phone was invented by gene Roddenberry?
The cell phone was invented by Martin cooper of Motorola, the only connection to star trek was when he was watching a old rerun and kirk used his communicator and Cooper thought "damn I wish I had one of those." So he built one.

**Ravenshire** · March 21, 2015 at 11:45 am

I'll repeat my question. What would you have us do?!?

Lemonvariable72 · March 21, 2015 at 11:47 am

(March 21, 2015 at 11:45 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: I'll repeat my question. What would you have us do?!?

..... If we begin the purge of sci-fi booKS as order by Brian does that mean ray Bradbury predicted the future?

**Ravenshire** · March 21, 2015 at 11:52 am

(March 21, 2015 at 11:47 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:
(March 21, 2015 at 11:45 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: I'll repeat my question. What would you have us do?!?

..... If we begin the purge of sci-fi booKS as order by Brian does that mean ray Bradbury predicted the future?

AFTT47 · March 21, 2015 at 11:53 am

Thanks for correcting us about Gene Roddenberry not inventing the cell phone. He DID invent the tablet computer though.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me