On 09/12/2014 11:58 PM, SS wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 20:03 -0400, Bruce A. Metcalf wrote:
Exactly! Both films addressed technological advances, not social or
psychological ones. A bit harsh to criticize them because they didn't
do something they hadn't tried to do.
This is precisely what I am trying to point out. The psychological and
social cannot be divorced from the technological without arriving at
garbage.
I think we both disagree with that statement. You pointed out that those
films did a fair job on the technology changes.
I am more than willing to grant that a forecast that focuses *solely*
upon the technological will be incomplete, perhaps fatally so. It might
have been possible to predict cell phones and the Internet, no so easy
to predict the need for laws restricting texting while driving.
Please don't get upset at my criticism.
I am most certainly not upset, and I hope I haven't offered any.
Discussions like this are why I make time for Silk!
I did not demand that Sci Fi
should do this or that. I only asked why sociology and anthropology did
not seem to be dealing with these issues and it was on this thread that
I have been informed that Sci Fi writers are dealing with such issues.
Right. And I think the answer is that sociology and anthropology are
categorically unsuited to forecasting, particularly so in a culture
being impacted by continuous technological change. My hammer doesn't
turn screws well, either.
I think what most quality science fiction does is less to extrapolate
the technology, but to consider the social ramifications of said
technological developments. This requires speculation, which is
something academia assiduously stomps out.
I can't tell if Sociology and Anthropology are sciences...
This is a whole 'nuther argument, but let's agree for the sake of this
argument that they are "soft sciences", meaning it's damn hard (but not
impossible) to get reproducible results in non-trivial cases.
... but science
comes with the responsibility of getting things right, or alternatively
correcting itself when it gets things wrong.
Agreed. Self-correction is one of hallmarks of science, and that's one
of the ways to discriminate between science and non-science.
Sci Fi does not even
pretend to be science - and by using Sci Fi as a medium to study real
world issues the situation appears to me like a state where Sci Fi is
being unofficially anointed with the task of studying and guiding
society but with no accountability whatsoever. Science demands facts and
accountability, both of which can be glossed over with fiction.
Well, there's "truth" and then there's "Truth".
I don't think anyone will argue that science fiction is science. It got
that term for historical reasons, and because good science fiction does
not contain bad science (or non-science). Hence my apoplexy over
bookstores and libraries who shelve science fiction and fantasy together.
No, science fiction is a tool for looking at our society, or what our
society might become -- often as a result of new technologies, but it
also looks at the loss of technology (the recent spate of
post-apocalyptic fiction and film) and changes in technology or
historical facts (alternate history fiction).
Star Trek (the TV series, not the films) famously had an "other" on the
bridge. Both Spock and Data had the role of "other", and their
reflections on the culture around them was used as a way to comment on
cultural features that would otherwise remain unmentioned. This is a
common trope in science fiction, and is one of the few ways that fiction
uses to conduct such cultural introspection.
Why pull Sci Fi into an arena where it cannot be held responsible for
errors and then make the specious claim that Sci Fi is guiding
soceities?
I don't think anyone believes that science fiction is "guiding
societies" (outside of the L. Ron Hubbard cult).
What is being said is that science fiction can look at the impacts of
technological changes -- present or projected -- and see what the
consequences *might* be. With multiple authors, a range of such
consequences may be studied.
It is then up to society -- not science fiction -- to determine which of
these outcomes is good or bad, to be pursued or avoided, to be judged
healthy or dysfunctional. But society can't give consideration to such
concepts until they are presented in a palatable fashion. This I think
science fiction can and ought to do.
Science fiction cannot be held liable for incorrect speculation or even
for society following a path later widely felt to be wrong.
On the topic of finger pointing, I did not start with pointing any
fingers at science fiction. It was simply thrown into the discussion as
if it had answers. It has answers but carries no responsibility or
accountability.
I don't think that science fiction offers answers. I think it offers
questions. It asks, "What if?" then looks and what might result from
that if. Society has to come up with the answers, and at its best,
science fiction frames the questions so that they are understood, and so
that they are felt urgent enough to deserve answering.
As for responsibility, I think that stops with a responsibility to
entertain or encourage discussion. It's not like the sci-fi writers were
in charge, though that could prove interesting.
How is that different from religion or superstition?
Religion and superstition prescribe answers that are fixed, and which
cannot be changed when new or improved evidence is provided. Indeed,
some define the use of any evidence as blasphemy. They are, to some
extent, a tool used to avoid thinking. Science fiction is a tool
designed to promote thinking, and which thrives on new evidence, even
tenuous or projected evidence.
Would I get better answers if I "read more" science fiction as opposed
to reading more religion?
I guess that depends on what your questions are. Do you want "God's
Absolute Word" that once memorized, never again need be addressed with
any serious thought? Or do you want to prepare yourself and your society
for a future that will come no matter what some holy book or holy man
might say?
Maybe if you just want to pound nails, a fancy electric screwdriver
wouldn't be of much use.
Cheers,
Bruce
