XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis
From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de
Öjevind Lång wrote:
> "Dirk Thierbach" skrev i meddelandet
> news:20090812074005.1272.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>> Yes, but a lot of particles moving at random are only one category of
>>> phenomena; in psyhohistory, you'd have to process population statistics,
>>> economical facts and forecasts [etc.]
>>
>> Yes, of course. I didn't say that psychohistory is easy, or actually
>> possible. (IMHO the system is probably too close to chaotic behaviour
>> to make any realiable forecast). The point was that in principle, the
>> idea is sound, and it's not a question of the inability to measure
>> single facts, which become quickly outdated.
> I agree that the system is too close to chaotic behaviour for any reliable
> forecasts.
I said "probably" on purpose -- since we don't have a workable description,
we can't actually measure how close the system is to chaotic behaviour
(yes, one can measure that). So it's just my hunch. And nothing we
could say anything definitive about.
> Furthermore, all observers view things through ideological
> spectacles.
But that doesn't matter -- empiric verifiability doesn't depend on
ideology. Either the theory works, or it doesn't. When it works, it
doesn't matter which ideological spectacles the inventor was wearing.
Or which ideology the observer is influenced by. You measure, you
plug in the numbers, you get a result. No matter which ideology you
currently believe in, the result will be the same. Now *interpreting*
the result can be easily influence by ideology, but that's a completely
different thing.
> I rather dislike having to trot out the hackneyed term "paradigm",
> but paradigms do exist and tend to distort what one perceives. How
> does one identify all relevant data?
That doesn't matter for the story. Just *assume* one could identify the
relevant data. It's a "what-if" scenario: What if we had a working
science of psycho-history? Can we do anything interesting with that?
As long as such a science is not obviously *impossible* (which it
isn't, the principle is sound, the question is just if the details
can be actually made to work) it's not important to actually identify
"all relevant data". If Asimov could, he wouldn't write SF stories,
but get a Noble Prize for this theory :-)
> The original Foundation trilogy depicts the Galactic Empire (and later on
> the Foundation) as some sort of mid-20th century USA minus religion.
Hm. Not necessarily.
> Almost everybody has very cursorily disguised Anglo-American names
> (Hober Mallow, Salvor Hardin, Homir Munn, Hari Seldon, Jord Fara,
> Arcadia Darell, even Jan Smite);
Yes, but that doesn't mean the Empire is identical to the USA. Of course
he'd choose names that are familiar for the reader. Every author is
biased by the culture he lives in. And part of that of course reflects
into this work. But that doesn't mean that all his work is meant
to represent the culture he lives in.
> female emancipation has not happened and almost all women are
> housewives
As in most SF (and probably other literature as well) from this era.
> (the exception being a handful of novelists, academics and
> teachers
So he's actually quite progressive :-) And I think in picking
Arkady as the heroine he was far ahead of his contemporaries.
> and, I imagine, the occasional sour middle-aged spinster scientist
> of the Susan Calvin type,
Susan Calvin is really a very interesting character. IMHO, she's
not so much "sour middle-aged spinster", but instead has some rather
pronounced straits of Asberger's syndrome. Together with a wry
humour.
[snip]
> everybody speaks and thinks like Americans of the time (except some
> stereotyped, even parodical, British aristocrats, Roman generals,
> barbarian chiefs, olde worlde kings and country yokels),
Which is exactly what would happen if an author tries to go beyond
the culture he is used to. So you make actually a very good case that
the Empire is *not* meant to be like the USA :-)
> That is to say, Asimov did not foresee the increasing racial and
> ethnic diversity in the US either. How could he? To my knowledge,
> nobody did.
Exactly. Cultural bias, not an intention to make the Empire like the USA.
> The fact that one can't foresee the future is exactly the point.
> (On which we agree; I just enjoy picking at the details.)
But SF is never about foreseeing the future. To quote LeGuin's
introduction to /The Left Hand of Darkness/ again:
: Science fiction is not predictive, it is descriptive.
: Predictions are uttered by prophets (free of charge); by
: clairvoyants (who usually charge a fee, and are therefore more
: honored in their day than prophets); and by futurologists
: (salaried). Prediction is the business of prophets, clairvoyants,
: and futurologist. It is not the business of novelists. A novelist's
: business is lying.
: The weather bureau will tell you what next Tuesday will be like, and
: the Rand Corporation will tell you what the twenty-first century
: will be like. I don't recommend that you turn to the writers of
: fiction for such information. It's none of their business. All
: they're trying to do is tell you what they're like, and what you're
: like -- what's going on -- what the weather is now, today, this
: moment, the rain, the sunlight, look! Open your eyes; listen,
: listen. That is what the novelists say. But they don't tell you what
: you will see and hear. All they can tell you is what they have seen
: and heard, in their time in this world, a third of it spent in sleep
: and dreaming, another third of it spent in telling lies.
[...]
: This book is not about the future. Yes, it begins by announcing that
: it's set in the "Ekumenical Year 1490-97," but surely you don't
: *believe* that?
: Yes, indeed the people in it are androgynous, but that doesn't mean
: that I'm predicting that in a millennium or so we will all be
: androgynous, or announcing that I think we damned well ought to be
: androgynous. I'm merely observing, in the peculiar, devious, and
: thought-experimental manner proper to science fiction, that if you
: look at us at certain odd times of day in certain weathers, we
: already are. I am not predicting, or prescribing. I am describing.
: I am describing certain aspects of psychological reality in the
: novelist's way, which is by inventing elaborately circumstantial
: lies...
And "let's assume there exist a science of psycho-history" is just
another such lie.
[snip]
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
