XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: bredband.net@ojevind.lang   
      
   "Dirk Thierbach"  skrev i meddelandet   
   news:20090812195548.2779.6.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>> 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 single facts, which become quickly outdated.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.   
      
   We agree about that. Still, that's a bit like saying: "Maybe   
   faster-than-light travel might turn out to be feasible sometime in the   
   future." That sort of thing is OK for the purposes of writing  science   
   fiction, but it is, to put it mildly, highly improbable to ever become   
   reality. Perhaps people in the future might discover some way of travelling   
   between the stars, but if so, faster-than-light travel is unlikely to be   
   involved. As you say, we can't say anything definite about it, but that   
   doesn't mean it needs to be taken seriously as a future possibility. And the   
   same applies to psychohistory.   
     I don't remember who wrote that most science fiction is based on assuming   
   that one impossible or unlikely thing is reality and then developing one's   
   story from there, strictly observing logic and scientific knowledge apart   
   from the grand exception made at the outset. Well, words to that effect.   
   Anyway, the Foundation books make several scientifically untenable   
   assumptions: faster-than-light travel, galactic empires (see below),   
   psychohistory and robots with a consciousness who can make intricate grand   
   plans for the proper evolution of human history. Granted, the last   
   impossibility was tacked onto the structure later, and in my opinion it made   
   the whole edifice topple down.   
     When it comes to chaos theory, as you know, one can only make rather   
   limited predictions using it, and there really isn't much to indicate that   
   that will change, is there? Anyway, there is a huge difference between   
   making accurate weather forecasts (which still remains a distant dream) or   
   predicting earthquakes to foreseeing the social, economical, historical and   
   whatnot development of a planet, let alone a galactic empire. I suspect some   
   of the more exorbitant claims for the future possibilities of chaos theory   
   will go the way of cybernetics.   
     In passing, let me say that I take it we both know that the concept of   
   galactic empires is absurd. It makes for good stories, but in real life, I   
   find it even more absurd than psychohistory. :-)   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   How can one be sure that all one's "observations" and interpretations of   
   society are correct? And that one has included all relevant data and   
   excluded all the irrelevant ones? IMO, that could only be possible in an   
   extremely closed-circuit society of the ant heap kind. That is to say, a   
   society where humans aren't involved. Or hmunsa, as a certain other poster   
   here would say.   
     Making value neutral observations in the field of natural science can be   
   difficult, but making such observations where human beings and human   
   societies are involved is infinitely much harder.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   Of course. I accept the premise as a device for a story. I just don't think   
   it is possible in real life. I thought we were agreed about that.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>  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.   
      
   You surprise me. Both are very much patterned on the United States of the   
   1940's. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I don't claim   
   that Asimov consciously envisaged space as being almost exclusively settled   
   by white Anglo-Saxon Americans; I suspect he just didn't give the matter a   
   thought. That is to say, he was interested in working out the details of his   
   tale of a galactic empire on the way down and the salvation of human   
   civilization through psychohistory. As you point out below, assuming that   
   space civilizations would look rather like mid-20th century America (with   
   the exception of the cultures of bug-eyed monsters, of course) was very   
   general at the time among science fiction writers. The only ones who rather   
   visibly chafed at those constraints were Robert A. Heinlein and Poul   
   Anderson.   
     (Insert cheer for Heinlein's "Citizen of the Galaxy" and "The Moon is a   
   Harsh Mistress", and for the Flandry books.)   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   See above. Actually, in his later Foundation books, he tries to make up for   
   his earlier myopia by introducing names from other cultures. There's one   
   book where he mentions a person with a Hindu name and remarks that names of   
   that kind were rather common in that particular neck o' the galaxy. He also   
   features some rather uninteresting female protagonists, including a Mayor of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)