XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article <52318db7$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, peter@pmoylan.org.invalid   
   says...   
   >   
   > On 12/09/13 16:36, Snidely wrote:   
   > > on 7/25/2013, Steve Hayes supposed :   
   > >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:37:58 +0800, Robert Bannister   
   > >>    
   > >> wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> I would have thought that most people who read SF&F are aware that   
   > >>> FTL, time travel, telepathy, etc. do not work and cannot work. Back   
   > >>> when I was twelve, these were all thought to be possibilities.   
   > >>> Moreover, although only a few really knew the details of real science   
   > >>> at the time, it was possible to understand the broad ideas, and   
   > >>> Asimov and others spent a lot of time explaining them. Modern science   
   > >>> is way beyond the imagination of those not involved.   
   > >   
   > > Hmmm.  I'm not sure that Stephen Hawking is that hard to read, at least   
   > > in _A Brief History of Time_ and _The Universe in a Nutshell_.  I've   
   > > only dabbled in George Gamow, but his books made an impression on the   
   > > public, especially the public that was buying science fiction.   
   >   
   > I've read Hawking, but I've also met many people who gave up on his   
   > books, as being too difficult to understand.   
   >   
   > When we understand something ourselves, we don't always appreciate why   
   > other people can't follow it.   
      
   I think that this get's down to C.P. Snow's "The Two Cultures".  A   
   friend of mine has an earned PhD, speaks a half a dozen languages, and   
   despite using computers for going on 40 years still can't stick a CD in   
   the drive and run setup without somebody holding his hand.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)