From: mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar)
Subject: Re: Psionics
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:45:49 GMT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>Doesn't that make it fantasy, rather than science fiction?  I think the
>general consensus is that science fiction is the extrapolation of an
>actual or imagined science or technology on society.  If you don't have
>an explanation for the science (psionics), then how can you extrapolate
>properly from it?  In the extreme case, the effects are applied for
>reasons other than extrapolation, with a weak attempt to claim that it
>is still SF.

jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John Kim) defends:
>I'd disagree strongly with this. Science fiction is fiction which 
>uses the excuse of science/technology to introduce elements that often 
>would otherwise be fantasy. The purpose of SF is not solely to investigate 
>possibilities of the future. You don't need to have a PhD and to have 
>rigorously proven your ideas to write it. 

I would add to this: FTL becomes fantasy under your definition. By what
justification and rigorous equations do you extraploate FTL travel? If
you have done this, then please write up your work so that we can award
you your Nobel Prize. :-)

Under our current understanding of physics, neither psionics nor FTL
travel are likely to be possible. In fact, I would argue that psionics
are more likely to be possible than FTL travel.

Nick again:
>Does your science of psionics include examples of this "basic force" in
>insects, geophysical activity, the bonding of clay particles, etc, or at
>least include an adequate explanation of why the force does not manifest
>itself in such areas?  Can the players understand the science well enough
>to apply it in ways you haven't written into the rules.  For example, if
>you have a crystal that absorbs and stores psi energy, can the players
>turn that into a psychic shield or a psychic bomb?  Can they study the
>crystal structure and use that knowledge to create variations of it or
>find a different crystal with a similar structure?

Interesting thoughts. I can't say that I have such examples laid out in
print. Yet. In fact, you have inspired me to do so! Although I'm afraid
that the degree of rigour you are demanding would involve extensive work
and probably several months of single-minded dedication.

But underlying the theme of my game is the idea that it _is_ possible
for these things to be understood. _I_ don't necessarily know how to do
it, but a character in the game with a skill level of 18 in Psionic
Engineering _will_ know what he is talking about. That character will know
whether or not she can make that psionic bomb.

And if you are going to argue that the _players_ should have the ability
to decide for themselves the possibility of the psionic bomb, then
compare the case where a character has skill levels in Nuclear
Engineering, but the player has only rudimentary physics knowledge. The
character knows how to build a nuclear bomb, but the player hasn't the
foggiest.

>Actually, I'm just arguing for entertainment value.  >:-)

And entertaining it is! :-) Personally, I think this debate is quite
productive too. You have made me think about a few things.

David Mar.                              mar@astrop.physics.su.OZ.AU
Astrophysics Department, University of Sydney  NSW  2006, Australia.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy