From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:20:35 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <13839@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>> 
>>+> [multiply-nested inclusions deleted]
>>+> 'Hard' SF is the sort which is rigorous in its science. 'Soft' SF is less
>>+> concerned with the scientific details/proof, and is willing to introduce
>>+> reasonable elements without documentation.
>>+ 
>>+[In which case hard SF is a null set, soft SF nearly so.]
>> 
>> The above definition wasn't mine; you've mistakenly attributed it to me,
>> though it was my fault (I left out one level of inclusion).  My definition
>> isn't quite as limited as how you read that person's definition.  My
>> definition allows stories that break existing laws, but which are
>> self-consistent.
>> 
Sorry about misattributing; I thought you said that.  However, what do you
mean by self-consistent?  Specifically, do you accept FTL travel as science
fiction, even if causality is assumed and time travel nonexistent?  I'll
get back to this.

>>+[Niven and Asimov, for example, don't qualify.]
>> 
>> No, while Niven may break existing laws of our universe, and doesn't provide
>> explanations for many of his devices, he tries (and succeeds fairly well) in
>> applying the laws of his universe consistently.  For example, he postulates
>> transporter technology, provides some laws for it (range, etc), and
>> extrapolates its effects on society.
>> 
>>+ OK, name me a few things *you* think are science fiction
>> 
>>[Brin, for strong SF elements despite FTL and psionics.  Most of Niven,
>> possibly including "The Magic Goes Away" for extrapolation from
>> postulated laws.  Stiegler's "David's Sling" is hard SF.]
>> 
How about the Telzey Amberdon stories by James Schmitz?  Set in the author's
far-future semi-anarchy with various SF cliche technology, Telzey is taught
telepathic abilities by a nonhuman species, and proceeds to have a variety
of adventures.

First, the author seems to have a fairly clear picture of what psionics can
do and why, although no explicit description is available.  Second, psionic
machines are present, and therefore it is established that psi forces can
be detected and affected by physical means, and therefore it is an unknown
physical force rather than an unknown mystical one.  Third, society has
adapted in various ways.  There is a government Psychology Service that
monitors psis and psionics.  Telzey's foes can have access to drugs to
suppress psi functioning, can obtain mind shields, or can simply threaten
to have her shot.

Given that Schmitz seems to have certain laws of psionics, and that he
extrapolates society's reaction to them, does this qualify as SF to you?

>>+ The one test that the most of them failed was star travel.
>> 
>> Failing one test, or having one element that does not fit the "hard SF"
>> definition does not necessarily remove a book from that category.  The story
>> can have strong "extrapolation from basic laws" elements elsewhere in it.
>> 
Again, what would you say of a story that presented a FTL system with its
own laws, implicitly or explicitly, and extrapolated from that?

Some time ago, I wrote a(n unpublished) story in which a careless FTL
navigator arrives back on a planet before he left, and causes havoc.
Since this is an extrapolation of FTL and general relativity, would it
feel SF to you?

>>+ In any case, telepathy does not invalidate anything we know about physics
>>+ like most defensive force fields do;
>> 
>> Actually, I think it does invalidate (or rather: violate) what we know of the
>> laws of our universe.  It doesn't seem to use any known force or particle.
>> Hey!  That's it!  The missing "dark matter" is psionic particles!  :)
>> 
Your first two sentences seem slightly inconsistent.  Does anything that
doesn't "seem" to work by "known" means violate what we know of physical
laws?

To put it differently, consider three basement inventors.  One devises an
anti-gravity machine.  One devises an FTL drive.  One devises a training
method that allows people to be reliably telepathic.  All are SF staples.
The first two immediately screw up general relativity, which must be
drastically modified to accomodate the new inventions.  The third doesn't
screw up anything known to be true or any fundamental theories I know of
(there is no Grand Unified Theory, and I know of no fundamental theory that
says there are no forces we don't know about).  Therefore, on a strictly
scientific basis, I claim that psionics is less offensive than FTL travel
or artificial gravity.

The problem with psionics, as I see it, is that the whole issue is rather
emotional.  I can find you people who believe such things happen, and they
will run the range from obviously deranged to apparently rational scientists.
(Whether I can get the apparently rational scientists, or any other
successful people, to admit this in public is another matter.  Everyone
I have known who has, as an adult, publicly claimed psychic powers, struck
me as a loser.)  Equally, I can find you people of any degree of rationality
who think either that psionics doesn't exist or that it's the work of the
devil.  (Yes, I have hung around with strange people during a partially
misspent life.)

This promotes excessive reactions.  Relatively few millions of people in this
country believe in old-fashioned magic anymore, so that's safe, and Niven
may write about magic and have his stories considered science fiction.
Again, not many millions believe that FTL ships appear on Earth frequently,
and the bulk of these believe the ships are alien and not Air Force, so
FTL is allowed in science fiction.  The Strong AI argument is mostly
academic, and large numbers of scientists are openly on the Strong AI side,
so artificial intelligences are allowed in SF.  However, many millions of
people believe in psychic powers, and a large number of charlatans make
their living off this, and this belief is often connected with anti-
scientific thinking, and therefore some people object to it in SF.

However, the rap against psionics is we haven't reliably observed it and we
don't know how it could work, and the rap against FTL is that it violates
fundamental laws of physics, so IMHO psionics is at least as valid a SF
topic as FTL.

DHT