do you try to argue facts when reading science fiction/fantasy?

Here's something to consider: The truly great writers bring a lot of tools to the table. A lot of tools. They might be great writing skills. They might be extraordinary expertise on a wide range of subjects. They might be tireless research. They might be innate genius.

All these tools add up.

brnitschke said:

I can't find the article right now, nor any scientific papers describing it. But I read an article once that said some scientists had been doing a study where they had test-subjects preform the ball-drop test a thousand times, and the evidence suggested that mentally imaging the ball dropping more to one side than the other produced the real-world effect. To see an example of the ball-drop test, there is an online-digital version here: http://www.psychicscience.org/pk1.aspx

Click to expand...

That's what I thought it might be. Similar to the pendulum test, that's caused by infinitesimal movements of the hand due to the concentration on direction. It's not psychokinesis by any stretch of the imagination.

There are about a million ways that ESP/psychic powers could easily be proven, and I've YET to see one pan out.

Are there unique aspects of the brain, absolutely. In fact I watched a Nova documentary that basically determined that dreams, are really a survival mechanism that allows for us to "simulate reality" in our sleep. It's a training aid essentially. Check it out on Netflix. Pretty fascinating stuff.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dreams/

Just because we cannot physically do something now does not mean that it is impossible for us to do in the future


A hundred and fifty years ago, the thought that a man could run a mile in under a four minutes was probably laughable. Then Roger Bannister happened, and training and better nutrition etc etc. At certain times in histroy it would have been laughable to suggest to scientists that...the brain was responsible for emotion, it was possible to create electricity, or the existence of Higgs Bosun particle ( which afaia is still only theoretical anyway).


Therefore, imo it could be plausible ( in fiction) for a futuristic society to have discovered a latent ability ( such as telekinesis) in some individuals and trained / honed that ability.

It's not really that different. Just uses a different set of muscles. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it will never happen.

Of course a lot depends on how you present it, but some people just can't be pleased and I wouldn't even try


oh look it's an argument discussion about plausibility again. I guess that answers the OP.

IdiotsRUs said:

Just because we cannot physically do something now does not mean that it is impossible for us to do in the future

Click to expand...

Completely. Agree.
God forbid speculative fiction actually be speculative from time to time. Yeesh.

Then I think we disagree on a fundamental level what speculative means.

I go by the dictionary definition

Main Entry: spec·u·la·tive
Pronunciation: \ˈspe-kyə-lə-tiv, -ˌlā-\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable <speculative knowledge>
2 : marked by questioning curiosity <gave him a speculative glance>
3 : of, relating to, or being a financial speculation


where speculation means

1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

IdiotsRUs said:

I go by the dictionary definition

Main Entry: spec·u·la·tive
Pronunciation: \ˈspe-kyə-lə-tiv, -ˌlā-\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable <speculative knowledge>
2 : marked by questioning curiosity <gave him a speculative glance>
3 : of, relating to, or being a financial speculation


where speculation means

1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

Click to expand...

This, plus writers of fiction tend to want things to be entertaining. Otherwise, we'd write textbooks.

Like I said, we don't agree. That's all there really is to say

No it isn't

Like - what is your definition, how does it differ from the dictionary definition and why? Being obscure doesn't help your case. Because I said so isn't really a side to stand on


( Note: A lot will depend on genre within spec fic obviously. Hard sci-fi for instance has to have real scientific principles etc. But then again , for every accepted theory there's probably a counter theory that's acceptably realistic - in scienific terms at least. Until something is proven it is just a theory. Including FTL etc :lack of proof does not equal lack of the ability for it to work. It could just mean we haven't worked it out yet. Then again, most Spec Fic isn't hard sci fi)

Not really IdiotsRUs.

The laws of thermodynamics are probably the one set of rules that just about every last scientist agrees upon. As a Mechanical Engineer, understanding thermodynamics is how just about any energy related process is worked out. I know that I can't make an engine that converts 100% of the heat it takes in, into mechanical work, there will be waste heat.

Any sort of mental power, would be subject to these laws, WE'RE subject to these laws, EVERYTHING is subject to these laws. If people had mental powers, you could determine it by following the energy trail, because doing useful work (e.g. moving an object across a room/bending a spoon), takes energy. That's why proving telekinesis/pyrokinesis, would be pretty trivial IF someone actually wasn't a phony.

ESP on the other hand, that could be proven through statistical methods. Just have someone make predictions that beat the theoretical random prediction. For example, in a short story I wrote once, there was a guy who could subtly influence chance and probability. Flip a 100 coins, and he could consistently get 55 heads if that's what he was after. Doing it once, wouldn't mean anything, but when he's 3 or 4 standard deviations from the mean, after doing something similar a dozen times, could easily prove his case.

one set of rules that just about every last scientist agrees upon.

Click to expand...

Scientists agreeing on something universally? Now that I refuse to believe. If there is no proof ( ie it's still just a theory), someone, somewhere will come up with an alternate plausible theory

Human psychology 101

IdiotsRUs said:

Just because we cannot physically do something now does not mean that it is impossible for us to do in the future


A hundred and fifty years ago, the thought that a man could run a mile in under a four minutes was probably laughable. Then Roger Bannister happened, and training and better nutrition etc etc. At certain times in histroy it would have been laughable to suggest to scientists that...the brain was responsible for emotion, it was possible to create electricity, or the existence of Higgs Bosun particle ( which afaia is still only theoretical anyway).


Therefore, imo it could be plausible ( in fiction) for a futuristic society to have discovered a latent ability ( such as telekinesis) in some individuals and trained / honed that ability.

It's not really that different. Just uses a different set of muscles. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it will never happen.

Of course a lot depends on how you present it, but some people just can't be pleased and I wouldn't even try


oh look it's an argument discussion about plausibility again. I guess that answers the OP.

Click to expand...

Again with the muscle analogies... But we have muscles, and they do stuff. Running the four minute mile was a result of gaining more knowledge on training and nutrition, and things like that.

We could already run the mile. We've always been able to run the mile. But there is no precursive ability, at least with any sort of evidence, that suggests we could develop some part of our anatomy enough for me to move a boulder with my mind.

We might as well say that sometime in the future, I could cast Greater Fireball. It would just use a different set of "muscles", right? It's completely plausible, right? And I'll do it while riding a dragon.


To be clear, I have read, written, and enjoyed stories, both fantasy and science fiction, in which there were psionic powers. It is entirely within the realm of "speculative" fiction to me. I don't believe it to be possible in real life, but depending on the presentation, I'm perfectly willing to accept it in either science fiction or fantasy. It's a trope of general spec fic, and thus fits in both categories.

We haven't always been able to make electricity. Or split the atom. Ot make kids that won't have leukemia

We might as well say that sometime in the future, I could cast Greater Fireball. It would just use a different set of "muscles", right? It's completely plausible, right? And I'll do it while riding a dragon.

Click to expand...

GIven the advances in science in the last hundred years, esp in genetics, it wouldn't surprise me. It could at least be written plausibly, which was my only point.

Send me a photo, k?

IdiotsRUs said:

We haven't always been able to make electricity. Or split the atom. Ot make kids that won't have leukemia

GIven the advances in science in the last hundred years, esp in genetics, it wouldn't surprise me. It could at least be written plausibly, which was my only point.

Send me a photo, k?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't be casting the spell though. Like I said there are ways we could artificially simulate such abilities, but using magnets to move paperclips is not esp, even if you have cells creating the magnetic fields.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

It is entirely within the realm of "speculative" fiction to me.

Click to expand...

I agree. It a question of how to write a story, not necessarily of what to write about. It is entirely possible to speculate about the impossible. After all, what else can you do with it?

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Well, I wouldn't be casting the spell though.

Click to expand...

Depends what dastardly genetics experiments I have performed on you.

*is dastardly* Just because I like the word.

It should be noted that a scientific theory is much more rooted in reality than the laymen's version of a theory, which is usually just a guess. Also just because well established science hasn't ever failed us before, doesn't mean we can't learn more about it and uproot all that is currently accepted as fact.

For instance, anyone notice we haven't invented anti-gravity cars yet?

Does that mean there could never be anti-grav cars?

Not really. We simply don't know much about how gravity works beyond classic Newtonian physics. If we could unify classic physics with quantum physics then we might invent anti-gravity engines. But first we need to be able to prove a theory like M theory.

M theory is exciting because its one of several competing theories that seeks to unify everything under one theory. Of course right now its not a very good theory because almost none of its predictions can actually be tested with our current technology. Does that mean its BS? Well some scientists think so, quite vehemently in fact. Of course there is another large camp who think its the bees knees. Personally, string theory excites me.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that there usually is a popular consensus in the scientific community, and often some principles and laws become very sound and unshakable - such as thermodynamics as Dommo noted earlier. However, even the laws of thermodynamics could possibly be broken one day. We might have to get to a point where we have to step outside of our physical universe to do this - and how can we possibly even imagine what that would be like? So this probably wont happen any time soon, and possibly not even by humanity. But the universe is pretty impressive in its complexity. If one thing science has taught us is that its very unlikely we will ever truly know everything about all things.

So having said all that, whatever PK could/would be, is probably not what we imagine it to be today. But there could very well be something some day that allows an individual to manipulate things with no strings attached. Maybe it will be wet-ware, maybe it will be an anti-gravity beam, maybe it will be a new step in human evolution.

Or perhaps we simply need to know how to 'think' in the right way?

Psionic abilities would have immense evolutionary value. So the fact that we don't have them suggests two things: we do not currently have the potentil for psionic abilites latent in the brain, we are unlikely to evolve such latent talent in the near future, at least from an evolutionary/biological angle of attack.

There are currently two ways we know of that allow an object to remotely affect another object--that is, without direct physical contact: magnetism and gravity.

Psychokinesis: Normal gravity could not serve the purpose of simulating psychokinesis, because it has too many side effects. As of this moment, artificial gravity is not practically possible, nor is it theoretically possible within the near future. Artificial magnetism is in fact quite common. I don't know enough of the details on biological-electrical insulators to say whether we could manufacture organic magnets/organs that could function from within the body. Perhaps something like the myelin sheath? It's certainly not something our brains are capable of generating.

Mind-to-mind communication: We have plenty of avenues through which to achieve this, though they are somewhat limited without inorganic technology such as satellites. Radio waves for medium range, radio or magnetism for short range. I imagine we could create an organic transciever fairly easily, though I'm not sure we could yet manage sufficient miniturization. Again, has all the limits of radio low to the ground and with no relays. Though relayes could be made easily enough. For this, we don't even need to understand much about the brain. Just develop a complex enough codec to accurately transmit and recieve data. Still, a monumental task. There is absolutely no evidence of this as a latent ability of our brains.


But again, unless the author attempted a clearly hard science explanation, I wouldn't worry too much about psionics as a trope in spec fic.

IdiotsRUs said:

Scientists agreeing on something universally? Now that I refuse to believe. If there is no proof ( ie it's still just a theory), someone, somewhere will come up with an alternate plausible theory

Human psychology 101

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I find this line of thinking very disturbing. Of course Scientists agree on many principles univerisally. How else can science progress if we don't agree on key principles?

Scientific research builds on what was discovered in the past, otherwise we would all be reinventing the wheel.

The laws of thermodynamics are LAWS not theories. There is a big difference between the two, and honestly all scientists agree with them. Well there could be a few crack pots.

Even theories are for the most part agreed upon in the scientific comminuty. There is a lot of PROOF that a theory is true; if there wasn't strong compelling evidence for it, it would not be a theory; it would be a hypothesis. But a theory can never be proven only disproven, so a theory is accepted universally until it is disproven.

If you want to know more about what a theory, law, and hypothesis are in science, here are a few links. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

That being said, our knowledge in science is still in infancy. As much as we know, there is so much that we don't know. So even if something is implausible by our knowledge of science today, doesn't mean that it couldn't be possible someday.

Although I highly doubt even the brightest scifi writer will be right in any way about what the future world will be like, so scifi is speculative in the not true sense of the word.

SPMiller said:

It's possible to write a fantasy story in which strange, inexplicable things happen for no apparent reason beyond their symbolic or thematic value. This is a potential strength of the genre. However, IMO, you have to establish this early on as a stylistic choice, and you must be careful that you don't abuse it in ways that cheat the reader. Prefer honesty where possible.

Click to expand...

This is correct. Valente's Labyrinth has a giant, blue talking lobster, a Minotaur that's really a giant door who eats people, and a heroine made of glass who changes color for no apparent reason. However, Labyrinth is based in part on Alice in Wonderland, and makes it clear from the first chapter that cause and effect are more poetic than realistic in this world.

AllisterGrim said:

You can't change the rules in the middle. Tell me a device doesn't work when its foggy, fine, I accept it. I don't even need much of a reason. I will throw the book against the wall if you try to hand wave something about why the thing works in fog now, when the hero's in trouble.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, I'm fine with the rules suddenly being different if it makes the character's life harder.

Sorry, but I find this line of thinking very disturbing.

Click to expand...

I was being facetious

But you may continue to find me disturbing if you find it helps.

ETA: though it's amazing how often they don't agree. There's global warming. No there isn't. Yes there is. It was the aerosols wot dun it. No, actually it's cows farting. There still isn't any global warming. Yes there is. No there isn't, that was the sea currents. Yes there is and we've got the made up figures to prove it! Cynic, moi?

Anthropologist stepping in here...

Not to mention that many scientific views and theories are based in our cultural reality. So how we see things is through our own cultural lens.

I noticed in this thread the example of the brain like a computer. Is it any coincidence that we see the brain as a computer in the age of computer technology?

Before computers, the body was viewed differently. And scientific views aren't just limited to time. The ancient Greeks admired the mechanics of the body and therefore helped develop a thread in Western culture that is geared toward muscle, bone, and tissue. Meanwhile, the East was more interested in the flow of energy and hollistic channels within the body. Their ideas of medicine developed along the concepts of energy.

So their scientific theories of the world and the body developed differently based on their culture. You can even see this echoed in their art. (Chinese paintings have soft curves and not much "physical" structure, while Greek and Roman sculpture is very precise.)

We're a product of our time and culture and so are our theories. So, when reading speculative fiction, I always have that at the back of my mind, too.

IdiotsRUs said:

ETA: though it's amazing how often they don't agree. There's global warming. No there isn't. Yes there is. It was the aerosols wot dun it. No, actually it's cows farting. There still isn't any global warming. Yes there is. No there isn't, that was the sea currents. Yes there is and we've got the made up figures to prove it! Cynic, moo?

Click to expand...

It's good to be a Cynic,there are a lot of people motivated purely by self interest. But, the scientific community is a lot less divided than most people are lead to believe by the popular media. Climate change is a fact, and has been so since the planet was formed.There is plenty of evidence to prove the planet is currently warming.I seems to me some people are confusing the words belief and evidence.

stephenf said:

It's good to be a Cynic,there are a lot of people motivated purely by self interest. But, the scientific community is a lot less divided than most people are lead to believe by the popular media. Climate change is a fact, and has been so since the planet was formed.There is plenty of evidence to prove the planet is currently warming.I seems to me some people are confusing the words belief and evidence.

Click to expand...

The change is a fact. The causes of said fact as it is currently happening and its extent are debatable and there's plenty of disagreement about that. Though the disagreements between scientists are usuallly about interpretation of facts, not the actual facts themselves.