(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Just too cool to pass up.. Putting the Science in Science Fiction where various experts defunct false information in science fiction, and provide advice on how to write it correctly or realistically.

Breaking common gender stereotypes in the realm of science fiction and fantasy, more than half (64 percent) of the 39 contributors whose essays appear in Putting the Science in Fiction identify as female. Among the essays, you’ll find:

* How To Write Convincing Death Scenes, by science reporter Bianca Nogrady
* A Whirlwind Tour Of The Human Genome, by geneticist Dan Koboldt
* Writing Mental Health by psychiatric nurse practitioner Kathleen S. Allen
* The Science In Jurassic Park, with microbiologist Mike Hays
* Portraying Wolves Fairly & Accurately by environmentalist William Huggins
* CGI Is Not Made By Computers by video game designer Abby Goldsmith
* What’s Possible With Cyborgs and Cybernetics by neuroscientist Benjamin Kinney
* How The Ocean Will Kill You by marine biologist Danna Staaf
* Realistic Space Flight with pilot and aviation journalist Sylvia Spruck Wrigley
* The Weapons Of Star Wars by engineer Judy Mohr

… and dozens more

It's not cheap, but it's cool.

Comments

[shadowkat]

I've always looked at absolute faith in science as a bit of a religion. Not unlike any religious devotee. I have a few atheist relatives who look at science with the same religious fervor as the most devote Christian. Utter unfailing belief and condemnation of any and all that do not follow. For some "Science" is their religion.

But, you're correct -- there are no absolutes, and scientific discovery is only as accurate as the humans discovering it and we are incredibly limited in how we view the universe. Half of Hawkings and Einstein's discoveries have been upturned over the years. Hawkings, to give him credit, sort of embraced that.

Also people are ridiculous about what they believe or think is true, and will not accept anything that disrupts or upturns or challenges that. The Flat-earthers are an example of how people can be crazy about this sort of thing. They are convinced that all the evidence that has been presented is a government conspiracy, and have developed scientific equipment which they've used on airplanes to prove they are right and the earth is flat. Proving how people can use technology or experiments to back up or validate their own beliefs, because they go into it with no curiosity or open to new information. Another example are people on various nutrition boards.

I see no reason to demand or even suggest that there be no "science fiction" with faster-than-light travel. But I do suggest that such be set well in the future!

Oh I agree. Also there are certain areas of science that are still rather up in the air such as "dark matter" and "pararelle string theory" which scientists still fight over. Just as people are still fighting over what is a nutritional diet and what people should eat.

[atpo_onm]

There are no absolutes, and scientific discovery is only as accurate as the humans discovering it and we are incredibly limited in how we view the universe.

Sample dialog to determine whether one has absolute "faith" in anything related to either science or religion:

A: Many say that there is no god, that the universe just happened, and all evolved from that point on.

B: How can it "just happen"? It had to come from somewhere-- something had to have created it!

A: That is an unanswerable question. Saying that it was created doesn't solve the basic dilemma, because then the question becomes, who or what created the creator? And if you answer that, it just moves the question back again-- and again, and again.

B: But at some point there must be a beginning.

A: No. The concept of infinity is only a mathematical expression, infinity cannot exist in physical reality. The universe may be extremely large, but it can never be infinite. The same is true of time.

B: I don't follow.

A: The question is not why are we here, but why is anything here? That's unanswerable. The universe cannot have vectors of infinite space and time, therefore it must be limited. But even if it's limited, how did matter and energy first occur? You cannot have something appear from nothing. 0 cannot suddenly become 1.

B: Now my head hurts.

A: Welcome to real science. But-- isn't the universe fascinating? Why do we feel compelled to try to explain everything? We couldn't if we tried, because...

B: There... is no literal, physical infinity?

A: You got it.

B: But then, what is our purpose in the universe?

A: Make one up. Try to make it a good one. Be creative!

B: Mmm... huh.

[shadowkat]

The problem with the above is that the two people may be defining the term creator in a limited fashion.

Both believe they are right, neither are open to the other's perspective. It's why we're having problems right now.

Years and years ago, on live-journal, I had similar and lengthy discussion with a lot of people regarding a "soul".

A: I don't believe in a soul.
B: So you don't think the energy that is inside a human exists?
A: That's not a soul.
B: Yes it is. What do you think a soul is?
A: A soul is a religious construct.
C: No a soul is a conscience.
A: No that's a brain.
C: So a sociopath doesn't have a brain?

And it went on and on...until:

M: I'm worried that we don't have the same values.
Me: Well, considering we can't agree on a common or singular definition for the word soul, I'd say that's pretty much a given. But it's more likely that we don't agree or perceive the definition of values in the same way.

The problem with the above is you are assuming A & B define "creator" in the same manner. But in most cases they don't. I certainly don't. If you don't agree on the definition of the word or concept, or perceive the concept differently - the whole argument falls apart.

Creator doesn't necessarily have to be a singular entity or a being as you may think of one, such as man or woman. Creator may be a "source", and energy source that everything originates from and is connected to.

The problem with atheism is it assumes a singular definition for various conceptual words, and that the religious or those who say believe in God share that singular definition for those words. But in most cases this is not necessarily true. It's like the soul discussion.

Also, we all perceive different things. We are not created or evolved or whatever term you prefer the same. I feel and perceive energy. I can tell if someone is dead, just by looking at them, it's like looking at a husk. But apparently not everyone sense or feels energy. So they think I'm crazy -- because they don't perceive it.

Our minds process information differently.

The problem we are having right now in our discourse is an inability to understand this - we want the other person to think and perceive as we do. We grow impatient with them when they don't. Accepting a perspective that contradicts our own is really hard thing to do, I think.