SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Trike wrote: "scientists have also investigated ghosts, albeit on a far smaller scale. Interestingly, every single "haunted" location that has been investigated with the proper equipment has returned a positive result... for infrasound."

Got a cite for that?

Also, how many unhaunted locations have they compared it to?

Margaret wrote: "Doesn't that immediately disqualify all the social sciences? And a good chunk of biology too."

I believe it does. Plenty of scientists look down on social science. As for biology, isn't it the study of dead things, or at least parts of them? Cells don't know they're being studied.

Mary wrote: "Trike wrote: "scientists have also investigated ghosts, albeit on a far smaller scale. Interestingly, every single "haunted" location that has been investigated with the proper equipment has returned a positive result... for infrasound."

Got a cite for that?

Also, how many unhaunted locations have they compared it to?


I didn't take notes because I didn't think there'd be a quiz.

It's not like this is secret information, so I'm sure you can find it pretty easily.

A lot of the stuff we believe is similar to the "god of the gaps" that people like to invoke, where they say that God exists in the areas of life we don't understand. Substitute any kind of spiritual/mystical/supernatural belief for "God" and it amounts to the same problem: the more we learn the smaller those gaps become.

Just as we ruled out a lot of psychic phenomena, we're now ruling out a lot of supernatural stuff. People who believe something almost never let it go willingly. I'm fairly adept at changing my beliefs given new evidence, yet I feel like it's a struggle, so I can imagine some people simply refuse to change because it's too hard to do.

Trike wrote: "It's not like this is secret information, so I'm sure you can find it pretty easily."

I'm sure you can find it pretty easily.

Trike, surely the supernatural, if it did exist, would exist parallel to the natural. Our study of anything is entirely dependent on our sensors. Are we to believe those available to us are all encompassing, or even reliable? It's a hefty assumption to start with.

Mary wrote: "Trike wrote: "It's not like this is secret information, so I'm sure you can find it pretty easily."

I'm sure you can find it pretty easily."

I don't need to. I already know it.

That's such a weird response that I never understand. Whenever someone tells me something cool or interesting or even just new, I go look it up and read about it.

Ryan wrote: "Trike, surely the supernatural, if it did exist, would exist parallel to the natural. Our study of anything is entirely dependent on our sensors. Are we to believe those available to us are all enc..."

That's exactly the "god of the gaps" argument, which is a logical fallacy. "We don't know it yet, therefore it must be supernatural."

Or the reality is that it's just something we can't measure yet. Once we can, it will no longer be a mystery, and the gap will have shrunk as the limits of knowledge have receded.

200 years ago people believed that cholera was caused by "bad air." That disease was caused by "ill humors." Now we know disease is caused by germs, bacteria and viruses, and if someone came up to you today and said cancer is caused by "bad air" you'd laugh at them. (At least I hope you would. The anti-vaxxers prove that willful ignorance is alive and well across the planet.) Phrenology and the zodiac don't actually tell us anything about someone's personality or what they're likely to become as an adult, but the former was seriously believed for years and the latter is still believed by a distressingly huge number of people.

Humans seem to be hardwired to believe in the supernatural, because we create god or gods over and over again. Problem is, every time we investigate things which go against the laws of nature, they turn out to have fairly banal explanations. So even if we don't know exactly why something is happening now, I feel pretty confident in assuming that eventually we will figure out whatever is causing the supposed "supernatural" event.

I tend to agree with Trike's general way of thinking. Assuming there were supernatural beings/occurrences, I don't think they'd work parallel to the natural, just that they are beyond our current understanding. If they exist, I honestly think we'll someday know. If they do not, it's much harder to prove a negative, and we'll continue to get cool stories haha.

Trike wrote: "That's exactly the "god of the gaps" argument, which is a logical fallacy. "We don't know it yet, therefore it must be supernatural."

Or the reality is that it's just something we can't measure yet. Once we can, it will no longer be a mystery, and the gap will have shrunk as the limits of knowledge have receded."

Not at all Trike. How can we ever know the full extent of the gaps if we can't see them? That seems more of a logical fallacy to me.

All we can do is measure (some of) the gaps of the past by comparing our current knowledge to old understanding. We can never compare it to anything absolute.

Rumsfeld might've done a disservice to 'unknown unknowns' but they are a reality.

Trike wrote: " UK and USSR spent tens of millions of dollars researching all sorts of ESP, from telepathy to clairvoyance to distance viewing. The results were nil...."

Nil? Not quite - but I admit they were pretty close to that, and a long way from conclusive. The problem in part is that the people involved could have got just as much fame and status from a conclusively negative result as they hoped for from a positive outcome - and what they got was biased towards the 'No such thing' answer but just tantalisingly not quite conclusive!

It is also true that those investigations peaked in the Cold War era - and both sides are rumoured to have said "But we only did that research because they were!"

Scientists have also investigated ghosts, [...] the proper equipment has returned a positive result... for infrasound.
Ah! Yes! Thank you for reminding me of that, it had slipped my mind. Every site? Not so sure, but certainly a significant number! Thank you.

About these ghosts ...
Mary & Trike had a brief exchange following "Got a cite for that?"
So I took a look around the web myself.
The problem is sorting the sensible (academic or equivalent) references from the 'Fox News' stuff.
One of the leading lights on ghostly infrasound research was Vic Tandy - a university lecturer at Coventry (good academic status).
I started with his Wiki page (including obit) but sadly most of the references were for newspaper articles (of varying repute). The best ref, in this context, was the archives of the Warwick Magic Society (yes, I know it sounds a bit way out, but think - these guys know what they are talking about, and they don't have a 'sell more newspapers' agenda!). Sadly, their archives do not appear to be on the internet!
Next best ref was New Scientist - but their archives are behind a paywall.
Best I could find in a reasonable search time was http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
There are a number of links from this article - but always check the credibility of the site you are linked to!
If anyone can come up with anything better, I would be interested to see it.

Trike wrote: "I don't need to. I already know it."

Then you would have a cite for it.

Whenever someone tells me something cool or interesting or even just new, I go look it up and read about it.

What does that have to do with this? You need to post something cool or interesting or new for that to kick in.

Trike wrote: "Oh, and FTL? That's only prohibited by Relativity, and there are a number of proposed ways around Einstein's laws. The Alcubierre Drive mentioned above is one. "

Magic is another.

Science does not care what you propose, only what you can prove.

Trike wrote: "Problem is, every time we investigate things which go against the laws of nature, they turn out to have fairly banal explanations."

Every cure deemed miraculous at Lourdes has been thoroughly examined by doctors. Indeed, the authorities there frequently doesn't declare it miraculous when the doctors say it was, because they want further investigation.

Here's an account of such a miracle investigation (not at Lourdes):
http://www.strangenotions.com/can-an-...

Banal explanation for that?

Trike wrote: "200 years ago people believed that cholera was caused by "bad air." That disease was caused by "ill humors." Now we know disease is caused by germs, bacteria and viruses,"

Did they? They thought malaria was caused by bad air, I know, but then -- it is. We have gotten a little more detailed about it, namely that the particular badness is that it bears infected mosquitoes. But it is clearly the same sort of thing.

Problem is, every time we investigate things which go against the laws of nature, they turn out to have fairly banal explanations.

At what point would you concede that a subject has been investigated enough when the investigation did not come up with a banal explanation? Or would you, god-of-the-gaps style, insist that a banal explanation is Out There, we just haven't found it yet?

Or would scientists just stop studying it in favour of a subject that will hold still?

Mary wrote: "Here's an account of such a miracle investigation (not at Lourdes):
http://www.strangenotions.com/can-an-......"
Sorry,Mary. Take a look at who founded strangenotions.com, and go into his background a bit. On the strangenotions site itself, he states that he converted to catholicism in 2008. It doesn't say what from, but since conversion he has been a prolific pro-Catholic publicist on his own behalf, also working for Fr. Robert Barron's Word On Fire Catholic Ministries - a well-established Catholic evangelical organisation.
It is commonly believed (not least by myself, based on bitter experience with several old, now ex- friends) that converts tend to become rather extreme in their views. The amount of text produced in this context does imply extreme dedication, if not extreme views.
Sadly, this means that the StrangeNotions website has its own agenda.
Now that is a difficult statement, because EVERYONE has their own agenda, even in the higher realms of scientific research and academic study. Even so - I would prefer to take my evidence from a source less obviously biased.

Ad hominem. It doesn't matter who runs the site if the information is accurate.

Mary wrote: "Ad hominem. It doesn't matter who runs the site if the information is accurate."

Argumentum ad Logicam

Aaron wrote: "Mary wrote: "Ad hominem. It doesn't matter who runs the site if the information is accurate."

Argumentum ad Logicam"

Nope. I didn't say he was wrong, I said his argument was wrong.

Mary wrote: "Trike wrote: "200 years ago people believed that cholera was caused by "bad air." That disease was caused by "ill humors." Now we know disease is caused by germs, bacteria and viruses,"

Did they? They thought malaria was caused by bad air, I know, but then -- it is. We have gotten a little more detailed about it, namely that the particular badness is that it bears infected mosquitoes. But it is clearly the same sort of thing."

Yes, they did. Not malaria, cholera.

And this one I can cite because I just encountered it: How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World. See also: Connections.

I don't have citations for everything I've ever read because who does that? I'm not that anal. I remember the salient parts but don't take notes on everything. Insisting on citations when you can just as easily look it up means your worldview is being challenged and it's scaring you.

Which is good for you.

You should do things that scare you. You should challenge your worldview. Regularly. Otherwise you become one of those old fuddy-duddies who never changes because "that's not how we used to do it".

Mary wrote: "At what point would you concede that a subject has been investigated enough when the investigation did not come up with a banal explanation? Or would you, god-of-the-gaps style, insist that a banal explanation is Out There, we just haven't found it yet? "

Since everything supernatural we've investigated to date has thus far been shown to either not exist or to have a rational explanation, I'm going to put my money on the hypothesis that the supernatural things we havent looked into yet will turn out to have an equally real-world explanation.

This goes to the heart of the whole debate about the differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy: SF says the universe is ultimately knowable and anything we don't know we simply haven't figured put yet, whereas Fantasy says that there are things in the world which are inexplicable and we can never truly know them.

If forced to choose sides, I fall for Science Fiction.

"Banal" is the wrong word. I shouldn't have used that, because it's freighted with a whole lot of "meh." I find infrasound to be orders of magnitude more interesting than ghosts.

Ghosts and ghost stories are fun, but they aren't real. I love the current trend of superhero movies, but none of that stuff can actually happen, and I don't make the mistake of thinking that it could. Ghosts and superheroes are in the same realm as Wile E. Coyote not falling until he realizes he's not standing on anything. Fun, but come on.

Trike wrote: " Insisting on citations when you can just as easily look it up means your worldview is being challenged and it's scaring you.

Which is good for you.

You should do things that scare you. You should challenge your worldview. Regularly. Otherwise you become one of those old fuddy-duddies who never changes because "that's not how we used to do it"."

Argumentum ad hominem. Also projection. Because YOUR worldview is being challenged and you don't like it.

Which is good for you.

You should do things that scare you. You should challenge your worldview. Regularly. Otherwise you become one of those old fuddy-duddies who never changes because "that's not how we used to do it".

So be brave. Look up what you claim, if it's so easy. Do not hide behind the safety of being always able to claim it's my fault.

Mary wrote: "At what point would you concede that a subject has been investigated enough when the investigation did not come up with a banal explanation? Or would you, god-of-the-gaps style, insist that a banal explanation is Out There, we just haven't found it yet? "

Since everything supernatural we've investigated to date has thus far been shown to either not exist or to have a rational explanation, I'm going to put my money on the hypothesis that the supernatural things we havent looked into yet will turn out to have an equally real-world explanation.

Or, in plain English, the god-of-the-gaps believer here is YOU. Especially since I explicitly pointed out something that has been investigated and not found either non-existent or "irrational," which is an irrational term to use when you mean mundane.

I'd read
Terry Goodkind (Sword of Truth)
Brandon Sanderson (Any)
Jim Butcher (any)
Patrick Rothfuss (he has 2 books in a trillogy)
David Gemmell (dozen of books, he passed though so nothing new will be coming)
Brent Weeks

BTW People hijacked the heck out of this post.

I truly enjoyed the first three Xanth novels by Piers Anthony. I was a kid but I loved that story.

Mary wrote: "Frank wrote: "We are at a phase in the genre where Science Fiction being lumped in with Fantasy and too often horror, even; "

There has never been a time when it has not. All the fantastic genres ..."

You are quite right Science Fiction or Specullative Fiction as Heinlein would have had it exists on a spectrum with Twilight, Lovecraft, Poe and others which is Meta Fantasy, if you will. Hard to know when're to draw a line so SciFi's Felix can be separated from Fanasy/horror's messy Oscar. This is an distinctiveness which has long been debated. There was a go with 'Speculative Fiction' that fizzle out. There many years among fans when they refused to use, nay rejected, the diminutive SciFi that has since passed by, especially since the cable channel changed its name to SyFy.

So the commingling exists for as long as anyone knows. I was referring to what is popular. Can't browses ebook stores or check the real worlds shelves of a brick and mother without noting the abundance of Fantasy volumes on display as 'new' or 'trending' for some time know. Science Fiction is in the valley of this cycle eclipsing.

Ok loathe to argu what is SF and what is F, but our pulp roots are showing. A comely young half werewolf who's fath r happened to be a member of the Sorcerer's guild finds herself adrift making curious friends like Nelson The Enchanted sock and Busby the ruggedly handsome human cop who would like to nail her in n more ways than one. No doubt but a 'hot chick in phantasgorical peril; she featured on the cover like an homage to our pulp roots, looking sexy/tough/vulnerable and busty.

I'm not willing to define what SF is and Fantasy si/isn't. I will say I know what t is when I see it -- ha. And it rarely concerns vampires, werewolves or hung r games where nobody seems hungry.

Mary wrote: "Chris wrote: "In science fiction, science is a pillar of society. In fantasy, magic is usually the equivalent knowledge-related pillar."

Ah, but what is magic? Once upon a time, drinking a willow ..."

Greats like a ester, Panshin and Baen have pondered what comprises SF versus F. There seems no line easily draw without sterilizing SF.. Maybe they are the same same thing and it's personal tastes which cleave the imaginary sepepation.

Books are intend d to educate and entertain us. Often SF teaches us or edifices us in ways no teenage vampire story would aspire to.

Aaron wrote: "Lionel wrote: "Try looking at this problem as "SF is a serious attempt to predict and/or examine possible consequences, whereas Fantasy is just an amusing or interesting story." Not entirely true, ..."

Now the battle is lightly engaged. They with their flntlocks useless in wet weather we we our sonic screwdrivers (and a rail gun....hhehe). There can be no strict division, in part due to Clarke's principal and also the care many fantasy writers take with h self-consistency and good pseudo science. "No, you may not see your own future or accrue personal gain from your powers."

Much nice work. That isn't SF.

Better yet, editors publisher and writers seem to know. What category is the book within? I think the Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant is Fantasy, so too the writer and publisher. In a literary world which can't kno 50 Shades of Gray is complete and utter crap, how are we to fine tune our beloved genres?

I read a novel a week. I read scorn fiction, never fantast/horror. I can tell one from the other to suit me

they is folk who've got 1000+ subgenres... which I appreciate. For me simply technology = scifi.
supernatural = fantasy.

I tend to think that writing shouldn't be primarily focused on genre in a relentless way. Sci-fi should be in a constant state of evolution: Frankenstein - Asimov. Likewise, what China Miéville does with fantasy is a natural progression. Like music, genres should be crossed and experimented with.

Mary wrote: "Nope. I didn't say he was wrong, I said his argument was wrong."
Hi Mary.
Let's go over this again. Some time back you stated that FTL travel was 'proved impossible'. In another comment you offered a link to an investigation of an alleged miracle.
In that context, I challenged the reliability of your source.
Now in academic terms, a challenge to reliability is not the same as calling someone a liar - it is just saying that they have not offered sufficient evidence, or they are know to have their own agenda, which may affect their judgment and reliability in some contexts. This final interpretation is the one I intended.
Now to go back to the earlier point of 'proven impossible'
Sadly, I do not YET have anything that I would class as an academically reliable source - but just occasionally things happen that appear to be contrary to proven scientific theories. When that happens, the correct response is to investigate further, leading to
EITHER:-
Accounting for the unexpected by challenging the original observations and/or data
OR:-
Throw away the theory that said it couldn't happen, and get a better theory.
In that context, take a look here:- https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-is-tes...
Now: News.Yahoo have an agenda - it is to attract public attention. They are a lot better than Fox News, but the agenda is still there. Additionally, much of their news is written by English or Journalism graduates - not scientists. Even so, they say "the drive is ‘ producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon’."
So if anyone can come up with a better source and/or more information on this story I would be grateful.

Frank wrote: "I think the Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant is Fantasy, so too the writer and publisher. In a literary world which can't kno 50 Shades of Gray is complete and utter crap, how are we to fine tune our beloved genres? "
Point 1 agreed - Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant is Fantasy. Also pretty poor stuff, but that is a matter of personal taste.
Point 2 also agreed - "50 Shades of Gray is complete and utter crap".
But the problem of genres . . .
Dragonflight looks at first like simple fantasy - it is set in a mediaeval-type world and has dragons, which are usually pretty good indicators. Then you read on, and find that the dragons had been gene-engineered by spacefaring settler-scientists, and the ship they came on it still in orbit. So is this F or SF?
My own opinion is that F and SF are two ends of a spectrum, and this sits somewhere near the middle - and as such, it is a bit unusual.
The whole field, of course is then made excessively complex by the introduction (invention?) of literally dozens of other subgenres, that would need a multi-dimensional diagram to properly list.
Oh, for the simple old days!

Alan wrote: "In that context, I challenged the reliability of your source."

No, you didn't. You offered two things, namely that he was Catholic, and that he produced a lot of text, neither of which impugn his reliability except on question-begging terms.

Trike wrote: "I don't have citations for everything I've ever read because who does that? I'm not that anal. I remember the salient parts but don't take notes on everything. Insisting on citations when you can just as easily look it up means your worldview is being challenged and it's scaring you.

Which is good for you.

You should do things that scare you. You should challenge your worldview. Regularly. Otherwise you become one of those old fuddy-duddies who never changes because "that's not how we used to do it"."

This rush for some kind of high ground is both emotive and dishonest Trike. The secular, naturalistic worldview isn't some brave new way of looking at the world. It has been around for hundreds of years and is very mainstream and popular. It certainly doesn't entitle you to talk down to people like you're the űbermensch.

We all need our worldview challenged, including yourself.

Mary wrote: "Alan wrote: "In that context, I challenged the reliability of your source."

No, you didn't. You offered two things, namely that he was Catholic, and that he produced a lot of text, neither of whic..."
No, Mary, I stated that he was a prolific Catholic Evangelist - there's a difference.

Ryan wrote: "This rush for some kind of high ground is both emotive and dishonest Trike. The secular, naturalistic worldview isn't some brave new way of looking at the world. It has been around for hundreds of years and is very mainstream and popular. It certainly doesn't entitle you to talk down to people like you're the űbermensch.

We all need our worldview challenged, including yourself."

I challenge my worldview all the time. If new information comes in about a topic that is persuasive then I alter my opinion of it.

I'm not talking down to anyone. I just offered up some information and Mary demanded I provide citations for it. This has been happening more and more lately and it's annoying. This isn't an academic forum and I'm not defending a thesis. If someone wants to look up more information, then they should do that without demanding others do their homework for them. Insisting that I offer anything more than what I have in this casual discussion is lazy, especially when we have the internet literally at our fingertips. I have a job, I'm getting my kitchen remodeled (the flooring guys are laying tile as I type this), I have a medical procedure on Monday; I have shit to do. I can't be bothered to hold the hand of someone who finds their worldview threatened, nor am I going to mollycoddle anyone. At some point you have to take responsibility for your own education.

I merely offered some interesting information about the world. Do with that info as you will, but people need to stop demanding that others keep proffering tidbits of information because they're too lazy to look stuff up.

Don wrote: "they is folk who've got 1000+ subgenres... which I appreciate. For me simply technology = scifi.
supernatural = fantasy."

Unfortunately when you focus on the props rather than the underlying intent, you run into issues like the Colt revolver from the TV series Supernatural, which can kill demons, or the Proton Packs from Ghostbusters, which can capture ghosts.

An unlicensed nuclear accelerator that you wear on your back is undoubtedly more complicated technologically advanced than a revolver, but they're both examples of technology.

Science fiction is the literature of the possible, while fantasy is the literature of the impossible. That keeps them handily divided.

Trike wrote: " If someone wants to look up more information, then they should do that without demanding others do their homework for them. Insisting that I offer anything more than what I have in this casual discussion is lazy, especially when we have the internet literally at our fingertips...."
Sort of a fair point, Trike - but only sort of. In this specific context I went searching, and found it surprisingly difficult to get decent academic references (message 64) - and what I did get, and quoted, has got me into a bit of bother with Mary (messages 82 & 84 just for starters).
I agree, demanding refs and cites etc might be lazy - but sometimes it means the person involved has tried and failed to find anything satisfactory. Go for balance where possible.

Lionel wrote: "Dragonflight looks at first like simple fantasy - it is set in a mediaeval-type world and has dragons, which are usually pretty good indicators. Then you read on, and find that the dragons had been gene-engineered by spacefaring settler-scientists, and the ship they came on it still in orbit. So is this F or SF?"

Fantasy. No question.

As I mentioned earlier (and in other threads specifically about this topic), Science Fiction is the literature of the possible while Fantasy is the literature of the impossible.

Using props from SF doesn't qualify something as Science Fiction if there are Fantasy elements present. Charles De Lint's Newford books all take place in a modern city but they are clearly Fantasy. The Sookie Stackhouse books (aka True Blood), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Supernatural... they all have high-tech gadgetry like computers, cell phones and satellites.

What the dragons do -- teleporting through time and space, telepathy, even fly -- is impossible. They're too big to fly as described. It violates the laws of physics. The teleporting just because they wish to is right out. So all the technology in those books, like the re-invention of the telegraph and the origin of humans and dragons, gets trumped by the impossible bits.

Trike wrote: "I merely offered some interesting information about the world. Do with that info as you will, but people need to stop demanding that others keep proffering tidbits of information because they're too lazy to look stuff up. "

No Trike, as soon as you appeal to authority in an attempt to 'drop the mic' on this essentially philosophical discussion you bear the burden of citing that authority.

Trike, I see what you're saying. But in my classification scheme "Ghostbusters " and "Colt .45" feature supernatural beasties ergo they are fantasy.

Spam alert: I wrote this book.
But to your request, the main character learns to control (or begins to learn) an elemental magic called dynamism. It takes place in the imaginary world called California. Okay so at this point I might as well step the rest of the way in it.

Real Tales of Surf Arcana - A Perfect Wave can be described as a cross between The Endless Summer and Crossroads.

I fully understand if this post is yanked.

This thread seems to have derailed and become more of a conversation on my profession than an attempt to answer your question. I guess this happens with most threads though. That being said I would recommend the Deaths Gate saga by Weis. It isn't exactly a "discovery of powers" series but more an attempt for you to put together what the actual powers of multiple races are. Each of the seven novels brings you to a new part of what used to the the world as a whole. It also has a dog who isn't what he seems, as the traveling companion of one of the main characters.

You've already mentioned Harry Potter, which you can see from my choice of screen name, I'm also a fan of.