Talk:Science fiction

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Dual-user Provenance

My edits to this article as of April 22, 2007, represent a dual submission of content of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki. My contributions to this article are based in part on this version of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work. I have, however, expanded on certain concepts that are more appropriate to a general encyclopedia than to one specializing in creation science and creation-informed history.--TerryHTalk 14:58, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind that I made some edits to your article without first discussing them with you. The article is a excellent one, but I thought there should perhaps be a bit more emphasis on the exploration of philosophical and psychological questions as opposed to scientific theories, discoveries and inventions. I've been reading science fiction for more than 40 years, and have long been interested in both the entertaining and the serious sides of the genre. NitramNos 10:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Those edits are friendly.
My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it.
One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that NASA could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree? Before you answer, let me give you two titles that some might put in this category: Oxygen and The Fifth Man by John Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson. The first title even won the Christy Award for the best futuristic faith-based novel in its year.--TerryHTalk 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
I haven't read the stories you mention. I guess, strictly speaking, science fiction could encompass any story that involves a machine, invention etc. that has not yet been built, even if it is possible with current technology, particularly if the machine is crucial to the plot. I must confess, much of my favorite science fiction when I was in school consisted of collections from the science fiction pulp magazines of the 40s and 50s, though I equally enjoyed more serious works. NitramNos 11:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, obviously you know more about that genre than I do. Of course, we mustn't feature any content that would have violated the Motion Picture Production Code. That means, of course, that some science-fiction authors would be better not to mention.--TerryHTalk 11:51, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, I'm not talking about scantily clad females. I'm talking about space ships jetting about the galaxy with ray-gun wielding heroes. NitramNos 12:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

That, of course, is what I meant by "escapist" science fiction. You mean Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, of course. Yes, those are acceptable, because they met the code.--TerryHTalk 13:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)


Faith in Sci-Fi?

Ok, this one I gotta have some kinda clarification on this.

So far, from what i've seen of Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, and other "faith-based sciences", I can hardly see where religion can fit into any sci-fi worth it's salt. Could someone give me some examples of this 'faith sci-fi', if any exist? CodyH 2120 7 January 2008 (BST)

example? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (EST)
more 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)
The first one is a loaded answer. You could say the same about Star Trek, Stranger in a Strange Land, etc. The problem is, it is not the pivotal point in the show. Take it out, you still have BS-G (maybe not of the same quality, mind you). And in the second link, yes, there is connection. What is proposed on the main page is a faith-based sci-fi, not a sci-fi with faith inside it. And, honestly, unless you want to count Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein, then the examples wear thin. CodyH 2233 7 January 2008 (BST)
Well, it only took me a moment to find those on google; I'm sure there are plenty more if you can be bothered to look :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Say, Fox, you found some essays that make connections that I hadn't thought of. This article is about to change.--TerryHTalk 15:32, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Intelligent Design is not a faith-based science. The claim that ID is faith-based comes only from opponents. And their materialism is usually based on a faith in atheism, the hypocrites. --Ed Poor Talk 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Heinlein's Story of Job (I think I got the title right) has a strong theme of faith (as does the "original"). Human 18:27, 3 December 2008 (EST)

The correct title is Job: A Comedy of Justice - thank you, anon. Human 19:00, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Famous authors

No article would be complete without mentioning Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, etc. --Ed Poor Talk 11:18, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Early examples

Cut from history section:

...examples of science fiction writing are found in the 17th century with writers such as Kepler[1], John Wilkins[2], Athanasius Kircher[3], Cyrano de Bergerac[4], and Bishop Francis Godwin[5], with their works dealing with a protagonist traveling to the moon and exploring that area, and each work containing and based on speculations of the development of science and technology going on what was known about those subjects in the authors' days. However, it is the 16th century that what is indisputably a work of science fiction in the modern sense can be found. The work is Sir Thomas More's "Utopia"[6], first published in 1551, and is a work that even today is referenced in science fiction writings.

Your assertion is too broad. Please explain for the reader, who is likely to be unfamiliar with these authors, what their stories were about. --Ed Poor Talk 12:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I did, the basis of each story is that the protagonist is taken to the moon through various means (all based around what was known about science at the time). Each protaganist has various adventures, unique to each story. However, this page isn't about defining about what each work of fiction is about, it is about defining what Sci-Fi is and how the genre came about, if you or anybody else are that keen to know what these stories are about either read the books, google the titles or wait until a page is created describing what each book is about. It is indisputable that these authors were writing Sci-Fi at the time, a quick check of Encyclopedia Brittanica will confirm that (hence the references, incidentally). I don't mind reverts when I am factually wrong, but please do not revert simply because you do not automatically know when the facts I have presented are wrong or right. If you are unsure of the facts check the references provided and use Google, a simple search using the authors names and the word Science Fiction or Sci-Fi will confirm the facts as stated.--Ieuan 13:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This is not Wikipedia. Review the guidelines on Conservapedia:Teamwork and come back when you are ready to follow them. --

How about fitting in one of these stories - the original - and state what it was about, what happened with the character, how it may have originated sci-fi as a genre, and how it influenced the other early sci-fi stories that have similar plots and outcomes. Doing that would possibly make the article a little clearer. Karajou 13:28, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Let me explain this so it's nice and clear for everyone to understand. This is an encyclopedia. The facts I put in are facts. The references are a beginning, not an entirety. If you find that the references are not enough to teach you that what is written is correct, then it is up to you to research the entirety of what is written in that section. I am not here as a teacher, I am not being paid to be a teacher, nor would I take up that task given the tone of this encyclopedia. I am interested in one thing and one thing only, facts. If you find that your own knowledge is short on these facts, tough, teach yourself, that is not my duty. If you find my tone harsh, not my problem, I talk straight, I don't mess around and I don't bother with deceptions, lies and misconceptions. I state my case, put forward the basics of evidence, and expect that readers are intelligent enough to read, research, debate, question, and ultimately agree or disagree with what I have written, based on the work that a reader is willing to put in themselves. I have no time whatsoever with academic laziness nor will I ever allow myself to encourage such laziness in students and prospective students.--Ieuan 19:22, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Now, why do I like this answer? Karajou 01:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Theofiction

Let me just jump in here (pardon any overlap and/or lack of coherency) and introduce what may be an overlooked idea. The idea is Freeman Dyson's theofiction. Basically, Dyson believes that most science fiction is not so good. But according to Dyson, one shiny star in the universe of science fiction is what he has identified as theofiction.

Discussions about Dyson's theofiction:

I'm not a great writer and I don't fully understand theofiction, but I'd be happy to try and help create some content about it. (though my real passions lie more in non-fiction science and religion writings) --RickD 21:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools