Arthur C. Clarke books

[Vladimir]

I happen to like fanciful flights of whimsy.

Just don't burst into song when wielding that chainsaw.

[Beirut]

Just don't burst into song when wielding that chainsaw.

"Neeear... faaaaaaar... on whatever planet you are... I believe that my heart will go ahhhh-ah-ah-onnnnnnn... "

[TinCow]

I personally tend to enjoy non-fiction more than fiction, but I think it's very short-sighted to say that novels are a waste of time. Beyond just refreshing the brain, fiction in general, and science fiction in particular, have been dramatically influential on our history. Scientists, engineers, politicians, and military leaders have all be hugely influenced by things that have struck them as significant and worthwhile in fiction settings. Ender's Game is required reading at West Point. Martin Cooper was inspired by Star Trek to invent the mobile phone.

History is certainly all-important, but fiction is actually part of history. To ignore it is to ignore one of the most important determining factors in human existence: our imagination.

[Ramses II CP]

First let me say that my post was not meant in any way to diminish the importance of non-fiction or history, but meant instead to drive home the importance of fiction through the specific example of science fiction.

Secondly, history is not properly a science in the same sense as the sciences which prove the possibility of the Dyson's Sphere, or created the communications satellite. There is such broad, general acceptance of this point that I'm always quite surprised to hear claims to the contrary, but it seems to me that they originate in a misapprehension of the difference between sociology and mathematics. That may be a whole other discussion, but I'll include a few links for the curious and try not to sidetrack the larger point.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003...3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/129.html

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=339

In any case it seems to me, as an avid reader of history, that to try to narrow history into a category of what is proven true and what is proven false robs it of it's beauty and interest.

Now, to your points, briefly as you say:

1. It's easy for you to say that science 'can' do something or the other, but impossible for you to prove. Freeman Dyson personally acknowledged a debt of inspiration in his scientific exploration of the idea to a science fiction novel. It's unseemly for you to backtrack and claim he had no such help.

2. A utterly unimpressive rebuttal. You might as well write 'You're wrong' and go get a coffee as post something this petty again.

3. Prions. You've typed a word, not made a point.

4. Easily said, impossible to prove.

5. To 'reveal' an 'answer' is not the purpose of fiction, the purpose is to evoke a speculative train of thought, to inspire the mind in a new direction, to open a possibility where before none existed.

You'll note I do not claim that hypothoses are formed out of science fiction, but that the wild guesses and speculation of science fiction can inspire a person to formulate such. In fact I've listed a very specific historical case of this happening. You've made a great many claims and backed them up with nothing. The attempt to make out that I'm equating science with science fiction is a bald strawman , and the insulting dismissal of such works as 'dime store' is beneath you.

I will reiterate my point in the simplest possible terms in the hope that it doesn't become lost; novels are not a waste of time.

[Vladimir]

You guys are being too serious. Beirut is in the right spirit!

[TinCow]

You write post #21 and then you accuse us of being too serious? Pot, meet my friend, the kettle.

[Vladimir]

You write post #21 and then you accuse us of being too serious? Pot, meet my friend, the kettle.