the Ransom Trilogy (soft sf) and Surprised By Joy (spiritual autobiography) by Lewis;
the After Such Knowledge Trilogy (mixed genres), the Cities In Flight Tetralogy (hard sf) and The Quincunx Of Time (hard sf) by Blish;
several historical novels and historical fantasies and two later future histories by Anderson.
The Ransom Trilogy, Volume III, That Hideous Strength, mentions Prospero and Roger Bacon on the same page during a discussion of magic, thus indirectly linking this novel both to Anderson's A Midsummer Tempest and to After Such Knowledge, Volume I, Doctor Mirabilis.
In addition to historical novels and historical fantasy novels, Anderson wrote some intermediate works that were historical fiction with an element of fantasy. This description might also fit Doctor Mirabilis since Bacon's inner voice, inspiring him to seek the scientia universalis, is possibly demonic. In the Ransom Trilogy, Volume II, Perelandra, Elwin Ransom, a Christian philologist, contends with the demonically possessed physicist, Weston, on the sinless planet, Venus. In After Such Knowledge, Volume III, A Case Of Conscience, Ramon Ruiz-Sanchez, a Jesuit biologist, contends with an atheist physicist, Cleaver, on the sinless planet, Lithia.
We find some common ideas. However, a philosophical gulf divides Lewis from hard sf writers like Blish and Anderson. This is how Lewis summarized the philosophical position that he had held before his religious conversion:
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I dunno, aren't some conclusions derived from abstract, logical thinking indisputably and forever true? E.g., 2 + 2 = 4 can only and forever means only that two plus two can ONLY be four.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes but "2+2=4" is a tautology. What substantial conclusions can be deduced from abstract thought?
Paul.
No argument is better than the premises it starts from. It's possible to be completely and rigorously rational and come up with complete nonsense that way.
Plato was a rigorous thinker, but his premises were usually unexamined, just assumed to be axiomatic.
Science applies rational thought to empirical data, and adds in a use of hypothesis-testing-theory, where a hypothesis only graduates to a theory if it can be used to make predictions which are then supported by observation/experiment.
Karl Popper further refined this by pointing out that the hypothesis (and hence the theory) has to be falsifiable -- that is, there must be tests which would -dis-prove it if undertaken and giving negative results.
A theory is a hypothesis which makes verifiable predictions and has not, yet, been falsified.
Modern scientific theories are rarely proven to be outright wrong (due to the prediction/testing stage), but they can be shown to be -incomplete-.
Eg., General Relativity succeeded Newtonian mechanics because while Newtonian physics predicted certain things very accurately, it broke down under other circumstances which Einstein's theory accurately predicted.
But General Relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible... so both theories are -incomplete- though not yet -falsified-.
GIGO.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I agree that "2 + 2 = 4" is a tautology. Problem is, however, sometimes we NEED tautologies. I have personally come across people who deny anything is absolutely true, that everything is merely a matter of opinion, no opinions are true or false, are merely "relative" (to misuse a term!). So, to refute that kind of nonsense, some absolutely true tautologies are necessary.
Mr. Stirling: Fascinating, what you said about a more adequate defining of science. I think I will copy into my CODEX ANDERSONIANUS what you said about Karl Popper and hypotheses. It would supplement and complete what Anderson said about science, that I quoted from his book IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, IMHO it does.
Blish cites Popper in THE QUINCUNX OF TIME. Maybe I didn't realize that the falsifiability criterion was solely down to Popper.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree! And I did copy your comments, starting with the paragraph beginning with "Science applies..." into my notebook.
Paul: And I'm a bit surprised Anderson did not mention Karl Popper in either "Delenda Est" or IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? After all, he did cite Whitehead and Mumford, two other philosophers of science, in "Delenda."
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment