Is Science Fiction a Legitimate Source of Scientific Ideas?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the legitimacy of science fiction as a source of scientific ideas, particularly in the context of extraterrestrial communication and the assumptions underlying it. Participants explore the implications of using universal languages and mathematical constants in attempts to communicate with potential extraterrestrial intelligences, drawing on historical examples and literary references.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference anthropologist Ben Finney's critique of the assumption that advanced extraterrestrial beings would easily decipher messages based on universal constants, citing historical challenges in understanding ancient languages.
  • There is a suggestion that messages from extraterrestrial sources might be more akin to literary expressions, as illustrated by a quote from Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem "Ozymandias".
  • One participant posits that deciphering messages from alien civilizations may require ongoing dialogue, as common reference points may not exist in an alien context.
  • Another participant argues that using prime numbers and universal constants as a primer for communication is essential, contrasting it with sending complex literary works that may be meaningless to extraterrestrials.
  • A participant highlights the vast time scales of Earth and the universe, questioning the hubris in assuming that communication would be straightforward.
  • Stanislaw Lem's contributions to the discourse on extraterrestrial communication are mentioned, with some participants suggesting that his ideas have been overlooked by mainstream science.
  • There is a defense of science fiction as a legitimate field that can provide valuable insights, with references to authors who have a strong grounding in scientific principles and who explore "what if" scenarios based on current scientific thought.
  • Concerns are raised about the dismissal of science fiction ideas due to their fictional nature, emphasizing that valuable concepts can emerge from popular literature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the validity of science fiction as a source of scientific ideas, with no clear consensus reached. Some argue for its value, while others remain skeptical of its scientific legitimacy.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical and literary examples to support their arguments, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities of communication across vastly different contexts or the implications of using fiction in scientific discourse.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
...But not everyone is so sanguine about using science and math as universal languages. Anthropologist Ben Finney of the University of Hawai’i challenged the standard assumptions several years ago, by drawing on lessons learned from decoding Egyptian and Mayan hieroglypics—a story recounted in Atlanta. "SETI scientists reasoned that advanced ET would de-encrypt their messages through prime numbers, pi, the Planck constant and other presumed cosmic universals so that new members of the Galactic club could immediately begin deciphering them," Finney explained. "I questioned this reasoning on the basis of terrestrial experience in deciphering ancient Egyptian and Mayan inscriptions." [continued]
http://space.com/searchforlife/seti_translator_050127.html
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
So the experience of Egyptian and Maya translation would suggest that the message from the stars that we are looking for will be

"My name is Ozymandias King of Kings
Look on my works ye mighty and despair".
 
"My name is Ozymandias King of Kings
Look on my works ye mighty and despair".

What would that look like on my SETI@Home screen?
 
It is a distinct posibility that we wouldn't be able to decipher each other without constant dialouge.
usually, a person could use common objects such as trees and fruit to decipher each others language. But in an alien world, these things may or may not be there.
 
The ancient Egyptians did not make a concerted effort to provide a primer to their language. The whole point of using prime numbers and universal constants is to provide a primer which will enable aliens to communicate with us. If we sent them the full text of War and Peace it would be meaningless gobbly gook. But if we send them recognizable mathematical patterns there exists a chance that they can work it out.
 
Hmm, Egypt, a few thousand years ago; the Maya, even fewer thousand years.

The Earth (and Sun), approx 4.5 billion years; the universe, approx 13.7 billion.

The former divided by the latter, a million (OOM).

Please remind me, how do you spell 'hubris'?
 
Stanislaw Lem challenged the standard assumptions about ET communication 37 years ago in His Master's Voice (and later, in other works like A Perfect Vacuum). As usual, his deep thoughts on the subject were largely ignored by scientists, philosophers and Star Trek fanboys. The first and/or last word on ET communication is not Carl Sagan. This is a subject barely in the embryonic stage, and all inputs from all fields of knowledge are welcome.
 
Hmm, Stanislaw Lem is an author of F&SF books. He has not founded a cult, claimed to be a UFO contactee, or otherwise claimed paranormal powers that I know of - aside from annoying some other F&SF authors. Why would he not be ignored by scientists? Most bookstores mark the fiction from fact aisle.
 
Chronos said:
Hmm, Stanislaw Lem is an author of F&SF books. He has not founded a cult, claimed to be a UFO contactee, or otherwise claimed paranormal powers that I know of - aside from annoying some other F&SF authors. Why would he not be ignored by scientists? Most bookstores mark the fiction from fact aisle.
Bookstore marketing aside (so you can take the "F" for "Fantasy" right out of your characterization) good science fiction writers are masters of extrapolation. They take facts and currently-accepted scientific thought and say "what if?". Many of them, besides being able to write compelling stories, are rigorously logical people and have a better foundation in "real science" than you might think. Some have doctorates in the fields about which they write. Here is a presentation on the subject.

http://members.optushome.com.au/guests/PhysicsinSF.html

The author cites Larry Niven's work extensively and offers examples, but you could as easily choose novels by Hal Clement, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Heinlein, etc. Each of them has written stories predicated on the sciences of physics, chemistry, sociology, mathematics, etc. It would be unwise to dismiss the ideas of these people simply because they write "fiction" for a living. Indeed, some scientists have denigrated Hawking, Sagan, and others for stooping to "popularize" science, as if writing to the comprehension level of an interested lay-person is somehow demeaning. This is a particularly poisonous type of pretentious snobbery that does not serve the sciences well.

Ideas should be weighed on their merits and not solely on the manner of their presentation. There are many, many conflicting ideas written up in scientific journals every day, many of which will be discarded because they are inadequate or just plain wrong. There are many ideas in popular literature that are valuable - you have to take the time and effort to think them through and evaluate them.

"Fiction" does not equal "false", "wrong", etc. Some of the truest words ever spoken were written a few years back by a fellow named Shakespeare.
 
Last edited by a moderator: