The Science Fiction Event Horizon: Implications for say ... Nuts and Bolts UFOs

[spookyparadigm]

Skepticism of Nuts and Bolts ETH is raised fairly often on the show.

This essay

http://www.computercrowsnest.com/features/arc/2008/nz12191.php

has nothing directly to do with that. It's about how many science fiction writers and fans have gotten trapped in a well of tropes and genre, increasingly distant from scientific speculation.

But think about the principle at work. And then think about the ETH. Or mainstream cryptozoology (looking for huge mammals or dinosaurs in populated to semi-populated areas, rather than say "discoveries" in 1800s colonial Africa). Or ideas about alternative archaeology that regularly draw on old sources and ideas.

 

[dorkbot]

The author raises some valid points. I'd take issue with the impression I get of his opinion that FTL speculation places us inside the event horizon but in general I'd agree that the great mass of modern sci-fi is indistinguishable from pure fantasy novels based on well-traveled territory. Then again the same is true for most literary efforts. Comedies and dramas today are still largely rehashing the same basic scenarios that were worked out by Shakespeare and the vaudeville circuit. I once read in a Clifford Pickover book that all plots could basically be distilled down into three themes:

1. Man against nature.
2. Man against man.
3. Man against himself.

In the best science fiction I think the question as to where exactly we draw the line between useful speculation and fantasy is something you could debate endlessly. One man's fantasy is another's delusion and for another person is the imaginative spark that brings fresh perspective to an old question. I have a young nephew that is totally into the Star Wars universe to the extent that is beginning to show signs of becoming encyclopedic. When an older memory of the family scornfully asked, "What good is this?" I replied, "To fire the imagination."

It seems to me that science fiction and science fact feed off each other in a cyclical manner. Science slows down at times and science fiction is the platform where we kind of publicly debate possible new directions. Science speeds up and scifi begins to get stale in comparison. This strikes me as the natural and self-correcting order of things.

As it relates to ufology and the paranormal I think it is a very delicate balance of keeping perspective and knowing what came before you while recognizing that these lines on the map can also act as limitations to new thought. I'd guess Ivan T. Sanderson could be characterized as somebody who's ideas were "disproved" by ufology at large and became rather unfashionable yet he raised enough interesting questions that there is still plenty of room for modern researchers to go back and mine the same territory. I think there is a chance that the same thing will eventually happen with what most people consider to be the wacky 1950 contactee types. Science conclusively "disproved" all manner of occult and esoteric topics but the closer we get to the edge of demonstrable science fact the more it is beginning to look like the wholesale discarding of a lot of these old occult ideas may have been premature.

My opinion on the subject of paranormal research and speculation in 2008 is that we still haven't reached the point where we can begin discarding any particular idea or approach. We can definitely weight certain things more than others but we haven't reached the point where we can begin tossing ideas into the trash.

Fantasy or not, everything has to remain on the table.