At what point.............

[Gatefan1976]

Does the realm of science fiction become fantasy?

I ask because a lot of the gripes people have here is based on this notion. I mean, do we accept Trek warp engines because they are explained in a "logical, Scientific" way, and reject other things because they do not follow this paradigm?

Does the explanation in of itself *make* it Scifi over Fantasy?

For Example:

 

[Backstep]

Sci-Fi: Based on scientific theory, no man made magical conjuring.

Fantasy: Man made magical conjuring.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Sci-Fi: Based on scientific theory, no man made magical conjuring.

Fantasy: Man made magical conjuring.

Nope, that's a cop-out.
Explain to me in working scientific terms how we create warp drive.

 

[Backstep]

Nope, that's a cop-out.
Explain to me in working scientific terms how we create warp drive.

Let me provide links from people better than I to explain warp drive.

http://news.discovery.com/space/pri...ake-an-energy-efficient-warp-drive-120924.htm
http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

Fantasy is still man invoking magic.

 

[ParagonPie]

Well, firstly they are two different genres of literature. Each one is a fantasy of the mind, that is where the confusion lies within, with some people.

Science fiction usually implies the mechanical or scientific process to how its technology and world works, even if it is a made up, it is also (or can be I should say) a commentary on the social/political events of the time or even future possibilities with the invention of recently discovered technology (such as robots). Science fiction is always set in the future or has future elements (to include time travel possibilities here), Fantasy is not. Take for example the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson, that series goes into great detail to how the technology works and using current ideas on how to accomplish the task at hand of colonizing mars. Now it isn't just about technology, but how said technology has impacted on the culture/people we see. Star trek just isn't about warp drive, but how that warp drive now turns those people into explorers.

Science fiction is an Aristotle exercise. Suppose blank.

Fantasy can have some of the above (namely social commentary) and it can grounding in the world (Game of Thrones is a good example of a more grounded Fantasy since the magic isn't overt) and how it operates (as part of the suspension of disbelief we all must take when venturing into created worlds both fantasy and science fiction). As long as it is consistent within the rules is has laid down with before hand. The thing with fantasy is that it doesn't lend hands to how the magical world operates, just people can use these abilities with little explanation, there maybe some magical realm that people have access to but how the biological effects of magic affect the individual, it clearly doesn't explain.

Fantasy is a more reactionary way, we take the old medieval system then bend it around slightly with a more mythological twist. Fantasy doesn't go "suppose we have magic, how will this affect the culture of the world?"

Edit: The reason why sometimes I use the term 'Fantasy' in a negative connotation is when we see a world which has been built up only to throw out the previously established rules of the world, or it gives little explanation as to how that person or situation developed. Stargate is an example of a science fiction becoming a fantasy (not just SGU), adding in the 'Jedi' powers was just silly (my opinion I know).

I know this isn't answering the question, but just to give a little bit of difference between the two respective genres.

 

[shavedape]

Nope, that's a cop-out.

 

[YJ02]

Does the realm of science fiction become fantasy?

I ask because a lot of the gripes people have here is based on this notion. I mean, do we accept Trek warp engines because they are explained in a "logical, Scientific" way, and reject other things because they do not follow this paradigm?

Does the explanation in of itself *make* it Scifi over Fantasy?

For Example:

well i have nothing to say other then your question is a very good one. a question that many of todays' TPTB's seem to have never heard or considered

 

[Gatefan1976]

Let me provide links from people better than I to explain warp drive.

http://news.discovery.com/space/pri...ake-an-energy-efficient-warp-drive-120924.htm
http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

Fantasy is still man invoking magic.

So, in essence if it comes from an external source it is scifi, but if it comes from an internal source, it's fantasy?
--- merged: May 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM ---

Well, firstly they are two different genres of literature. Each one is a fantasy of the mind, that is where the confusion lies within, with some people.

Yes, they are separate genre's, quite true.

Science fiction usually implies the mechanical or scientific process to how its technology and world works, even if it is a made up, it is also (or can be I should say) a commentary on the social/political events of the time or even future possibilities with the invention of recently discovered technology (such as robots). Science fiction is always set in the future or has future elements (to include time travel possibilities here), Fantasy is not. Take for example the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson, that series goes into great detail to how the technology works and using current ideas on how to accomplish the task at hand of colonizing mars. Now it isn't just about technology, but how said technology has impacted on the culture/people we see. Star trek just isn't about warp drive, but how that warp drive now turns those people into explorers.

Yet if someone DID detail how say, the force works, I assume you would *still* consider it at least a "fantastical element" if not downright fantasy.

Science fiction is an Aristotle exercise. Suppose blank.

Fantasy can have some of the above (namely social commentary) and it can grounding in the world (Game of Thrones is a good example of a more grounded Fantasy since the magic isn't overt)

G.O.T. is a classic "low fantasy" story as opposed to say "Magician" which is High Fantasy.

and how it operates (as part of the suspension of disbelief we all must take when venturing into created worlds both fantasy and science fiction). As long as it is consistent within the rules is has laid down with before hand. The thing with fantasy is that it doesn't lend hands to how the magical world operates, just people can use these abilities with little explanation, there maybe some magical realm that people have access to but how the biological effects of magic affect the individual, it clearly doesn't explain.

Many stories which focus on Magicians often tell of how long they have spent studying and perfecting their craft. There are exceptions of course.

Fantasy is a more reactionary way, we take the old medieval system then bend it around slightly with a more mythological twist. Fantasy doesn't go "suppose we have magic, how will this affect the culture of the world?"

Again, not entirely true. The Empire series by Raymond Fiest and Janny Wurts very much goes into the impact of Magic, both "arcane" and "religious", on the culture.

Edit: The reason why sometimes I use the term 'Fantasy' in a negative connotation is when we see a world which has been built up only to throw out the previously established rules of the world, or it gives little explanation as to how that person or situation developed. Stargate is an example of a science fiction becoming a fantasy (not just SGU), adding in the 'Jedi' powers was just silly (my opinion I know).

You could throw in Vulcan Psychic powers and the Psycops of Bab 5 to that mix as well. Does that make Trek or Bab 5 "fantasy"?

I know this isn't answering the question, but just to give a little bit of difference between the two respective genres.

A worthwhile detour however

 

[Overmind One]

So, in essence if it comes from an external source it is scifi, but if it comes from an internal source, it's fantasy?

If any of the characters are wearing robes or carrying swords that do anything other than simply cut. Not as easy to define as I thought....but along general lines, science fiction is based on scientific primciple, even if the level of science is not available today. We have space travel today, to extrapolating using that technology to get to another planet or solar system is based in something within the real of the POSSIBLE. But to have somebody utter words and materialize things by waving of the hands is magic, not based in anything real today. Creatures such as werewolves and dragons and vampires, or humanoid species which never existed who appear in stories is fantasy, unless they are aliens encountered on another planet would would throw them into the realm of science fiction. I consider Thor more science fiction than fantasy, for instance.

 

[Gatefan1976]

If any of the characters are wearing robes or carrying swords that do anything other than simply cut. Not as easy to define as I thought....but along general lines, science fiction is based on scientific primciple, even if the level of science is not available today.

If the magical principles involved were explained in the story, does that make it "more scientific"?

We have space travel today, to extrapolating using that technology to get to another planet or solar system is based in something within the real of the POSSIBLE. But to have somebody utter words and materialize things by waving of the hands is magic, not based in anything real today.

Again, I come back to the notion of source. If it's external, it's science fiction, if it's internal, it's magic.
Harry Potter waves a wand and says "Alohomora" and the door opens.
Dr Who waves his sonic screwdriver at a door and it opens.

Creatures such as werewolves and dragons and vampires, or humanoid species which never existed who appear in stories is fantasy, unless they are aliens encountered on another planet would would throw them into the realm of science fiction. I consider Thor more science fiction than fantasy, for instance.

Which is interesting as He says himself that where I come from science and magic are the same thing.

 

[Overmind One]

If the magical principles involved were explained in the story, does that make it "more scientific"?

Only if the explanation includes something in the realm of "real". Right now, I can use PointGrab gesture control on my computer to do nothing but wave my hands and use the thing without even touching it...from across the room. But that is not magic because I can tell you HOW that is done. It becomes magic when you remove the explanation and leave it to a less sophisticated understanding of things from people who will see it as magic when it is technology.

Again, I come back to the notion of source. If it's external, it's science fiction, if it's internal, it's magic.
Harry Potter waves a wand and says "Alohomora" and the door opens.
Dr Who waves his sonic screwdriver at a door and it opens.

But HOW does Harry Potter use the word "Alohomora" to open the doors? If you explain it beyond "it's magic", then you can make it more scientific. Dr Who's sonic screwdriver is not magical.

Which is interesting as He says himself that where I come from science and magic are the same thing.

And that is precisely why I said what I said.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Only if the explanation includes something in the realm of "real". Right now, I can use PointGrab gesture control on my computer to do nothing but wave my hands and use the thing without even touching it...from across the room. But that is not magic because I can tell you HOW that is done. It becomes magic when you remove the explanation and leave it to a less sophisticated understanding of things from people who will see it as magic when it is technology.

Time travel is not in the realm of "real" right now, yet it is an accepted Scifi trope.

But HOW does Harry Potter use the word "Alohomora" to open the doors? If you explain it beyond "it's magic", then you can make it more scientific. Dr Who's sonic screwdriver is not magical.

So, it *is* about the "explanation" then?

And that is precisely why I said what I said.

So you believe that science and magic are the same?

 

[Overmind One]

Time travel is not in the realm of "real" right now, yet it is an accepted Scifi trope.


So, it *is* about the "explanation" then?


So you believe that science and magic are the same?

I do not think there is such thing as magic, no. I think that "magic" is what fills in the blank for those who see something they do not understand that seems to defy nature. . When people see things that seem supernatural or miraculous, they might think it is magic unless shown otherwise. OR, the user of the "magic" may wish it to be concealed for ulterior motives.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I do not think there is such thing as magic, no. I think that "magic" is what fills in the blank for those who see something they do not understand that seems to defy nature. . When people see things that seem supernatural or miraculous, they might think it is magic unless shown otherwise. OR, the user of the "magic" may wish it to be concealed for ulterior motives.

Fine, what about the other 2 points?

 

[Overmind One]

Fine, what about the other 2 points?

Time travel and it's temporal effects are still considered valid in many stubborn corners of science. Still, I believe the scientific community generally agrees that time travel (as used in scifi) is impossible, since "time" itself is a construct created by man and does not truly exist. Audiences willing to swallow down "science" like we have seen for the last 5 years or so in science fiction movies, they have no problem with seeing it in their movies.

The second point...well, explanation IS important, and none of that explanation can include yet other explainable things as part of the explanation. Harry Potter might be able to open doors by saying the word "Alohomora" because it has a voice operated lock and door opener. That is science. If the explanation is "its's magic", or "the invisible elves open it for him", then it remains magical.

 

[Gatefan1976]

What if the explanation is that some people have the ability to manipulate the energy fields around us by will and the magic wand is the tool used to focus that will?

I mean, we know about gravitational fields, that's science, he has the ability to manipulate gravitational fields to open the door, and the word and wand are used to focus his will?

Is the answer simply it cannot be done, or that it cannot be done without a external focus such as a machine?

 

[Overmind One]

What if the explanation is that some people have the ability to manipulate the energy fields around us by will and the magic wand is the tool used to focus that will?

I would have to see it scientifically proven that the fields "around us" exist can be measured. A wand designed to focus "will" would require that it's designer has some knowledge of the nature of the force of "will" to be able to focus it. The explanation of how that is done would give insight into the nature of the force.

I mean, we know about gravitational fields, that's science, he has the ability to manipulate gravitational fields to open the door, and the word and wand are used to focus his will?

That's a stretch.

Is the answer simply it cannot be done, or that it cannot be done without a external focus such as a machine?

I dunno. To me, the word "magic" does not mean anything in real life. It is perfectly cool and awesome to see in movies and TV but it does not really cross over into real life science like scifi does. During the time of Star trek TOS, big screen TV, cellphones, voice activated computers and flat panel displays were all science fiction. Magic in films today is no different than magical spells and feats described in fairy takes hundreds of years old already.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I would have to see it scientifically proven that the fields "around us" exist can be measured. A wand designed to focus "will" would require that it's designer has some knowledge of the nature of the force of "will" to be able to focus it. The explanation of how that is done would give insight into the nature of the force.

Are you saying you don't believe in gravity?
Yes, a "wand-maker" would need to have knowledge of such a force, and how to focus and contain it. Scientifically they may be called: Gravity, Electromagnetics and the strong and weak nuclear forces. They may have called them Earth, Air, Fire and Water however.

That's a stretch.

No more than someone from the 30's believing we would have mobile phones.

I dunno. To me, the word "magic" does not mean anything in real life. It is perfectly cool and awesome to see in movies and TV but it does not really cross over into real life science like scifi does. During the time of Star trek TOS, big screen TV, cellphones, voice activated computers and flat panel displays were all science fiction. Magic in films today is no different than magical spells and feats described in fairy takes hundreds of years old already.

So your definition hinges on the "what we can possibly create"?
Hell dude, communication via crystal ball is an ancient concept, but it works *in essence* the same as a mobile phone

 

[Backstep]

Time travel is not in the realm of "real" right now, yet it is an accepted Scifi trope.

Are you saying I can wish or by force of will, time travel?

But HOW does Harry Potter use the word "Alohomora" to open the doors? If you explain it beyond "it's magic", then you can make it more scientific. Dr Who's sonic screwdriver is not magical.​

So, it *is* about the "explanation" then?

Unlike HP's wand, the Doctor's screwdriver doesn't work on wood.

 

[mzzz]

lol don't you love the notion of tachyons? They blatantly violate causality, you could essentially send a warning to yourself in the past via tachyon emissions if you mess up. Of course, there might a time range interval of adjusting your actions with foresight depending on how much faster than light they really are and the matter of if they spawn new timelines or affect the same timeline.

GF, I wouldn't generalize the external/internal distinction because I mean, if you think about, you could extend the internal aspect to be a matter of biology and genetic evolution, if I'm understanding your distinction correctly which you can feel free to correct. I think the difference is mostly in the explanation and that the explanation has some basis in our current science (however falsely) that isn't too far removed from the science. I mean, see what you tried to do with your Harry Potter example, you tried to ground it in our science. Think that's what mostly contributes to a separation of sci-fi and magic.

Also, other things of separation might be the usage of tech, shiny metal things and circuits and all those pretty little structured things, rather than the use of (sorry can't think of a better word for this) occult? instruments like piece of wood, animal/plant life that doesn't exist in our biosphere, etc.

There's a thing known as a vague predicate in philosophy. Basically, it's about certain words that have unclear borderlines. For example, the word 'heap' has an unclear borderline. If you have a hundred grains of rice, is that a heap? Is it still a heap with 99 grains, 98, etc. I think it kind of applies here in that if you have this much science in some work in question and this much unexplained phenomena (or magic) in the work in question, what is the borderline between how much of science vs how much of magic defines something as sci-fi or magic? And I'd consider that distinction to be something like a vague predicate, and additionally, that borderline, so to speak, would be different from person to person.