Talk:Naturalistic science fiction/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:00Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Spencerian: /* Reorganization */

2006-10-11T16:53:34Z

Reorganization

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 11 October 2006
Line 173:		Line 173:
	I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
	:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
			::I thought that adding it would add some "lip service" to the technical principles and claims presented in Moore's essay and directly note where, historically, the series has met or failed in the principles through the collection of articles. It seemed a logical fit for the science, although the characterization and storylines do not apply. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:53, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

April Arcus: /* Reorganization */

2006-10-11T16:44:44Z

Reorganization

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 11 October 2006
Line 172:		Line 172:

	I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
			:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Spencerian: Reorganization

2006-10-11T13:11:32Z

Reorganization

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 11 October 2006
Line 168:		Line 168:

	:::::::::: Should be primarily about article refinement. Sometimes forum-like asides discussing various points of view and interpretations are needed before refinement discussions are meaningful, though. We shouldn't, though, be discussing Baseball scores or whatever. I hope that answered your question. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 22:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)		:::::::::: Should be primarily about article refinement. Sometimes forum-like asides discussing various points of view and interpretations are needed before refinement discussions are meaningful, though. We shouldn't, though, be discussing Baseball scores or whatever. I hope that answered your question. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 22:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

			== Reorganization ==

			I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Day: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-06-03T03:59:57Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, 3 June 2006
Line 166:		Line 166:

	:::::::::I agree about dropping this debate. I can tell it's getting nowhere. But could you just tell me one thing: are talk pages for sort of forum discussion about topics, or just discussions about how to refine the article? -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 06:54, 2 June 2006 (CDT)		:::::::::I agree about dropping this debate. I can tell it's getting nowhere. But could you just tell me one thing: are talk pages for sort of forum discussion about topics, or just discussions about how to refine the article? -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 06:54, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::::: Should be primarily about article refinement. Sometimes forum-like asides discussing various points of view and interpretations are needed before refinement discussions are meaningful, though. We shouldn't, though, be discussing Baseball scores or whatever. I hope that answered your question. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 22:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Boogaloo: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-06-02T11:54:54Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 2 June 2006
Line 164:		Line 164:

	:::::::: You misunderstood my point about the nukes entirely. But it was tangental anyway. Also, how do you know that 5000 years is "new"? What if our solar system happens to have solidified from excess star matter faster than average, our planet cooled fast, developed an atmosphere faster, was protected by Jupiter better and lucked right into the center of the habitability zone for our star so that life began ealier. Assuming reletively similar rates of change from fish to commuter, we'd be older than anyone else. Now, a lot of that is speculation (though not my own, as said above), but there is room for such speculation because, contrary to what you've asserted above, it is ''not'' indisputable. There is no mass of evidence for either possibility. This is getting way tangental, so I propose we drop this aliens thing and move back to citation. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 13:03, 1 June 2006 (CDT)		:::::::: You misunderstood my point about the nukes entirely. But it was tangental anyway. Also, how do you know that 5000 years is "new"? What if our solar system happens to have solidified from excess star matter faster than average, our planet cooled fast, developed an atmosphere faster, was protected by Jupiter better and lucked right into the center of the habitability zone for our star so that life began ealier. Assuming reletively similar rates of change from fish to commuter, we'd be older than anyone else. Now, a lot of that is speculation (though not my own, as said above), but there is room for such speculation because, contrary to what you've asserted above, it is ''not'' indisputable. There is no mass of evidence for either possibility. This is getting way tangental, so I propose we drop this aliens thing and move back to citation. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 13:03, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::::I agree about dropping this debate. I can tell it's getting nowhere. But could you just tell me one thing: are talk pages for sort of forum discussion about topics, or just discussions about how to refine the article? -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 06:54, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Day: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-06-01T18:03:56Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 1 June 2006
Line 162:		Line 162:

	:::::::Well, our civilisation has been going for what, 5000 years at the most? We are relatively new in the universe, so perhaps aliens came to this planet before, thought 'ah, nothing to bother about here', and went off. And as for Jupiter...all of the hundreds of solar systems we've found include Jupiter-like planets. Besides, if there isn't intelligent life out there--which is indisputedly highly unlikely--there is, at the very very least, bacterial or animal life. If you think about the way most jump to conclusions about ET life, it's like looking around briefly, and then saying: "Can I see anyone? Nope, so they don't exist, end of story." And as for the nukes and bullets bit...well, I don't think they'd have mere nukes--something similar, but not the same sort of stuff we have. And military laser technology is already becoming reality. -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 05:18, 1 June 2006 (CDT)		:::::::Well, our civilisation has been going for what, 5000 years at the most? We are relatively new in the universe, so perhaps aliens came to this planet before, thought 'ah, nothing to bother about here', and went off. And as for Jupiter...all of the hundreds of solar systems we've found include Jupiter-like planets. Besides, if there isn't intelligent life out there--which is indisputedly highly unlikely--there is, at the very very least, bacterial or animal life. If you think about the way most jump to conclusions about ET life, it's like looking around briefly, and then saying: "Can I see anyone? Nope, so they don't exist, end of story." And as for the nukes and bullets bit...well, I don't think they'd have mere nukes--something similar, but not the same sort of stuff we have. And military laser technology is already becoming reality. -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 05:18, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::: You misunderstood my point about the nukes entirely. But it was tangental anyway. Also, how do you know that 5000 years is "new"? What if our solar system happens to have solidified from excess star matter faster than average, our planet cooled fast, developed an atmosphere faster, was protected by Jupiter better and lucked right into the center of the habitability zone for our star so that life began ealier. Assuming reletively similar rates of change from fish to commuter, we'd be older than anyone else. Now, a lot of that is speculation (though not my own, as said above), but there is room for such speculation because, contrary to what you've asserted above, it is ''not'' indisputable. There is no mass of evidence for either possibility. This is getting way tangental, so I propose we drop this aliens thing and move back to citation. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 13:03, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Boogaloo: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-06-01T10:18:38Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 1 June 2006
Line 160:		Line 160:

	:::::: A friend of mine has done a lot of reading and thinking and talking to professors and the like about intelligent life outside of this planet. Some people (Stephen Hawking among them, at least as of a few years ago) think it is feasable that we are the oldest possible intelligent civilization in our universe (not proven, but possible), based on how quickly our planet formed, etc. Also he's told me about an astronomy prof. that talked about the importance of Jupiter in the evolution of life on this planet. So, I don't think you can really criticize BSG for chosing one of two possible, unproven realities. Also, I'll reiterate that "naturalistic" can be somewhat relative. Because I've never met a Ridge-Head, it is less realistic to me if a show includes them than if it were to exclude them. This decision, even if proven wrong in the future, is much like the decision to use Nukes and bullets rather than proton torpedos and lasers. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 19:48, 28 May 2006 (CDT)		:::::: A friend of mine has done a lot of reading and thinking and talking to professors and the like about intelligent life outside of this planet. Some people (Stephen Hawking among them, at least as of a few years ago) think it is feasable that we are the oldest possible intelligent civilization in our universe (not proven, but possible), based on how quickly our planet formed, etc. Also he's told me about an astronomy prof. that talked about the importance of Jupiter in the evolution of life on this planet. So, I don't think you can really criticize BSG for chosing one of two possible, unproven realities. Also, I'll reiterate that "naturalistic" can be somewhat relative. Because I've never met a Ridge-Head, it is less realistic to me if a show includes them than if it were to exclude them. This decision, even if proven wrong in the future, is much like the decision to use Nukes and bullets rather than proton torpedos and lasers. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 19:48, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::Well, our civilisation has been going for what, 5000 years at the most? We are relatively new in the universe, so perhaps aliens came to this planet before, thought 'ah, nothing to bother about here', and went off. And as for Jupiter...all of the hundreds of solar systems we've found include Jupiter-like planets. Besides, if there isn't intelligent life out there--which is indisputedly highly unlikely--there is, at the very very least, bacterial or animal life. If you think about the way most jump to conclusions about ET life, it's like looking around briefly, and then saying: "Can I see anyone? Nope, so they don't exist, end of story." And as for the nukes and bullets bit...well, I don't think they'd have mere nukes--something similar, but not the same sort of stuff we have. And military laser technology is already becoming reality. -[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 05:18, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Day: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-05-29T00:48:41Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 29 May 2006
Line 158:		Line 158:
	::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
	:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)		:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

			:::::: A friend of mine has done a lot of reading and thinking and talking to professors and the like about intelligent life outside of this planet. Some people (Stephen Hawking among them, at least as of a few years ago) think it is feasable that we are the oldest possible intelligent civilization in our universe (not proven, but possible), based on how quickly our planet formed, etc. Also he's told me about an astronomy prof. that talked about the importance of Jupiter in the evolution of life on this planet. So, I don't think you can really criticize BSG for chosing one of two possible, unproven realities. Also, I'll reiterate that "naturalistic" can be somewhat relative. Because I've never met a Ridge-Head, it is less realistic to me if a show includes them than if it were to exclude them. This decision, even if proven wrong in the future, is much like the decision to use Nukes and bullets rather than proton torpedos and lasers. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 19:48, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

Boogaloo: /* "Citation needed" explanation */

2006-05-28T16:51:04Z

"Citation needed" explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 28 May 2006
Line 157:		Line 157:
	:::Well, personally I think the show would be better with the odd aliens or alien word thrown into it. And as for the Fermi paradox, well it's just based on mere assumption. For all we know there could be a civilisation in the solar system next door. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 09:38, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		:::Well, personally I think the show would be better with the odd aliens or alien word thrown into it. And as for the Fermi paradox, well it's just based on mere assumption. For all we know there could be a civilisation in the solar system next door. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 09:38, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
	::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
			:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 11 October 2006
Line 173:		Line 173:
	I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
	:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
			::I thought that adding it would add some "lip service" to the technical principles and claims presented in Moore's essay and directly note where, historically, the series has met or failed in the principles through the collection of articles. It seemed a logical fit for the science, although the characterization and storylines do not apply. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:53, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 29 May 2006
Line 158:		Line 158:
	::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
	:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)		:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

			:::::: A friend of mine has done a lot of reading and thinking and talking to professors and the like about intelligent life outside of this planet. Some people (Stephen Hawking among them, at least as of a few years ago) think it is feasable that we are the oldest possible intelligent civilization in our universe (not proven, but possible), based on how quickly our planet formed, etc. Also he's told me about an astronomy prof. that talked about the importance of Jupiter in the evolution of life on this planet. So, I don't think you can really criticize BSG for chosing one of two possible, unproven realities. Also, I'll reiterate that "naturalistic" can be somewhat relative. Because I've never met a Ridge-Head, it is less realistic to me if a show includes them than if it were to exclude them. This decision, even if proven wrong in the future, is much like the decision to use Nukes and bullets rather than proton torpedos and lasers. --[[User:Day\|Day]] <sup>([[User talk:Day\|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard\|Admin]])</sup> 19:48, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 28 May 2006
Line 157:		Line 157:
	:::Well, personally I think the show would be better with the odd aliens or alien word thrown into it. And as for the Fermi paradox, well it's just based on mere assumption. For all we know there could be a civilisation in the solar system next door. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 09:38, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		:::Well, personally I think the show would be better with the odd aliens or alien word thrown into it. And as for the Fermi paradox, well it's just based on mere assumption. For all we know there could be a civilisation in the solar system next door. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 09:38, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
	::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)		::::Honestly, given the show's direction, the introduction of bipedaled humanoid aliens is detrimental to the show's premise. It's more about the struggles of humanity than running into the Ridge-Head of the week... We have enough of those shows around to last several hundred years. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 11:26, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
			:::::Who says the aliens had to be their enemies? They could have been part of the crew, like in Star Trek or Star Wars. Admit it, the show would have been a lot more interesting if there had been the odd creature thrown in there, rather than a load of swearing people bitching over how much water and fuel they've got left. --[[User:Boogaloo\|Boogaloo]] 11:51, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 28:		Line 28:
	::So, basically, '''no, your comments do not "require" a "complete rewrite of the text"'''. This is overboard. However, I do commend* you on stating your feeling on the talk page instead of just making them without consensus. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, Oliver, but these Star Trek/BSG issues bring up strong emotions. Like the silly pages and other talk-commentary, the "Naturalistic Science Fiction" page, is, by its very nature, going to be NPOV. '''I do agree''' with Spencerian's assessment that it could use some tweaking here or there, mostly for fact correction (dilithium, phasers,etc.) but the derision of Star Trek must remain, because BSG defines itself in opposition to this. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 16:51, 13 February 2006 (EST)		::So, basically, '''no, your comments do not "require" a "complete rewrite of the text"'''. This is overboard. However, I do commend* you on stating your feeling on the talk page instead of just making them without consensus. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, Oliver, but these Star Trek/BSG issues bring up strong emotions. Like the silly pages and other talk-commentary, the "Naturalistic Science Fiction" page, is, by its very nature, going to be NPOV. '''I do agree''' with Spencerian's assessment that it could use some tweaking here or there, mostly for fact correction (dilithium, phasers,etc.) but the derision of Star Trek must remain, because BSG defines itself in opposition to this. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 16:51, 13 February 2006 (EST)

	:::I believe it's possible for this article to reach a reasonably NPOV status. Sadly, it's going to have to be near the bottom of my considerably long to-do list. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:45, 13 February 2006 (EST)		:::I believe it's possible for this article to reach a reasonably NPOV status. Sadly, it's going to have to be near the bottom of my considerably long to-do list. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:45, 13 February 2006 (EST)

	::::I concur.--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:04, 13 February 2006 (EST)		::::I concur.--[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 19:04, 13 February 2006 (EST)
Line 47:		Line 47:

	::::While it's true that B5 adopted a "hard sci-fi" position with regard to some aspects, its atmosphere does not greatly resemble the new BSG's. "Naturalistic sci-fi" actually eschews accuracy when it interferes with story - the point is to tell a modern, relevant story in the clothing of science fiction. When realism on the show makes that connection clearer, it's an asset (the use of nukes, for example) - but when it doesn't serve the story, it's generally overlooked (artificial gravity, hyperspace).		::::While it's true that B5 adopted a "hard sci-fi" position with regard to some aspects, its atmosphere does not greatly resemble the new BSG's. "Naturalistic sci-fi" actually eschews accuracy when it interferes with story - the point is to tell a modern, relevant story in the clothing of science fiction. When realism on the show makes that connection clearer, it's an asset (the use of nukes, for example) - but when it doesn't serve the story, it's generally overlooked (artificial gravity, hyperspace).
	::::The difference, I guess, is that BSG is "[[Wikipedia:The Day After\|The Day After]]", B5 is a weird hybrid of "1984" and "The Lord of the Rings", and Star Wars is "The Hidden Fortress". Each one uses the trappings of literary sci-fi where it suits their purpose, and discards them where it doesn't. The concept of naturalistic sci-fi as defined by Moore is only relevant to the particular story he's trying to tell. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 20:27, 13 February 2006 (EST)		::::The difference, I guess, is that BSG is "[[Wikipedia:The Day After\|The Day After]]", B5 is a weird hybrid of "1984" and "The Lord of the Rings", and Star Wars is "The Hidden Fortress". Each one uses the trappings of literary sci-fi where it suits their purpose, and discards them where it doesn't. The concept of naturalistic sci-fi as defined by Moore is only relevant to the particular story he's trying to tell. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 20:27, 13 February 2006 (EST)

	:::::Peter's comments detail the flaw of NSF better than anything I've read to date, and clarifies what he had been trying to tell me earlier here in talk. Any show is subject to the whim of the writer. While NSF tries to prevent ''technological'' limits to what they can write, NSF can also be selective of what is relevant or in need of explanation. With that, I'm aware of the needed revisions, and will do so when time allows to show a better opposing viewpoint to NSF in brief bullets. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 20:46, 13 February 2006 (EST)		:::::Peter's comments detail the flaw of NSF better than anything I've read to date, and clarifies what he had been trying to tell me earlier here in talk. Any show is subject to the whim of the writer. While NSF tries to prevent ''technological'' limits to what they can write, NSF can also be selective of what is relevant or in need of explanation. With that, I'm aware of the needed revisions, and will do so when time allows to show a better opposing viewpoint to NSF in brief bullets. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 20:46, 13 February 2006 (EST)

	::::::I also, based on the above, would feel far more comfortable with Farago making the updates than Oliver. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 21:19, 13 February 2006 (EST)		::::::I also, based on the above, would feel far more comfortable with Farago making the updates than Oliver. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 21:19, 13 February 2006 (EST)
	::::::For the benefit of everyone who hasn't been on this wiki forever, I believe the prior comments Spencerian is referring to were on [[Talk:Science in the Re-imagined Series]]. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:10, 13 February 2006 (EST)		::::::For the benefit of everyone who hasn't been on this wiki forever, I believe the prior comments Spencerian is referring to were on [[Talk:Science in the Re-imagined Series]]. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:10, 13 February 2006 (EST)

	::::::: I think it might also behoove us to compare some of RDM's intentions/plans and his executions of those to others who've tried to do the NSF thing. It's not like RDM invented the idea. We could talk about Niven, for one (for instance, he tried to make his Known Space stuff as "realistic" as he could, bar FTL travel) and probably Asimov (though I'm less familiar with his stuff... long "To Read:" list I've got). And, anyway, we could at least compare RDM's defenition of NSF to ones used by other story tellers in the past (whatever the media).		::::::: I think it might also behoove us to compare some of RDM's intentions/plans and his executions of those to others who've tried to do the NSF thing. It's not like RDM invented the idea. We could talk about Niven, for one (for instance, he tried to make his Known Space stuff as "realistic" as he could, bar FTL travel) and probably Asimov (though I'm less familiar with his stuff... long "To Read:" list I've got). And, anyway, we could at least compare RDM's defenition of NSF to ones used by other story tellers in the past (whatever the media).
Line 172:		Line 172:

	I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		I've added this article, otherwise unchanged, as part of the series [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] to help with comparison and contrast as well as organization. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
	:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		:I'm not sure this really belongs in that series. Naturalistic Science Fiction is a storytelling technique - as we've discussed above, it's largely separate from hard- vs. soft- science fiction and other such concerns. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 11:44, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
	::I thought that adding it would add some "lip service" to the technical principles and claims presented in Moore's essay and directly note where, historically, the series has met or failed in the principles through the collection of articles. It seemed a logical fit for the science, although the characterization and storylines do not apply. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:53, 11 October 2006 (CDT)		::I thought that adding it would add some "lip service" to the technical principles and claims presented in Moore's essay and directly note where, historically, the series has met or failed in the principles through the collection of articles. It seemed a logical fit for the science, although the characterization and storylines do not apply. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:53, 11 October 2006 (CDT)