 | | ( (Good SF authors) != (young SF authors) ) ??
|
|
(...) Not without doing some digging(0). Plus it varies according to taste. Lately I like the "killer B's"...(1) they all are within a "few" years of that mark, as compared to the grand masters you name (whether I'd put Chalker up there is a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Also in Babylon 5 with the Technomages. :) Love that JMS... So my friend and I were talking the other day about Clarke, Asimov, Chalker, Heinlen, etc... Can anyone name a really good science-fiction author that was born, say, after 1960? I (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Well, if you can't provide me evidence that some supernatural phenomenon exists, then I must ask you how you conclude that the phenomenon exists. Some factor or factors must compel you to reject a natural explanation (or possibility of a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Evidence and proof are aspects of science. How can one use 'evidence' to show 'something outside of science'? How can one use 'proofs', which support scientific evidence, to 'prove' something unprovable? I agree that we must not stop pursuing (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Right. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke Or something like that. This argument of Dave K's strikes me as a variant of the Designer argument, at least in some ways. (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) That's the wrong way to ask the question, IMO. Or at the very least you're setting a task for science that isn't science's responsibility to answer. The more precise phrasing is this: Are there systems and components in nature that cannot be (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) The original poster wanted to know how we (our behavoir) could be more than the sum of our biological parts. I simply pointed out the relevance of such an issue in the context of systems engineering. That itself isn't magic, it is a well-known (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I see that as analogous to believing in an omnipotent God that has all the answers, and decides not to tell you them all just yet. (...) The operative word being "may". I don't happen to believe that everything is or will necessarily be (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) So the whole can be completely, thoroughly, logically, scientifically explained by the sum of the parts? As in there's no magic at all? If there are systems and components we don't understand scientifically today, there will be a time in the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) How are we that different? Do we possess any unique basic attributes that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, or do we simply possess a unique combination and degree of shared attributes? Animal research has suggested that we are (...) (20 years ago, 18-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
