Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I think What If's are vital questions in science, engineering (and ethics). Being able to sustain that fantastic universe for a decent time (long enough for things to follow) is important.

---

quote:

---

]Similarly in many social/economic/political areas being able to project a fantastic universe for a decent time has obvious individual benefits (though at others expense).

So I think that's two evolutionary pushes to towards story telling

---

quote:

---

The first thing is of course the presentation. This is of course imperfect (Lord of the rings has an elaborate back story for the text, Vanity Fair has familiar names). The narrators voice helps (does he know too much?), being 'realistic' helps (though of course reality is at it's most interesting when it apparently isn't).

*to avoid any issues with more modern cases

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The interesting thing, though, being that it all comes down to source of authority. All of us need to make that decision-- to choose what we will hold to be fact and what we will hold to be fantasy. And we do so based on our source of authority-- what we hold to be a reliable arbiter of truth.

---

quote:

---

And yet the decision that something-- whether it be the scientific method or a sacred book or a particular news source-- is authoritative is, itself, an act of faith.

If you press that reality too far, you end up with cynicism and nihilism-- which may have a sort of intellectual honesty, but it is also no way to live-- "psychologically intolerable" as someone (Wm James?) once said. So we are left with holding on to our sources of authority, but hopefully somewhat more tentatively, more humbly, than our past more naive selves might have done.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Are you asking what basis the Christian has for rejecting non-logical ideas - on the understanding that if one believes in a deity, one must also allow for the possibility of fairies?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think my arbiter has always been, Is this TRUE?' particularly when young and now I think I rely on what I have learnt and of course on the experience of a long life. But that arbiter of truth idea is an interesting point and I will make a note and see if or how much I apply that to stories I hear and read.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh honey. We can talk. I have been dancing on the edge of fantasy and fact all my life; I have just written a slew of books essentially revolving around this theme.

I marched last week at the March for Science, even though I am not a scientist. But I write science fiction, and we know and take our responsibility seriously. We imagine it. Then they build it. Before Robert Goddard there was H.G. Wells. We shine the light, into the future. When writer Robert Heinlein (one of the deans of the genre) died, they had a memorial service for him at NASA Greenbelt even though none of the rocket scientists there knew the man. But he was their father nonetheless; all of those guys went into science because they read Rocket Ship Galileo or Space Cadet.

Another way to look at it: the graphic novel writer Alan Moore said once that all war is a failure of the imagination. If you can't envision peace or a road to peace, then out come the swords. We think it and believe it and pray for it, and only then can it become real. All we are saying is give peace a chance.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Just remember that real Experts always start with the phrase 'I'm not an expert..' before they express an opinion. This shows that they realise how little they know about their chosen 'expert' subject.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But those who think of that sort of ‘what if’ situation are well aware that it is a fiction,aren’t they?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Where would we be without stories! I agree with you about their importance. Beowulf comes to mind, bonding people in the great hall, affirming courage and manly leadership. Batman is quite a similar tale.

---

quote:

---

We have several very popular stories right now. One is that we are bad people for damaging the once beautiful environment, and we will have to pay. Quite apart from the science of climate change (which I accept) this story shapes the way we approach this question, often in quite a doom-mongering manner.

Then there's the story about bad lifestyles. We're all going to die young because of salt, sugar, fat, lack of exercise, stress, alcohol, tablets, smoking, etc. It's a story about lack of self-control and over-indulgence. An individualist version of the first one.

---

quote:

---

There are stories about being taken over by the EU, global companies, cyber espionage, capitalism, cultural memes, conspiracies, etc. I suppose this is another group that are also monsters in the dark stories.

---

quote:

---

There are other stories. The ugly duckling is one I often mention. Death and resurrection, David and Goliath (= Independence Day), the Prodigal Son, The Hungry Caterpillar, Anne Franck, the little boy who put his finger in the leaking dyke, Pinocchio - these are all influential stories.

---

quote:

---

I think the interesting question comes when you recognise that whatever the facts about education, prisons, hospitals, armies, pollution, diet, etc. its the stories that direct our attention to this or that aspect of the issues connected with them. It's the stories that make us ask if we're poisoning the planet. Science can tell us the answer, but we only ask because of a sort of religious guilt, and we find it hard to take practical steps to address climate change because of the paralysing effect of guilt.

---

quote:

---

And the big stories that have all the traction tend to be dark and negative. Stories which show the weak collaborating to overcome monsters (Three Little Pigs is sort of about this), are less popular. No one celebrates the effect of hundreds of small scale actions, like foodbanks, vaccinations, charity grants, friendly conversations with neighbours.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think my arbiter has always been, Is this TRUE?' particularly when young and now I think I rely on what I have learnt and of course on the experience of a long life. But that arbiter of truth idea is an interesting point and I will make a note and see if or how much I apply that to stories I hear and read.

---

Of course I think most educated people want to make sure that they are only believing true things. The hard part is, how to tell? What do we accept, what do we reject, and what do we hold in abeyance? On what grounds?

---

quote:

---

Virtually everything we know is based on trust. I trust the scientists have done their experiments right, and the journals have done their peer review and due diligence. But I don't know that. I couldn't even check up on it, because I don't have the requisite background. So I take it on trust. And so on with everything I know that's not part of my immediate experience.

---

quote:

---

So the final question becomes, whom to trust? We are often betrayed by people we thought we could trust. Scientific findings turn out to have been faked. Nutrition information we relied on turns out to have been fabricated by one particular industry to sell more of their product. And so on.

---

quote:

---

It's truly a thorny question.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
For myself, on a straightforward basis, I would say that any story or information which included anything supernatural being assumed or stated as true would be fiction; however, on stories such as those about vaccines, I would refer to people with a proven track record of cutting through such false stories, people like Dr ben Goldacre for instance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Stories which show the weak collaborating to overcome monsters (Three Little Pigs is sort of about this), are less popular. No one celebrates the effect of hundreds of small scale actions, like foodbanks, vaccinations, charity grants, friendly conversations with neighbours.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrow:
The story that seems to come into my mind most frequently nowadays when I look at current affairs is "The Emperor's New Clothes".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems to me that there are different kinds of truth (as you perhaps indicate when alluding to Terry Pratchett) and one doesn't simply class those things written by Goldacre or some other "top journalist" as reliable fact whereas those things written by Dostoevsky or Jane Austen as fantasy.

---

Posted                          

I wouldn't say my thinking has done a great deal, but...

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
For myself, on a straightforward basis, I would say that any story or information which included anything supernatural being assumed or stated as true are basically fiction; however, on stories such as those about vaccines, I would refer to people with a proven track record of cutting through such false stories, people like Dr ben Goldacre for instance.

---

Well, OK, but this fails to really get to grips with the complexities of truth - which cuts across boundaries of fact vs fantasy.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that there are different kinds of truth (as you perhaps indicate when alluding to Terry Pratchett) and one doesn't simply class those things written by Goldacre or some other "top journalist" as reliable fact whereas those things written by Dostoevsky or Jane Austen as fantasy.

---

quote:

---

I think it is unlikely that we'd take Goldacre particularly seriously if he was talking about the complexities of forgiveness and guilt as discussed in Crime and Punishment. Equally, I don't think we should take Terry Pratchett particularly seriously if he wrote about the risks of consuming Raw Milk. But equally, it seems dismissive to reject Dostoevsky or even Pratchett as being mere fiction just because they reference deities.

---

quote:

---

Surely you've got better categories of truth than that, Susan.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What do you think are these 'cmplexities'? There are of course subjective truths, probably an infinite number of them and objective ones. The latter, as Science says, are never 100% proved, but enough so that the pedantic qualification that there must always be an element of doubt can remain dormant.
Unfortunately, I think you are right about there being so many complexities to truth! As soon as one tries to pin it down, one thinks, 'Ah, but what about...' However, the supposed truths that cause dissension and conflict need constant attention and countering.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
The present political climate makes me realise just how subjective truth can be. I read some opinions and wonder if I saw the same speach/rally/event as the person writing.

Are any truths absolute or are they all relative?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The interesting thing, though, being that it all comes down to source of authority. All of us need to make that decision-- to choose what we will hold to be fact and what we will hold to be fantasy. And we do so based on our source of authority-- what we hold to be a reliable arbiter of truth.

---

I think my arbiter has always been, Is this TRUE?' particularly when young and now I think I rely on what I have learnt and of course on the experience of a long life. But that arbiter of truth idea is aninteresting point and I will make a note and see if or how much I apply that to stories I hear and read.

quote:

---

And yet the decision that something-- whether it be the scientific method or a sacred book or a particular news source-- is authoritative is, itself, an act of faith.

If you press that reality too far, you end up with cynicism and nihilism-- which may have a sort of intellectual honesty, but it is also no way to live-- "psychologically intolerable" as someone (Wm James?) once said. So we are left with holding on to our sources of authority, but hopefully somewhat more tentatively, more humbly, than our past more naive selves might have done.

---

I'm not sure I would say it is an act of faith; if there is reliable and consistent objective evidence, I will rely on that, but keep a weather eye open just in case!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
The present political climate makes me realise just how subjective truth can be. I read some opinions and wonder if I saw the same speach/rally/event as the person writing.

Are any truths absolute or are they all relative?

I tend to be a very practical person and usually ask 'does it work?' If it does it will do for me.

That's why I find God annoying - she's far to elusive for my liking.

I agree about Terry Pratchett's books being full of truth. I love the way science doesn't exist on Discworld - all is magic and alchemy with little grumbling imps driving all 'machines'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is fairly obvious there are different kinds of truth. There is a scientific truth, there is a mathematical truth. But alongside those "pure" truths (even ignoring for the moment the philosophy of science about knowledge) there are many other kinds of truth.

---

quote:

---

Something can be entirely made up but be true - I'd consider much of Terry Pratchett to be true on various levels, albeit in the context of a fantastical world. There are things which are figuratively true. There are things which are emotionally true. There are things which are helpful ways to look at issues.

The binary division between "truth" and "false" is clearly not a helpful one in the real world, and simply cutting off things that reference deities as being "fictional" or "fantasy" seems like a very arbitrary way to avoid truths.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
the [boffins will go and figure out how it works, and then we'll all jump up and down with joy at the unutterable coolness of it all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, but almost all are open to challenge and known to be thus open. The scientific and mathematical truths are constantly being expanded and improved and most people would agree that such extended knowledge is a good thing. The philosophical truths are more subjective and could well be the cause of disagreement, but people who engage in controversy here are generally motivated by a desire for increased knowledge and a better understanding of truth; or perhaps a clearer distinction between objective and subjective truths; also what it is that makes humans think and behave the way they do.

---

quote:

---

I agree, but there is one exception to the 'mostly all' mentioned in first sentence. For me, it is as near totally true as it is possible to be \that all deities are invented by humans. That is, however, a bit like an elephant in the room here, so I’m ignoring itfor the moment.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I think that is an excellent source of authority-- but it is still, no matter how reasonable-- an act of faith to conclude that it is reliable and authoritative-- that the results are "true".[QB]

---

quote:

---

[QB]There are whole categories of people who, either implicitly or explicitly, would challenge that assumption-- fundamentalist believers of many religions, yes, but also nihilists of various sorts. They would point out that our choice to pick "science" as a source of authority is just as arbitrary as choosing a sacred text or the alignment of the planetary bodies.

---

quote:

---

The interesting thing, though, is how difficult it is for us to speak about sources of authority. Very quickly we end up saying something like what you just said, "I just ask what's TRUE" without stepping back to address why we think this body of evidence (science, text, whatever) points to truth. When we do that we start to sound like fundamentalists.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, but almost all are open to challenge and known to be thus open. The scientific and mathematical truths are constantly being expanded and improved and most people would agree that such extended knowledge is a good thing. The philosophical truths are more subjective and could well be the cause of disagreement, but people who engage in controversy here are generally motivated by a desire for increased knowledge and a better understanding of truth; or perhaps a clearer distinction between objective and subjective truths; also what it is that makes humans think and behave the way they do.

---

I think truth is subjective - it can't help but be, we experience "the truth" in different ways.

In my view, if you relegate philosophical truth to "not very good because they're not science" then you're missing out on a whole category of truth and useful stuff.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I agree, but there is one exception to the 'mostly all' mentioned in first sentence. For me, it is as near totally true as it is possible to be \that all deities are invented by humans. That is, however, a bit like an elephant in the room here, so I’m ignoring itfor the moment.

---

I think you are wrong - but even if you are right, I say that there might be useful things about believing in fake or false ideas.

---

quote:

---

Even if the deists are wrong and there is no god, then there might be useful and truthful things about believing that there is.

---

quote:

---

And that's the difference here: you've arbitarily decided that This Can't be True - because you can't touch it - And is Therefore Useless.

---

quote:

---

I'm saying truth is a much more complicated and slippery thing than that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I can see I have to back-track a bit here! I used the phrase ‘’philosophical truths’, but now I come to think of it, I am not sure I could define a philosophical truth. Google didn’t help! I suppose it is an idea which is generally taken to be true?!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think you are wrong - but even if you are right, I say that there might be useful things about believing in fake or false ideas.

---

Can you give an example? I can't think of one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

As long as your fiction works for you, who am I to challenge it. As long as my fiction works for me, who are you to challenge me?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
There are so many ways of telling the truth. In poetry, we are always told by our teachers to "show, don't tell" And I think it was Emily Dickson who wrote "tell the truth, but tell it slant."

Phillip Pullman (I hope I've spelt his name correctly) was being somewhat disingenuous, I think, with his loud caveat that

The Good Man Jesus and The Scoundrel Christ" was fiction, for goodness sake. I found it very unsatisfactory because of (a) its implausibility and (b) its lack of subtlety.

---

Yes, I agree about the Philip Pullman book, I thought it was very disappointing. I read it because he'd written it, but I don't think it worked.

When I was young, it was often said that whether one accepted the Bible stories or not, it was an important work of literature as so many of our words and phrases come from it. They were of course referring to the King James' version. I don't think I've heard that said for a long time. I would not, of course, say that the Bible should be treated as literal truth!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
I believe it was the psychologist, Alfred Adler that claimed we all have our own fictions by which we individually order our lives. The question is how effective we are operating with our fictions. An atheist may think a belief in a god is fantasy but for a Christian that belief has helped the believer to order his or her life. Most of the times people with that particular fiction have highly functional lives. Conversely, the psalmist calls those who say there is no god fools; yet there are many highly functional nonbelievers.

---

quote:

---

As long as your fiction works for you, who am I to challenge it. As long as my fiction works for me, who are you to challenge me?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
We all have narratives. That narrative can come from anywhere, including science, but it's still a narrative. Belief in one's own objectivity is the most insidious and dangerous narrative, because it's transparent to its subject. But it distorts that subject's picture of the world as much as any other.

---