
Tales of Science and Fiction - meanie
https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/tales-of-science-and-fiction/
======
hirundo
> Heinlein’s 1959 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, which owned a species of
> cult-status through the 1970s, can be read today only with vicarious
> embarrassment.

The reviewer dislikes this genre. OK. But it's like sending someone who hates
horror to review a history of horror movies. The review tends to say more
about the reviewer than the subject.

Assigning me to the review would be the opposite mistake. I just love
Heinlein's voice and read his old stuff from time to time to hear it again.
From me you'd get a hear-no-evil encomium.

I'd rather hear from a fan of hard sci fi that just hasn't had a chance to
read the old masters until lately.

~~~
doodliego
That's a serious mischaracterization, the author is clearly a fan of science
fiction, but he prefers (from what I gather from the review, at least) the
literary and metaphysical forms to the Campbell school. And it's a perfectly
valid take. I consider myself well read in science fiction and of the writers
of the 50s and 60s, I would rather read PK Dick or Jack Vance than Asimov's
akward prose or Heinlein's sexual hangups. Not that Heinlein doesn't have
great moments, for example one of the best time travel stories ever, but he's
hardly infallible or immune to criticism.

~~~
sdrothrock
> for example one of the best time travel stories ever

It's been a while for me, but do you mean By His Bootstraps or We're All
Zombies? The latter, for anyone curious, has nothing to do with zombies.

Those two always fight for the top position in my head, so I'm curious if one
of those is your top pick, or if you perhaps prefer another one. :)

------
h2odragon
"... the words science and scientific ought to be replaced by the more
accurate designators scientism and scientistic. Scientism is an ideology that,
in its fundamental epistemology, shrinks truth down to what can be
demonstrated by the experimental method. Scientism, which provides technocracy
with its basic tenets, invariably expresses itself as a materialistic outlook
that rejects everything connected with religion and the transcendental."

Then I suppose "science" is no longer about what can be proved, but what the
most number of people believe?

Also, "Nevala-Lee himself treats of that selfishness, banality, and prurience
rather indifferently, as though it neither shocked nor repelled him." I don't
think the book reviewer intended that as praise, but it surely sounds like a
positive aspect of a biography to me. I must be one of the evil technocrats.

~~~
crimsonalucard
"Then I suppose "science" is no longer about what can be proved, but what the
most number of people believe?"

You're talking about it as an observer outside of science looking in.
Interestingly though even within the framework of science this is true.
Nothing in science can be proven. Experimental methods establish correlations
not proof. If you get advanced you actually can technically establish
causation to a statistical degree but this is not a proof.

From the outside world looking in... The singular religious assumption you
have to make about the world to believe in science is you have to believe in
probability theory. You have to believe that the foundations of logic and the
axioms of probability apply to the real world in order to believe in science.
That is the most religious part of science.

------
ideonexus
I am a huge fan of Isaac Asimov, and I am seriously disappointed to learn that
he sexually molested women so brazenly. I couldn't believe it when I read the
article, but a quick google search produced primary documentation. Not only
was his butt-pinching well known among his peers, but was openly joked about
as a harmless quirk:

[https://the-orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2012/09/09/we-dont-do-t...](https://the-
orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2012/09/09/we-dont-do-that-anymore/)

I'll still cherish his writing, but, like many of my intellectual heroes, he
now gets an asterisk next to his name whenever I think about him.

------
dragonwriter
The author seems to have been confused; instead of a review of the work, he's
produced a (very low-quality) politico-moral rant—complete with the staples of
such rants from the Right of gratuitous and inaccurate references to moral
relativism (for not ranting like the author) and socialism (for elitist
totalitarianism, which may be a double misrepresentation because it's not
clear to me that there is any real basis for the accusation of elitist
totalitarianism, either) about the subjects of the work with a (brief) swipe
at the author (the aforementioned reference to moral relativism.)

------
SmileyRedBall
Stranger then Fiction, you couldn't make it up, no one would believe it:

“This tendency towards pseudoreligiosity surfaces most clearly in Campbell’s
relation with that mountebank and founder of exploitative cults, Hubbard”

L. Ron Hubbard had a talent for grifting people. Later on he joined Jack
Parsons magical order 'Ordo Templi Orientis'. At Parsons Pasadena mansion,
Hubbard and Parsons engaged in the occult task of raising a moonchild, before
Hubbard ran off with Parsons money, girlfriend and yacht. There's a
fictionalized version on 'CBS All Access' called "Strange Angel". Hubbard
turns up at the end of season 2.

