Does science fiction help kids learn to like science?

[Cathy]

Dann,

You wrote:

...their own escapism is justified with hypocritical references to the (imaginary) usefulness of science fiction...

I am unashamed to admit that reading most fiction, including science fiction, is to some extent escapist. But escapism itself can be useful, and I think that all forms of literature, certainly science fiction, can be "useful." I know I've learned a lot from reading SF, and in my case, at least, interest in SF led to interest in science.

 

[dann]

Where did the question of shame suddenly come from? Isn't it amazing that this day and age scifi readers still become defensive when they are confronted with the reality of science fiction and its fans? (See also GreyICE's peculiar reaction to a couple of quotations from scifi fans: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3995965#post3995965)
Why do you feel the need to state that escapism may be useful?
And what is the point of stating that other kinds of literature may be "useful" too? (And why the quotation marks?)

Why do so many readers of science fiction appear to be hell bent on justifying the literature they enjoy?

And why do so many readers of science fiction tend to deny what other fans appear to learn from the genre?

”We watch a lot of Star Trek, a lot of Star Wars, it's just, to us, it's just like going on a holodeck. We've been training on a holodeck . . . [and] now it's time to stop. The game's over. It's time to put into practice what we've learned.” (Students of Heaven's Gate Expressing Their Thoughts before Exit, March 21, 1997).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/robinson.html

 

[dann]

Another scifi reader:
”Although McVeigh performed well on standardized tests in high school, school and its social life had considerably less appeal for him than his world of guns, fringe movements, and science fiction books.” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighaccount.html

”Science fiction challenged Tim to penetrate beyond the everyday conventions of life, to think his own thoughts and question the world around him.” http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=255664979

McVeigh was probably directly inspired by one particular sf novel, The Turner Diaries.

 

[GreyICE]

Where did the question of shame suddenly come from? Isn't it amazing that this day and age scifi readers still become defensive when they are confronted with the reality of science fiction and its fans? (See also GreyICE's peculiar reaction to a couple of quotations from scifi fans: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3995965#post3995965)
Why do you feel the need to state that escapism may be useful?
And what is the point of stating that other kinds of literature may be "useful" too? (And why the quotation marks?)

Why do so many readers of science fiction appear to be hell bent on justifying the literature they enjoy?

And why do so many readers of science fiction tend to deny what other fans appear to learn from the genre?

”We watch a lot of Star Trek, a lot of Star Wars, it's just, to us, it's just like going on a holodeck. We've been training on a holodeck . . . [and] now it's time to stop. The game's over. It's time to put into practice what we've learned.” (Students of Heaven's Gate Expressing Their Thoughts before Exit, March 21, 1997).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/robinson.html

My peculiar reaction? Don't preach to skeptics often, do you?

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, because it can be cherry picked to say whatever you want. Anecdotal evidence exists that Harry Potter is harmful, that Christianity kills, that Atheism causes suicidal tendencies, etc.

If you come in and start spewing anecdotes about, prepare to get laughed at.

Now put up or shut up - what point are you making here? Try making one, and we can discuss it.

 

[kylaBC]

Speaking as a high school student, I can see where much of the animosity towards science classes comes from. In my school, science is taught independent of any other subject (except math), and usually does not cross disciplines. I have just started my senior year, and am currently enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) Environmental Science. My teacher assured us that Environmental Science crossed the disciplinary lines of science, and touched upon both natural and social sciences. So far, I've seen this to be true, but this is the first science class I have taken where that is so.

Last year, I took Honors Chemistry, and found it to be not only difficult, but disconnected with any of the other sciences. The year was spent learning only about the basic elements and the bonds between certain atoms and molecules. We touched on other subjects, but all were based within the chemistry discipline.

I myself am not a fan of chemistry, which is why I found the class to be difficult (and almost didn't pass). I think the problem with young people not liking science is the stigma attached to it by the media and our society. Yes, we are making scientific and technological advances, but why should that impact students, unless the newest ipod is coming out or they found the cure for acne? Sure, there are the few that stay up to date with the science world, the ones who care about new medicines and the particle accelerator being built, but what high school student is concerned with anything beyond their own social life?

The problem is the way in which science is taught, with no connection to the world around us; just formulas and numbers shoved down our throats and things to memorize before the final.

However, were a student to be introduced to science fiction, I think that the science within the story would appeal to them (were it a well written story), but they would have a hard time seeing the application of high school chemistry or biology to the warp-speed generator of Star Trek, just because of the way they were taught.

 

[dann]

I already mentioned GreyICE's peculiar reaction so this is no surprise.
'Anecdotal evidence' of WHAT, GreyIce? You do know what a quotation is, don't you?
Unlike you, I guess, I try not to preach, be that to woos or skeptics.
However, I've already noticed that (pseudo) skeptics react as illogically as the former whenever doubts are raised about their favourite myths.
Time to grow up, GreyICE?
So far I haven't "spewed" any "anecdotes about", but in your holy crusade you probably haven't even noticed that fact.
So why don't you shut up yourself unless you have an actual point to make?
Why don't you try to put into practice what you've learned from or about science fiction instead of doubting the lessons that other scifi readers say that it gave them?
"Speaking of Science Fiction I think certain people could benefit from a little more critical thinking and a little less 'I support my own worldview.'"

 

[dann]

PS Go back and read your knee-jerk reaction to my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3995710#post3995710 (#12 & 13)

 

[GreyICE]

I already mentioned GreyICE's peculiar reaction so this is no surprise.
'Anecdotal evidence' of WHAT, GreyIce? You do know what a quotation is, don't you?
Unlike you, I guess, I try not to preach, be that to woos or skeptics.
However, I've already noticed that (pseudo) skeptics react as illogically as the former whenever doubts are raised about their favourite myths.
Time to grow up, GreyICE?
So far I haven't "spewed" any "anecdotes about", but in your holy crusade you probably haven't even noticed that fact.
So why don't you shut up yourself unless you have an actual point to make?
Why don't you try to put into practice what you've learned from or about science fiction instead of doubting the lessons that other scifi readers say that it gave them?
"Speaking of Science Fiction I think certain people could benefit from a little more critical thinking and a little less 'I support my own worldview.'"

Okay, so we're just posting unrelated anecdotes. I got it.

Ooh, I've got one about the value of a Christian upbringing!

He came from a solid, loving home with encouraging Support , a moral upbringing and Christian teaching from the time he could walk. He was an obedient child, a dedicated student, and a team player on the Oak Harbor High School football team.

http://www.karisable.com/skazyates.htm


Here's another fine upstanding citizen.

He was also a member of Christ Lutheran Church, a Lutheran congregation of about 200 people, near his former high school. He had been a member for about 30 years and had been elected president[7] of the Congregation Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader

 

[Cathy]

Dann,

Hey, I didn't mean to make you feel attacked! I am reading some of the links you sent to me (haven't gotten to them all yet), and I've found them and your first post very interesting! I've been appreciating your contributions to the discussion I thought we were having.

I wanted to ask you, in the way that people do, in a discussion, more about some of these ideas.

You asked me where the question of shame came up. I guess I brought it up; I used the word in an attempt to simply say that escapism is okay. I thought your point that some readers might "accuse" others of escapism in their choice of reading matter, while enjoying escapism in their own chosen books, themselves, is a good one, and I just wanted to make it clear that I embrace the idea that reading can be good, clean escapist fun.

Now that you have posted further, I gather that you agree that escapism is fine, but you are against the hypocrisy of accusing others of mere escapism in fantasy, rather than reading the oh-so-important and educational science fiction...right?

If I have understood you, then I agree: hypocrisy stinks. Putting on airs and sticking one's nose in the air, thinking one's own taste is the definition of art, and all else is lesser scribblings -- well, that kind of thinking sucks.

I have no real interest in reading a million books about dragon worlds or vampires, and I have a real horror about reading horror, but that's not to say that dragons and vampires and horror are beneath me, or that my beloved Asimov/Clarke/Brin/Card/Gould are somehow better. It's just a matter of personal taste.

The quote I took from your post read as follows:

their own escapism is justified with hypocritical references to the (imaginary) usefulness of science fiction

I was wondering if you were saying that science fiction wasn't useful. My new reading of your words would point to the concept that this was not necessarily what you were saying. However, in addressing a point I thought you had made, and in erecting a mild defense for the usefulness of science fiction, I put the word "useful" in quotes merely to acknowledge that I was using a word from your post. No attack meant toward you, and no need to counterattack.

I don't know much about the world of sci fi fans, cons, or fanzines -- although I'm learning, thanks to the first link you sent -- and I don't know much about sci fi TV shows and movies, either. I do not pretend to be an expert in science fiction, in other words (although "I know what I like" ).

But when you use Heaven's Gate and McVeigh as examples of what people can learn from the genre, all I can think is:

Yi-i-ikes! I'm just a tutor/teacher struggling with teens who give a pass to science fiction because it has the dreaded word science in the genre title...

 

[uruk]

My peculiar reaction? Don't preach to skeptics often, do you?

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, because it can be cherry picked to say whatever you want. Anecdotal evidence exists that Harry Potter is harmful, that Christianity kills, that Atheism causes suicidal tendencies, etc.

If you come in and start spewing anecdotes about, prepare to get laughed at.

Now put up or shut up - what point are you making here? Try making one, and we can discuss it.

When does scientist after scientist and engineer after engineer relating that science fiction spurned thier interest into thier field stop being anecdotal and becomes statistics?

 

[uruk]

Dann,
Yi-i-ikes! I'm just a tutor/teacher struggling with teens who give a pass to science fiction because it has the dreaded word science in the genre title...

That is untill you tell them movies like Transformers, The Matrix, Wall-E, Iron Man are science fiction. Maybe not good science fiction but..

There are philosophy teachers who use The Matrix in thier classes. And another college proffessor who uses Futurama to teach math. There are alot of science and math in-jokes in Futurama.
Some of the writers and producers for Futurama and the Simpson have physics degrees.

Go figgure

I teach computer maintenance at a community college and refer to science fiction alot to inspire (or at least keep awake) my students.

 

[Cathy]

Uruk,

That is untill you tell them movies like Transformers, The Matrix, Wall-E, Iron Man are science fiction. Maybe not good science fiction but..

Good point!

Now, if only I watched more movies. I should get on that!

 

[Cuddles]

4. "It is intrinsically or by definition impossible for SF to acknowledge any metaphysical agency, in the literal sense of an agency going beyond physis (nature). Whenever it does so" (!!) "it is not SF, but a metaphysical or (to translate the Greek into Latin) a supernatural fantasy-tale." (...) "Thus science is the encompassing horizon of SF, its 'initiating and dynamizing motivation'" (Darko Suvin)

I think this quote highlights an important point with the generally accepted idea of what sci-fi is. I would say that most people not only disagree with Darko Suvin, but that almost the exact opposite is true. No matter what supernatural things a story contains, no matter what issues it deals with or what it is about, if there is anything vaguely sciency in it, it is classed as science fiction. This means that it is pretty much impossible to talk about science fiction in general, because it actually includes pretty much every other genre there is. Love stories, crime dramas, thrillers, horror, period drama, you name it, there are sci-fi stories about it.

For example, Isaac Asimov. Most people would class pretty much all his books as sci-fi. Even the collection of stories called "Magic", about a demon who does magic. And what about the robot books? Sure, some are very much sci-fi, but why are the detective books not called detective books? Just because a couple of the characters happen to be robots. Or take the Reality Dysfunction trilogy (sorry, can't remember the author or the actual name of the trilogy). The entire point of this is that there is an afterlife and the souls of the dead are coming back to posses people. Yet because it also contains a few spaceships and aliens, it's called sci-fi and not religion or horror.

There's not just a difference between good sci-fi and bad sci-fi, there's a difference between sci-fi that's about the science, sci-fi that just uses it as a plot device and sci-fi that's actually a different genre that just happens to contain some science. Any discussion of sci-fi and its influence on people is doomed (Dooooooomed!) since pretty much no-one agrees on what sci-fi is, or what is sci-fi. What one person sees as a love story with a few spaceships in the background, another sees as spaceships with a few characters in the background, and another sees as a load of badly written garbage. How does this influence people's opinion of science? Depends entirely on how they view the story.

5. "Time travel is accepted as a perfectly valid basis for a story, as is the idea of travelling faster than the speed of light through some mysterious "hyperspace". Those ideas are not possible according to what is known - in fact, they seem clearly impossible. But they were justified very carefully in early stories in the field. Now they are merely conventional devices, accepted as means to facilitate the development of a story." (Lester del Rey)

I think this kind of emphaises my point. By looking at a small subset of sci-fi and ignoring all the rest, Lester del Rey is not actually discussing science fiction. Sure, there are some stories where such things really are just a plot device to get from one place to another. However, there are also stories where the whole point is to explore the consequences of such technology and the effects it might have on people, or even to speculate about real physical posibilities. Of course, that's before pointing out that his whole argument fails since neither time travel or faster than light travel are thought to be impossible, they are both unavoidable consequences of general relativity.

In fact, I think a large part of the influence of sci-fi comes from inspiring people to think about things that are thought impossible, or at least impractical. Disparaging speculation about possibilities, no matter how remote, is hardly going to help encourage people to involve themselves in real science.

 

[GreyICE]

When does scientist after scientist and engineer after engineer relating that science fiction spurned thier interest into thier field stop being anecdotal and becomes statistics?

Easy. When it becomes a study. NEVER before then.

Observe: Every gay and lesbian person I've talked to is out of the closet. Ergo, there are no gay and lesbians in the closet.


The plural of anecdote is not data. I can link to Christian serial killers until we conclude Christianity causes serial murder. Or I can link to atheist suicides until we all agree atheism makes you suicidal. Or we all can avoid anecdotes like they're the black plague.

 

[Gurdur]

....

If you have any point to make about science fiction itself, the topic, make it. Otherwise you're just being exceedingly boring.

 

[Cathy]

Cuddles said that science fiction...

,,,actually includes pretty much every other genre there is. Love stories, crime dramas, thrillers, horror, period drama

I was asked to do a 2-hour book talk to some kids ages 10 to 14, and when I first introduced the idea that we were going to talk about science fiction, most of the kids looked pretty unenthused. But I started talking about just this point--that there are all sorts of different kinds of science fiction--and I asked the kids what they liked to read. To each response, I'd fish around in a pile of books and then say, "Well, here's a good choice for you, then!" I talked a bit about each book I recommended, and the kids did seem a LOT more interested as we went along. Several girls seemed amazed that there were romances in the SF section, and kids who proclaimed their specialty as adventure, "funny stuff," and battles were variously excited by the Tripods trilogy, Bruce Colville books, and Ender's Game.

I kind of like the label "speculative fiction." It nicely differentiates between contemporary fiction -- set in the here-and-now, with no magical powers nor future inventions -- and realistic historical fiction, on the one hand, and all the literature that spins away from our current reality. For me, the "what if?" question implicit in the label "speculative fiction" also indicates that the literature is speculating about things that are possible (although some would say that the question "What if there was magic in the world?" comes to mind as readily as any other "what if?" question).

 

[dann]

Or we all can avoid anecdotes like they're the black plague.

I'm already ignoring yours!

 

[dann]

I was wondering if you were saying that science fiction wasn't useful. My new reading of your words would point to the concept that this was not necessarily what you were saying. However, in addressing a point I thought you had made, and in erecting a mild defense for the usefulness of science fiction, I put the word "useful" in quotes merely to acknowledge that I was using a word from your post. No attack meant toward you, and no need to counterattack.

Feel free to attack me, Cathy! I'm not a delicate flower, I can take it. And please don't feel offended if I criticize an argument of yours. (And even if you do feel offended: That never really hurt anybody seriously unless they were very vain. And, anyway, you are anonymous in this forum ...)
In my thesis I mentioned several kinds of usefulness that science fiction or its advocates claim, and the funny thing is that they often contradict each other: Some people claim that SF increases your adaptability, enabling you to adapt to a changing world. Others claim that the genre makes you subversive ...
Almost nobody simply accepts that the genre in general is escapist, and speaking of escapism: No, I don't think that escapism is a good thing! If you look at the fan quotations in my post above, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3995710#post3995710, I think that it becomes apparent that these people feel uncomfortable in the world as it is (so do I!), and I don’t consider an attempt to escape from this world, be it in the form of suicide, drugs, religion or escapist literature, a real solution to the problem:
“The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” (See my sig line!)
You need to find out what is wrong with either the world or yourself and then try to bring about the change that solves the problem.

I don't know much about the world of sci fi fans, cons, or fanzines -- although I'm learning, thanks to the first link you sent -- and I don't know much about sci fi TV shows and movies, either. I do not pretend to be an expert in science fiction, in other words (although "I know what I like" ).

But when you use Heaven's Gate and McVeigh as examples of what people can learn from the genre, all I can think is:

Yi-i-ikes! I'm just a tutor/teacher struggling with teens who give a pass to science fiction because it has the dreaded word science in the genre title...

I can see why a reference to Heaven’s Gate and Timothy McVeigh (and I didn’t even bring up Scientology yet!) won’t help you persuade many students to read the genre, but I also don’t have the problem that I have to persuade anybody to do so. My own students are far too eager to read it, sometimes!
I am an expert, I’ve read thousands of sf books, and I even edited an anthology of science-fiction short stories for the Danish gymnasium, Fra Frankenstein til Cyberpunk – science fiction fra romantik til post-modernisme:
http://www.saxo.com/dk/item/fra-fra...fra-romantik-til-post-modernisme-haeftet.aspx
http://www.williamdam.dk/diverse/fr...a_romantik_til_postmodernisme_1212710_da.html
(The texts are all in English, and I can send you a copy!)
I really did not like a couple of the texts (in particular The Cold Equations!), but I found them very useful for raising the awareness of students about how fiction in general and science fiction in particular may captivate its readers and make them accept ideas that they would probably (hopefully!) never accept in the ‘real world’.

However, another text in the anthology, John Varley’s The Manhattan Phone Book (Abridged), actually criticizes its own audience, science-fiction readers, and in particular readers of after-the-bomb stories, but it also offends against the genre in so many ways.
A very entertaining way of learning about fandom in science fiction: Trekkies 1 & 2http://www.amazon.com/Trekkies-2-De...rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=413864101&pf_rd_i=B0002I83SGhttp://www.amazon.com/Trekkies-2-De...rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=413864101&pf_rd_i=B0002I83SG, but if you are trying to convert your students to SF fandom, you probably won't find them useful!

 

[GreyICE]

I'm already ignoring yours!

And yet somehow you think yours are more useful.

Hey, whatever suits your bias. Just know you're using crappy evidence to support your bias.

 

[GreyICE]

If you have any point to make about science fiction itself, the topic, make it. Otherwise you're just being exceedingly boring.

I defer to the wisdom of the expert on boring posts. I will return to the topic, which apparently is anecdotes about the Heaven's Gate cult.