Becoming Stars - Oneshot

[MangaDex]

 

[Oeconomist]

A date should have been avoided, as this story is science fantasy rather than science fiction, and a general population collapse is pending IRL.

 

[Maiorem]

That's no moon.

 

[Techno97]

That's no moon.

That is the dead star. Except it is a space graveyard. Without planet destroyer laser.

 

[Pokari]

A date should have been avoided, as this story is science fantasy rather than science fiction, and a general population collapse is pending IRL.

That seems slightly unfair. This feels like it's sincerely thinking about the consequences of there being too little space because of population growth, even if it's a bit whimsical and not especially scientific about the details.

And as for general population collapses: That is a possibility, but... hardly the only one. And you can't ever fault a sci-fi work for starting by assuming one out of many possible scenarios.

 

[Oeconomist]

That seems slightly unfair. This feels like it's sincerely thinking about the consequences of there being too little space because of population growth, even if it's a bit whimsical and not especially scientific about the details.

Attend to what I actually said:

A date should have been avoided

One could write about a world facing overpopulation without assigning a date, and thereby fix the problem to which I pointed.

And as for general population collapses: That is a possibility, but... hardly the only one.

Every scientifically plausible scenario about the next few decades involves a general population collapse. And, boy, will it be ugly.

 

[Pokari]

Every scientifically plausible scenario about the next few decades involves a general population collapse. And, boy, will it be ugly.

That's... no. Just no. That is simply not an existing scientific consensus. It's a popular theory (or set of theories), but there's been too many potential factors affecting it for a consensus to be reached.

 

[Oeconomist]

That's... no. Just no. That is simply not an existing scientific consensus. It's a popular theory (or set of theories), but there's been too many potential factors affecting it for a consensus to be reached.

Scientists — and, yes, I'm a scientist — don't confuse consensus with science. Which is why, in referring to science in my earlier comment, I made no appeal to “scientific consensus”.

 

[Pokari]

Scientists — and, yes, I'm a scientist — don't confuse consensus with science. Which is why, in referring to science in my earlier comment, I made no appeal to “scientific consensus”.

I am not confusing them. Any single person's declaration that something is scientifically plausible or implausible is either invoking broad scientific consensus, or else is reflecting the sole opinion of the speaker. "The sole opinion of the speaker" is, to be clear, a very important aspect in many steps of the scientific process! But...

We have peer review and journals and conferences and so on and so forth for a reason. Even with them, we have great difficulties overcoming the various biases and selective blindness that any particular individual has. If you think being a scientist excludes you from that and makes your own analyses unassailable, I feel like you've missed the entire point of all those efforts.

 

[Oeconomist]

Any single person's declaration that something is scientifically plausible or implausible is either invoking broad scientific consensus, or else is reflecting the sole opinion of the speaker.

You are flatly wrong. The plausibility of a structure of assumptions compatible with the empirical evidence is determined by its complexity. The plausibility of a single proposition is that of the most plausible structure in which it can participate.

Kepler's model of the solar system didn't become plausible because men with credentials embraced it; fortunately, men with credentials eventually embraced it because of its already established plausibility.

We have peer review and journals and conferences and so on and so forth for a reason.

Peer review in scientific journals does not test work for conformance to a consensus. Peer review in scientific journals has, for each paper, a tiny set of experts ostensibly pore over the evidence and argumentation looking for weaknesses.

Unlike you, I've had work pass peer review in respected journals of science and of philosophy, in the latter case, producing foundational work on the formal logic of plausibility.

I understand that you, as a non-scientist, aren't well positioned to do a lot more than to use consensus as a proxy for plausibility; but you shouldn't dive into debate about the plausibility of propositions where you've only got that rather poor proxy.

Even with them, we have great difficulties overcoming the various biases and selective blindness that any particular individual has.

And that problem is actively worsened when the bias of the individual is to the adoption of an orthodoxy, as when the opinions of many are mistaken as objective and unbiased simply for being wide-spread.

 

[Pokari]

Unlike you, I've had work pass peer review in respected journals of science and of philosophy, in the latter case, producing foundational work on the formal logic of plausibility.

I might gently suggest then that it is possible one potential problem with this discussion is that you're using a highly-specific and rigorous definition of "plausible" and may be having a small bit of difficulty removing to the vernacular.

(I might also suggest that it might be reasonable to end the discussion here if you happen to be finding this conversation frustrating in an unpleasant manner. An internet conversation arguing over, ultimately, the reasonableness of the premise of a sci-fi work is not really worth unpleasant feelings. Though if you're enjoying this—or at least engaged in some not-unhealthy manner—then all is well. I have—and have had to—calm down slightly, for my part, I think.)

 

[Oeconomist]

I might gently suggest then that it is possible one potential problem with this discussion is that you're using a highly-specific and rigorous definition of "plausible" and are having a small bit of difficulty removing to the vernacular.

As you were posting, I added a couple of paragraphs to my prior comment.

In any case, I am using “plausible” and coördinate terms as per their definitions in standard dictionaries; the problem isn't with my being unable to move to some vernacular unless you are writing idiosyncratically. Even if you are writing idiosyncratically, the underlying problem is that you are using a reported consensus of the positions of those institutionally credentialled as a proxy for more direct assessments of what the dictionary and I call “plausibility”.