Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?

On 08/08/2024 12.54, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:42:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
 

As far as footnote 2 is concerned, Ray Bradbury has been quoted as saying
that _Singin' in the Rain_ "[...] is a true-blue old-school science fiction
film [...]". See:
<http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/s/singinintherain_se.shtml>

 So by that definition would Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder"
(which many say created the term "the butterfly effect") be considered
"Hard SF"?

If you are referring to my (elided) definition, I would say "no". Having the
technology to do something is different from the science behind it being
significant. Of course, my definition, like all definitions[1], has difficult
edge cases.

(I remember back in 2016 when someone called Bradbury prophetic for
anticipating Donald Trump in that story...)

Donald Trump was only six at the time that Bradbury wrote "A Sound of Thunder".
(I'm not saying that you are supporting that opinion.)
[1] Outside of mathematics, where (generally accepted) definitions are
crystal clear. 'cuz if they have any ambiguity, they either never get
accepted or get tossed out when the ambiguity is discovered.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.