Literature of Space & Exploration UHCL 2004 sample student research project

Fiction-Nonfiction journal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE 1

INTRODUCTION 2

LET’S PICK ON PYM AGAIN 3

LOWELL & BURROUGHS 4

SPECIALIZATION & SOPHISTICATION 6

ICE REVISITED 8

A LAST THOUGHT 9

CONCLUSION 11

Armageddon[i]

FADE IN :

Blackness. Then a hint of green becomes EARTH. It lies across an expanse of space. Richly colored. Fertile. A GIGANTIC ASTEROID cuts into frame, Burning into EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE and striking down in the current area of Guzumel, Mexico.

Voice : An impact equivalent to ten thousand nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously.

A HUGE DINOSAUR FOOT steps down hard and is VAPORIZED with a deafening ROAR.

Voice : One hundred trillion tons of dirt and rock hurled into the atmosphere.

EARTH, seen from space, is rocked with an IMMENSE SHOCKWAVE. A SHEET OF DEBRIS washes across the North and South Hemispheres.

Voice : A blanket of dust the sun is powerless to penetrate. For five thousand years our world is robbed of light as a nuclear winter falls. In that darkness, a civilization is removed from existence. EARTH is now completely entombed in a dark, cold hell.

Letters push towards us--

"A R M A G E D D O N"

Wall Street Journal[ii]

March 2, 2004

EXTRA: ASTEROID CLEARED IN DINOSAURS DEATH

The Wall Street Journal released this headline/article based on a scientific research study by a team of renowned scientists headed by Gerta Keller of Princeton University. An abstract of the article reads:

Since the early l990s the Chicxulub crater on Yucatan, Mexico, has been hailed as the smoking gun that proves the hypothesis that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs and caused the mass extinction of many other organisms at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary 65 million years ago. Here, we report evidence from a previously uninvestigated core, Yaxcopoil-1, drilled within the Chicxulub crater, indicating that this impact predated the K-T boundary by 300,000 years and thus did not cause the end-Cretaceous mass extinction as commonly believed. The evidence supporting a pre-K-T age was obtained from Yaxcopoil-1 based on five independent proxies, each with characteristic signals across the K-T transition: sedimentology,

biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, stable isotopes, and iridium. These data are consistent with earlier evidence for a late Maastrichtian age of the microtektite deposits in northeastern Mexico.

I suppose in some regards I am the least qualified person to address the subject of Science Fiction, especially as it relates to the Literature of Exploration. First, as an adult explorer, the furthest extent of my travels seems to be the distance my dog can walk before panting heavily. Secondly, what I know of science pales in comparison to work associates in the aerospace community. Thirdly, and most telling, is my deficiency in the discipline of Literature itself. Yet, something nags me concerning the term "science fiction." What differentiates science fiction from other forms of fiction? The default answer is of course, presumably, science.

The set of all written works is often partitioned into two classes: fiction and non-fiction. Although we may disagree which works belong within each grouping, there exists a consensus that the fiction group contains tales imagined or concocted by the author, though they may feature actual persons, places, events, and things, and the non-fiction group represents a truth claim or speculative actuality, though it may ponder fictitious persons, places, events, and things. Science, presumptively, resides within the sphere of non-fiction, whereas fiction is, by definition, fiction. Thus, despite the fact that the categories defined above both incorporate elements of its supposed opposite, the genre "science fiction" presents us with a thinly veiled oxymoron. In simplest terms, we could conceivably rename the genre "non-fiction fiction."

The careful reader might detect an equivocation between the word science and the concept of truth. To clarify, in the term "science fiction," science is commonly equated in its most elementary sense to mean truth, rather than the more literal translations "accumulation of knowledge" or "to know" as the Latin verb form scire[iii]. More abstractly, the word science is frequently understood as a true truth garnered from the empirical method over and against perceived less trustworthy concepts developed from traditional logic, which ironically operates on its patients with the same instruments albeit oftentimes inductively rather than deductively.

The fluidity of scientific knowledge fuels this contention. As affirmed in class, the rapid obsolescence of science hinders Sci-Fi’s development as an accepted genre. Yet if science is true, how can it become obsolete? Deleting non-obsolescent science from fiction, all self-evident truths (2+2=4), hard technology (how a steam engine or rocket trajectory), laws of nature on a macro-universal scale (gravity, electromagnetism, and assuming the stasis of Newtonian physics from our shared experience regardless of a future unifying principle), and the like leaves us with a wealth of remaining works to consider. Many of the works offered this semester exhibit this tendency.

The scratching post of the semester, Edgar Allen Poe’s Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym, nosed out its nemesis A Princess of Mars for the least respected tome of the term. With Pym, Poe attempted to capitalize on a current wave of public interest in polar exploration and science. Though not science fiction, the science element included in Pym is intended to lend credibility to and enhance believability in the narrative. Thus, a recurring theme emerges: many readers perceive science as true.

Were Pym’s true believers edified? Concerning some of the harder facts, they were educated about stowage and sea turtles. But where 1830’s science lacked, Pym falls short. The book discloses a secret civilization living on the 84^th parallel. The following Mercator projection map ceases both North and South at the 84^th parallel:

As can be plainly seen, the 84^th parallel south includes portions of Antarctica, clearly uninhabited in the 1830’s. This civilization is a Poe fantasy, not based on any science that I am aware of; however, the point made here is that imagination labeled fiction is recognized as such, imagination labeled science can be construed, if only for a while, as true.

The astronomer Percival Lowell obsessed over Mars daily through his homemade, though near state-of-the-art telescope. Lowell produced a prolific journal of his Martian studies[iv], detailing landscapes, canals, and cities. From his observations, he produced a virtual Martian current events history, even claiming the Martians were a dying race in a battle for survival. Lowell’s science enjoyed widespread acceptance from the public and had steadfast supporters and detractors within the scientific community.

Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote concurrently during the reign of Lowellian Mars. Hence, A Princess of Mars bears striking resemblance to the world envisioned by Percival Lowell. Burroughs’s Mars catalogues a dying race struggling for existence on a dying planet, complete with the canal and city system thoroughly documented by Lowell.

Predictably, the fluidity of scientific thought is captured in time by Burroughs. At present, Burroughs’s Mars seems fanciful to the modern reader, yet in its historical context, the stories were believed true by many readers. For example, two of the later books in Burroughs’s Mars series Swords of Mars (1936) and Synthetic Men of Mars (1940) are bookends to Orson Welles’ famous War of the World hoax (1938) that witnessed millions believing there was an actual invasion of New Jersey by Martians.

In the final analysis, the science of Lowell was fully discredited along with the science fiction of Burroughs. We may write this phenomenon off as a byproduct of earlier speculative science, but a similar scenario is taking place today. A brief example will suffice:

NASA reports potential life within an Antarctic meteor supposedly from Mars. The life sciences department is split on the issue, but the media runs with the story and a large portion of the public has accepted the notion as scientific fact. Further testing has proven inconclusive. There is now serious doubt concerning the samples and the conclusions reached. Not to be discouraged, scientific thought is now trending toward certain moons of Jupiter as likely cradles of life, with life existing at the bottom of ice covered oceans. Look for this theory to show up in the movies soon.

Thus, as odd as Burroughs’s Mars seems to us today, I wager we will seem as odd to readers 100 years from now.

After criticizing the 19^th century 100-pound scientific weakling, it may be time to approach someone our own size. The science seeded in the 1800’s bloomed into a garden of scientific endeavor in the twentieth century. Science became fragmented as the sophistication and knowledge levels increase at a rate that prohibited professional scientists from specializing in several fields. This increase in knowledge accrued equally within all branches…the biologist was dependent on the physicist, the physicist was dependent on the psychologist, and so on.

In addition, Science replaced Philosophy as the discipline which guides all higher learning. Nowhere is this truer than in the public eye. If a philosopher claims it, a truth claim is generally relegated to opinion status. If a scientist claims it, a truth claim is generally viewed as empirical. Again, this theme is evident within The Sparrow.

The Sparrow somewhat pits scientific knowledge against theological and philosophical knowledge. Mary Doria Russell hints at this conflict in her question and answer appendix:

A) That you can’t know the answer to the question of faith but that the questions are worth asking and thinking about deeply.

Implicit in the answer is the converse corollary; one may know the answer to the question of science.

Running parallel with the pervasive theological themes throughout the Sparrow is some good old-fashioned science hatched in the 19^th century. Russell describes the sociological relationship of the Runa and Jana’ata in terms of Darwinian evolution. Her scientists observing the culture craft the tale to explain the quasi-symbiotic lifestyle that exists between the two species. My contention is this: the average reader accepts the validity of this formula without question because science has told us evolution is true, and scientists are observing the races of Rakhat.

Meanwhile, the characters struggle with theological questions that have existed from the dawn of time, presumably non-answerable according to Russell. Yet a subtle contradiction exists, buried beneath the intent of the text-at best it is a felicitous inconsistency. The two theological issues at hand are the problem of evil and the providence of God. If we accept the evolutionary model Russell proposes, we receive a check.

If indeed the races have evolved together, how may an observer, even a scientist, believe the system is evil? Sofia intuitively realizes that handing over children to be served at the table is wrong, as in an absolute wrong or evil, not a societal taboo. Thus, she feels morally justified in fomenting the Runa to act. Thus, with her actions she belies her belief in survival of the fittest and sides with natural law. It may be objected that her actions will determine which group is actually the “fittest,’ which it may indeed do, but Sofia at this point has made a moral judgment which cannot find any philosophical basis in an non-theistic evolutionary system.

Hence, the novel has a contradiction at its core. Ironically, I assert that it is a contradiction that only answers to the question of faith can solve.

Apsley Cherry-Garrard recounts The Worst Trip in the World, a testimony to the power of asseverated science and the overwhelmingly convincing Zeitgeist it creates. Since science must be true, Ernst Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation theories lure men out across a frozen continent in search of emperor penguin eggs that will once and for all prove the theory as fact.

Unbeknownst to Cherry-Garrard, Haeckel altered the embryological photographs upon which his theories were founded. The Book of Modern Knowledge affirms the falsity of Haeckel’s claims, which interestingly enough were used as a scientific foundation for Roe V. Wade:

The notion embodied in the familiar phrase that in the development an animal 'climbs up its own family tree'--i.e., that the development of an individual animal recapitulates its ancestry. In this naive form recapitulation theory is associated with the name of Ernst Haeckel and is totally discredited.[v]

Reading Cherry-Garrard’s struggle in light of Haeckel’s deceit changes the reader’s experience of the account. Here are brave men striking out into the forbidden zone, inheriting the wind…the science in which they placed their faith was incorrect.

It would appear that science will continue to dominate the realm of thought for quite some time. This is not a bad thing necessarily-science creates many things that improve the quality of life: medicine and air-conditioning, for example. But this essay considers the entrenchment of science in the philosophical realm. Its stranglehold is evident in the response to Gerta Keller’s report on the dinosaur/asteroid theory, which is almost universally accepted in the public mind as fact. An inquirer asked why the media had not promoted the story. The response is interesting:

This is a story that I suspect will not be covered extensively by the savvy science press because it's not real news. One reason is that the PNAS paper by Keller on which the story is based doesn't seem to add much to what Keller has said already elsewhere [which also was not covered extensively!]. A second is the old line to the effect of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's hard to explain why the biggest impact known in the past half-billion years would just happen to fall at the time of one of the biggest extinctions of that same interval if the one didn't have something to do with the other.

•The science media knows what to feed the public because they know which science is true and which is false.

•”extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” seems to only apply to theories the media does not want to promote. That the Chicxulub asteroid caused the dinosaur’s extinction is extraordinary, but in light of Gerta Keller’s report may not be substantiated by extraordinary evidence.

•Most importantly, when scientific data does not support pet theories or worldviews, testable science no longer carries the same weight as coincidence.

Mr. Hecht’s response is reproduced here because it illustrates the point of this essay, namely that scientific thought is fluid. Much of the science in science fiction is held to as an article of faith. Gerta Keller and a team of worldwide and respected scholars measured cores-Mr. Hecht claimed a coincidence proves causality. Surely he has presupposed that the Chicxulub asteroid theory is true.

At any rate, the response shows the belief in myth that frequently arises within the scientific community. This myth is regularly transferred on to science fiction as witnessed in the course Literature, whether consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, in no small way is an eteleological myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh much different from Red Planet, which attempts to explain life on earth through a process of spermatogenesis.

Does the inclusion of speculative science into science fiction diminish the genre’s viability as a genuine work of Literature? Certainly not, in fact, it is one of its strengths. The speculative philosophy and science inherent within science fiction is both entertaining and thought provoking. The intent of this essay is to remind us simply that science fiction is not, by definition, “non-fiction fiction.”

Gerta Keller * , Thierry Adatte , Wolfgang Stinnesbeck , Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra, Jaime Urrutia Fucugauchi ||, Utz Kramar ** and Doris Stüben **

*Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540; Institute of

Geology, University of Neuchatel, 2007 Neuchatel, Switzerland; Geological Institute and **Institute for Mineralogy and Geochemistry, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany; Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l'Environnement, Unité Mixte de Recherche Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique-Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Bât 12, Avenue de la Terrasse, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France; and ||Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico City, CP 04510, Mexico

Communicated by W. Jason Morgan, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, January 20, 2004 (received for review October 3, 2003)

Bullock, Alan & Stallybrass, Oliver, editors. The Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought. Harper & Row, New York, NY: 1977.