DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Damn Thing, v. 1, issue 2, December 1940

Transcribe
Translate

Damn Thing, v. 1, issue 2, December 1940

Page 9

THE DAMN THING     PAGE 9.

THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED: that fandom concentrate its energies upon clearing away the barriers against scientific progres. Especially those placed in its path by the pernicious propaganda disseminated thru the medium of science-fiction pulps.

In further elucidation of these extremely simple propositions, let us add that there is no objections to science-fiction stories which portray science making a mistake, even though the error be catastrophic. After all, this is merely at attempt at realism. But we DO condemn the story in which science wilfully subjects the human race to horrible dangers, merely for the gratification of its "inhuman, emotionless search for knowledge." We decry the type of story which claims that there are certain fields in which science has no right, believing that the province of science is the entire universe, or such of it as can be reached. We likewise condemn the recent efforts to undermine the neutrality of this country by supporting in the name of science one side or another in the present conflict in Europe. We look upon the necessity for War as the epitome of scientific perversion, and regardless of the personal opinions which might be held by individual fans, we believe that fandom has no relation to them.

The question which we have put to the science fiction fan field, and which eventually we hope to put to the world at large is merely this: "Are you with science or against it. We are with it. How do you stand?
*Raymond Van Houten, Peter Duncan, Max Bart..

IT IS ONLY NATURAL TO REPLY. (Not as light farce, but a highly scientific, non-Aristotelian reply.)

We shall attack (such an ugly word) this bit of "logic" with the very means which Mr. Van Houten and Co. are so eloquent in their praise of, namely--science. We shall promptly demonstrate the superiority of scientific methods of reasoning, over academic methods, of which the pro-scientists make use of, as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's inhabitants: The scientific, or non-Aristotelian method of reasoning, which has been propounded by the Polish genius, Count Alfred Korzibski, and the English philologist C.H.Ogden; popularized by Stuart Chase, and used by a few of the heralds of the period of non-Aristotelian, non-Newtonian logic, which will eventually replace the so-called Academic system of debates and logic. One last word before continueing. Mr. Van Houten, in his Aristotelian refutation, breaks the first law of academic debate--he does not mention at all, or attempt to break down, the previous arguments of his opponents, but simply restates his platform and ridicules the previous contribution. 

The principles of non-Aristotelian reasoning, called Semantics, is to simply approach a problem from the physical facts at hand, or the physical (or scientific) results that can occure or which will effect the opperational results of a given problem. However, we converse, write, and think in a language not of relation to the physical world, but rather build upon numberless abstractions from the object from which the abstraction is derived, it is first necessary to define all the terminology and physical items which come under a general heading or noun which we use in our conversation or discussion. The group of human beings which have called themselves the "Pro-Scientists", which his a derivation of the Latin root meaning"for" or "in accordance with", and its somewhat vague application of the highly abstracted term of "Scientists," have failed to define their use of the world "SCIENCE" in a manner acceptable to the physical facts, or, for that matter, have not even given the word an academic definition. They simply use the oral-noise, leaving the mental-neuronic reaction to the individual's particular degree of abstraction. SCIENCE is a very broad abstraction, and it is in all cases very bad language to use the word for purposes of argument. They physical things from which the word is derived are a vast collection of observable data. from which the basic atomic structures of the surface of our globe has been molded into various forms in accordance with this data, by individuals, who cannot

Saving...

THE DAMN THING PAGE 9. THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED: that fandom concentrate its energies upon clearing away the barriers against scientific progres. Especially those placed in its path by the pernicious propaganda disseminated thru the medium of science-fiction pulps. In further elucidation of these extremely simple propositions, let us add that there is no objections to science-fiction stories which portray science making a mistake, even though the error be catastrophic. After all, this is merely at attempt at realism. But we DO condemn the story in which science wilfully subjects the human race to horrible dangers, merely for the gratification of its "inhuman, emotionless search for knowledge." We decry the type of story which claims that there are certain fields in which science has no right, believing that the province of science is the entire universe, or such of it as can be reached. We likewise condemn the recent efforts to undermine the neutrality of this country by supporting in the name of science one side or another in the present conflict in Europe. We look upon the necessity for War as the epitome of scientific perversion, and regardless of the personal opinions which might be held by individual fans, we believe that fandom has no relation to them. The question which we have put to the science fiction fan field, and which eventually we hope to put to the world at large is merely this: "Are you with science or against it. We are with it. How do you stand? *Raymond Van Houten, Peter Duncan, Max Bart.. IT IS ONLY NATURAL TO REPLY. (Not as light farce, but a highly scientific, non-Aristotelian reply.) We shall attack (such an ugly word) this bit of "logic" with the very means which Mr. Van Houten and Co. are so eloquent in their praise of, namely--science. We shall promptly demonstrate the superiority of scientific methods of reasoning, over academic methods, of which the pro-scientists make use of, as well as the vast, vast majority of the world's inhabitants: The scientific, or non-Aristotelian method of reasoning, which has been propounded by the Polish genius, Count Alfred Korzibski, and the English philologist C.H.Ogden; popularized by Stuart Chase, and used by a few of the heralds of the period of non-Aristotelian, non-Newtonian logic, which will eventually replace the so-called Academic system of debates and logic. One last word before continueing. Mr. Van Houten, in his Aristotelian refutation, breaks the first law of academic debate--he does not mention at all, or attempt to break down, the previous arguments of his opponents, but simply restates his platform and ridicules the previous contribution. The principles of non-Aristotelian reasoning, called Semantics, is to simply approach a problem from the physical facts at hand, or the physical (or scientific) results that can occure or which will effect the opperational results of a given problem. However, we converse, write, and think in a language not of relation to the physical world, but rather build upon numberless abstractions from the object from which the abstraction is derived, it is first necessary to define all the terminology and physical items which come under a general heading or noun which we use in our conversation or discussion. The group of human beings which have called themselves the "Pro-Scientists", which his a derivation of the Latin root meaning"for" or "in accordance with", and its somewhat vague application of the highly abstracted term of "Scientists," have failed to define their use of the world "SCIENCE" in a manner acceptable to the physical facts, or, for that matter, have not even given the word an academic definition. They simply use the oral-noise, leaving the mental-neuronic reaction to the individual's particular degree of abstraction. SCIENCE is a very broad abstraction, and it is in all cases very bad language to use the word for purposes of argument. They physical things from which the word is derived are a vast collection of observable data. from which the basic atomic structures of the surface of our globe has been molded into various forms in accordance with this data, by individuals, who cannot