Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, v. 1, issue 5, June-July 1946
Page 18
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
was carried on, I'm in no position to comment either on their ability to interpret or Fran's ability to comprehend Technocracy's charts, though I might add that they are used in conjunction with Technocracy's Study Course and are more readily understood therewith. However, I extend Fran an invitation to visit any Section Headquarters with me and I'll guarantee he'll leave with a clear picture of the information presented on any of the charts. Such graphs are more or less self-explanatory anyhow. In his last statement Fran is indulging in sheer opinion, to which everyone is entitled, but, inasmuch as he can have met an extremely minute portion of the membership, he's in no position to pass judgment. Let's quick kidding ourselves and realize that we on this continent have a rendezvous with destiny in the very near future and only by intelligent and unified action will we find a happy landing in the New America. -- Russ Hodgkins, 774 Caliburn Drive, Los Angeles 2, California. (On Forming a Conclusion) The cover is distinctly the best yet -- the illustration of Saturn with the mag's title worked into the rings. Your editorial was tops. I agree 100% with the spirit of it; however I disagree somewhat with one point: the last two sentences. Way too dogmatic! _Do_ we know exactly what _could_ and _must_ be? Wow! It takes much more science than we now have to predict things like that. There are two ways of forming a conclusion. One is to assemble enough data to furnish the basis of a theory. Work out the theory completely and test it by applying it to reality. If it works, assume that it is helpful and use it to make predictions. Change the theory whenever incompatible facts appear. With such a workable theory form your conclusions. This first method is the method of science. It has never been applied to social problems. And there are many reasons why it has not; primarily because no one sufficiently capable of using this method has ever tried to assemble sufficient data. Another way is to assemble all the data possible and even though it is insufficient to form a real theory you can collect more data than anyone else in the world. You will become an expert in the field. Then you are entitled to form an _opinion_ about the field, but not until then. This opinion does not hold as much weight as a real theory, but in some fields it is all we have. In view of all this I doubt whether many fans can _know_ what worlds _could_ or _must_ be. -- Don Bratton, 5650½ Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles 28, California. (More Comments on Classics) I did not think the April issue as good as the rest, perhaps due to the absence of IDEA CORNER. Ratings: 1. AMONG THE CLASSICS. I look at these as man looks at the moon -- I wish I had them. Man will probably get to the moon first. (In both cases the difficulty is partly economic.) 2. Book Review. Let's have lots of these, particularly the Buffalo Book Co's items. 3. POINT OF VIEW. Idea for an article that might fit in here: How about a comprehensive article on pseudonyms and the various styles authors have tried to associate with each? 4. Letters. List the rest in any order you like. URBANATE was rather too long. Some of the Technocrats' technical ideas are OK, but I'll stick to money and the vote. Technocracy is nothing but bureaucratic dictatorship, with some of the unpleasant features of each. What makes a classic? I don't think you can put your finger on any particular symptom like a doctor diagnosing a disease. It isn't age, or emotional appeal, or good character portrayal, or good mechanics of writing, but it is all of these and a lot more besides. To these I would add universal appeal: in the sense that the (page 18)
Saving...
prev
next
was carried on, I'm in no position to comment either on their ability to interpret or Fran's ability to comprehend Technocracy's charts, though I might add that they are used in conjunction with Technocracy's Study Course and are more readily understood therewith. However, I extend Fran an invitation to visit any Section Headquarters with me and I'll guarantee he'll leave with a clear picture of the information presented on any of the charts. Such graphs are more or less self-explanatory anyhow. In his last statement Fran is indulging in sheer opinion, to which everyone is entitled, but, inasmuch as he can have met an extremely minute portion of the membership, he's in no position to pass judgment. Let's quick kidding ourselves and realize that we on this continent have a rendezvous with destiny in the very near future and only by intelligent and unified action will we find a happy landing in the New America. -- Russ Hodgkins, 774 Caliburn Drive, Los Angeles 2, California. (On Forming a Conclusion) The cover is distinctly the best yet -- the illustration of Saturn with the mag's title worked into the rings. Your editorial was tops. I agree 100% with the spirit of it; however I disagree somewhat with one point: the last two sentences. Way too dogmatic! _Do_ we know exactly what _could_ and _must_ be? Wow! It takes much more science than we now have to predict things like that. There are two ways of forming a conclusion. One is to assemble enough data to furnish the basis of a theory. Work out the theory completely and test it by applying it to reality. If it works, assume that it is helpful and use it to make predictions. Change the theory whenever incompatible facts appear. With such a workable theory form your conclusions. This first method is the method of science. It has never been applied to social problems. And there are many reasons why it has not; primarily because no one sufficiently capable of using this method has ever tried to assemble sufficient data. Another way is to assemble all the data possible and even though it is insufficient to form a real theory you can collect more data than anyone else in the world. You will become an expert in the field. Then you are entitled to form an _opinion_ about the field, but not until then. This opinion does not hold as much weight as a real theory, but in some fields it is all we have. In view of all this I doubt whether many fans can _know_ what worlds _could_ or _must_ be. -- Don Bratton, 5650½ Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles 28, California. (More Comments on Classics) I did not think the April issue as good as the rest, perhaps due to the absence of IDEA CORNER. Ratings: 1. AMONG THE CLASSICS. I look at these as man looks at the moon -- I wish I had them. Man will probably get to the moon first. (In both cases the difficulty is partly economic.) 2. Book Review. Let's have lots of these, particularly the Buffalo Book Co's items. 3. POINT OF VIEW. Idea for an article that might fit in here: How about a comprehensive article on pseudonyms and the various styles authors have tried to associate with each? 4. Letters. List the rest in any order you like. URBANATE was rather too long. Some of the Technocrats' technical ideas are OK, but I'll stick to money and the vote. Technocracy is nothing but bureaucratic dictatorship, with some of the unpleasant features of each. What makes a classic? I don't think you can put your finger on any particular symptom like a doctor diagnosing a disease. It isn't age, or emotional appeal, or good character portrayal, or good mechanics of writing, but it is all of these and a lot more besides. To these I would add universal appeal: in the sense that the (page 18)
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
