Fantasy isn't anti-science. Its fantastic, in the sense that it deals not just with that which is not real, but with that which cannot be real, at least based on current science. The point of such stories is to explore absurd environments, and I think anyone taking this to mean fantasy is trying to make a statement against science is just being ridiculous.
Because it is fantasy. You can't possibly deny that people enjoy exploring the impossible and the absurd. Fantasy is based on that. It isn't a reaction to science or rationality. It predates them!
That's crap. If magic allows you to reach into someones mind and put images there, have a whole conversation, in fact, then something can happen in your head, and still be real. Take the vision Harry has of Voldemort torturing Sirius. That was completely in his head, but it wasn't physically happening anywhere. Nor was it a figment of his imagination, though.
Its the same with Dumbledore. There isn't (or doesn't seem to be) a real spirit-King's Cross, just as it wasn't the actual spirit of Dumbledore meeting Harry. Thus, this was something Dumbledore (maybe from "beyond", whatever that is) was making possible by manipulating Harry's mind. So, while it was a real conversation, it was happening in Harry's head.
I think you're just reading way too much into this. This statement didn't in any way make the series more anti-science, no more than Hermione's tiny purse that can hold a portrait did, anyway. And there are any number of other fantasy works where there are no clear rules, no verisimilitude, to the magic. Doesn't make them anti-science!
So this has been building in me for awhile years actually ever sense noticing the Luddite tendencies in lord of the rings. Why does fantasy have such an anti realist and anti science mindset?
Because it is fantasy. You can't possibly deny that people enjoy exploring the impossible and the absurd. Fantasy is based on that. It isn't a reaction to science or rationality. It predates them!
Example A Harry Potter. Great for a long while in that the magic had rules and though the rules were outside science it had rules and it allowed there was reality and not reality...than we got the great quote in the final book.
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/07/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-review
"Of course this is happening in your head but why on earth should that mean it isn't real?" Um what the heck? Something is either real and happening OUTSIDE your head and exists outside of you, or it is happening inside your head is NOT REAL, and wouldn't exist without you. To put it in terms of the novel. Either Dumbeldore exists now in some sort of heaven in reality or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Either God exists outside of human conception in some PHYSICAL form or it is just an idea we have made up and thus ISN'T REAL.
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/07/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-review
"Of course this is happening in your head but why on earth should that mean it isn't real?" Um what the heck? Something is either real and happening OUTSIDE your head and exists outside of you, or it is happening inside your head is NOT REAL, and wouldn't exist without you. To put it in terms of the novel. Either Dumbeldore exists now in some sort of heaven in reality or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Either God exists outside of human conception in some PHYSICAL form or it is just an idea we have made up and thus ISN'T REAL.
That's crap. If magic allows you to reach into someones mind and put images there, have a whole conversation, in fact, then something can happen in your head, and still be real. Take the vision Harry has of Voldemort torturing Sirius. That was completely in his head, but it wasn't physically happening anywhere. Nor was it a figment of his imagination, though.
Its the same with Dumbledore. There isn't (or doesn't seem to be) a real spirit-King's Cross, just as it wasn't the actual spirit of Dumbledore meeting Harry. Thus, this was something Dumbledore (maybe from "beyond", whatever that is) was making possible by manipulating Harry's mind. So, while it was a real conversation, it was happening in Harry's head.
I think you're just reading way too much into this. This statement didn't in any way make the series more anti-science, no more than Hermione's tiny purse that can hold a portrait did, anyway. And there are any number of other fantasy works where there are no clear rules, no verisimilitude, to the magic. Doesn't make them anti-science!
anti science mindset in fantasy?
- 31/07/2011 07:32:16 PM
1075 Views
I disagree..
- 31/07/2011 10:34:29 PM
1091 Views
Just wanna say
- 31/07/2011 10:52:17 PM
942 Views
Uhh...
- 31/07/2011 11:31:29 PM
964 Views
Re: Uhh...
- 01/08/2011 02:00:56 AM
1092 Views
Shields stop physical things..
- 01/08/2011 05:16:28 AM
977 Views
if the books mention that specifically, fine then
- 02/08/2011 12:14:47 AM
921 Views
Again, read the books... 
- 02/08/2011 07:15:27 AM
1001 Views
- 02/08/2011 07:15:27 AM
1001 Views
Anti-science
- 02/08/2011 01:36:04 PM
1024 Views
That doesn't make it anti-science...
- 02/08/2011 02:56:58 PM
982 Views
Re: That doesn't make it anti-science...
- 02/08/2011 09:56:41 PM
983 Views
Because...
- 03/08/2011 04:21:43 AM
1127 Views
Thanks for proving again that books are better than movies... *NM*
- 01/08/2011 12:17:26 AM
333 Views
Well it sounds to me like you're not thinking about the term "science" correctly.
- 03/08/2011 05:29:42 AM
773 Views
personally, I've always seen SF as a sub genre of Fantasy
- 03/08/2011 07:02:02 AM
968 Views