I thought I'd try this question out here, since you people seem seriously knowledgeable about these things:
Why are mental powers considered okay for science-fiction, but not actual magic?
Nate: I understand that not all science-fiction allows the use of mental powers. However I get the feeling (mostly from RPGs) that it's common enough to warrant the question.
I rather think one CAN have magic in science fiction. The Shadowrun setting is a scifi setting, no?. It has magic.
I think it's the "science" part that determines whether a work is scifi or fantasy. I think the magic just makes it a genre book.
I don't like psionics at all (you will never find me using them either as a PC or as a DM). Just a personal preference though. My dislike however is stronger in terms of fantasy psionics because they don't seem to fit. The issue it seems is that in fantasy psionics seems too sci-fi. Meanwhile in sci-fi it comes across as too much like fantasy.
Well I think it might have something to do with the fact that there has been real scientific research into psi abilities.
Never mind. Ignore this post.
Mental powers, thru tradition, just tend to fit in sci-fi better. Probably as sirius commented, for a long time people seemed to think in the year 3000 we'd just be so awesomely smart that we could think at things and move them, to the extent the CIA was running experiments to test those sorts of things.
Magic I think doesn't fit because it was what people used to think ran things before they started using experimentation to figure things out. Magic was no longer "necessary" as an explanation as things (Newton's Laws, Chemistry, etc.) were figured out. Fantasy tends to be set in the past though, so magic fits better--fantasy tends to be stories based on extremely idealized versions of the past--worlds where certain subsets of fairy tails are assumed to be true.
Given all that, there's certainly a lot of sci-fi with some version of another of magic, sometimes intermingled with telepathy. Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series is probably a good example.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI thought I'd try this question out here, since you people seem seriously knowledgeable about these things:
Why are mental powers considered okay for science-fiction, but not actual magic?
Nate: I understand that not all science-fiction allows the use of mental powers. However I get the feeling (mostly from RPGs) that it's common enough to warrant the question.
I don't consider that the case (I also consider Shadowrun cyber fantasy, more like Star Wars than science fiction).
Psionics are just basically a pseudo-scientific name for the same thing as magic. Magic, at least in the real world, is largely the same thing--about using personal power (mental or willpower) to affect things. Magic traditionally could curse people, divine the future, and other psionic-like stuff.
The divide really seems due to earlier editions of D&D that decided to introduce Psi as something different from magic. Much like the artificial arcane/divine schism.
Psionics rarely appear in hard science fiction. They appear more often in games probably because in a game you often want more things to make them more interesting.
Okay, I guess all that makes sense.
This mostly came out of one game supplement I read stating that magic wasn't generally appropriate for sci-fi, but mental powers were okay. I know I shouldn't let one source determine how I view something, but I've seen too many times where mental powers are flung around in sci-fi in a way that suggests that it's perfectly "natural" (especially the "being highly-evolved means having psychic powers").
It was just one of those annoying things that needed a listener.
This is something that's always bothered me, as well. I've never really "accepted" most reasoning for why one kind of supernatural flimflam is acceptable and another isn't, because I don't usually see a fundamental difference between them.
One thing to keep in mind is that the definition of what is and is not science fiction has changed a lot over the years, and has become much more relaxed. Much early sci-fi (like the now-rare subgenre, "hard" sci-fi) concerned itself with projecting realistic technological advances into the future, extrapolating future possible scientific revelations while still obeying physical laws. For example, the fiction of Sir Arthur C. Clarke was so grounded in sound scientific principles that he predicted advances including geosynchronously-orbiting satellites and electromagnetic pulse weaponry.
Of course, much of what we get nowadays is "soft" sci-fi, which is no longer grounded in any kind of respectable science, and which is essentially fantasy literature which happens to take place in the future and/or in outer space. In that kind of context, it's much easier to reconcile psychic power, since it's just magic with a different coat of paint on it. (Similarly, a lot of silly soft sci-fi technology is
also magic with a different coat of paint on it.)
Quote from: siriusWell I think it might have something to do with the fact that there has been real scientific research into psi abilities.
I feel obligated to point out that despite various research endeavors, there has never been a shred of actual proof that any kind of "psi abilities" exist. Still fiction.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: siriusWell I think it might have something to do with the fact that there has been real scientific research into psi abilities.
Likewise, I feel obligated to point out that the quote you used never mentioned proof. It simply says "research", which you agreed upon.
Okay, but I never disputed that.
On Psionics in Fantasy
I believe it starts with the word "psionics". A lot of campaign builders I know don't use it simply because it seems entirely anachronistic. Game developers and writers used psionics and other terms that simply didn't "gel" with the typical fantasy cliche. Of course, it didn't help that both the 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition psionics involved extremely clunky mechanics that seems more an afterthought in relation to the core mechanics behind the game.
On a related note, did anyone else notice they eliminated the word "teleport" from power names, but use it as a mechanic to describe the effect? Pretty slick, methinks!
On Magic in Sci-fi
Now, I don't have a huge history with sci-fi whatsoever. However, looking purely at one of the largest sci-fi/fantasy franchises (Star Wars), it clearly uses magic instead of psionics. The same goes for Dune.
Quote from: SDragonQuote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: siriusWell I think it might have something to do with the fact that there has been real scientific research into psi abilities.
Likewise, I feel obligated to point out that the quote you used never mentioned proof. It simply says "research", which you agreed upon.
And likewise, I feel obligated to point out that there has been thousands of years of scientific research into magic, too.
There's "magic" in Starwars and most people view Starwars as Science Fiction rather than Fantasy; I don't, but that's my opinion.
Somehow, though, I believe that psychic powers are more believable. Not necessarily more realistic, though. I believe this stems from magic being viewed as "superstition", yet psychic powers are viewed as "paranormal".
Really, I say it's all semantics. The terminology of psychic powers (telepathy, telekinesis) "sound" more scientific (though that's because they use latin and greek words, which would be acceptable within magic as well).
Truthfully, I wouldn't use the word "psychic" in my fantasy world. I rethemed them to be "ki" so that they had a more fantasy feel. But I would really love to write a fantasy novel within the methods of science fiction.
Quote from: MonikerOn Magic in Sci-fi
Now, I don't have a huge history with sci-fi whatsoever. However, looking purely at one of the largest sci-fi/fantasy franchises (Star Wars), it clearly uses magic instead of psionics. The same goes for Dune.
Most people, at least serious genre fans I know, would call Star Wars fantasy, not sci-fi.
I dispute Dune having magic. The psychic abilities of the Atreides line are genetic, initially sparked by a substance that changes brain chemistry.
I think it comes back to being psionics as a form of "scientifically explained" magic.
I think one of the main reasons that haven't been discussed is the fact that magic in most cases has a great range of effects that might disrupt the evolution of technology greatly. Psychic abilities on the other hand are largely limited (to the mind(s)). If you introduce magic that isn't limited, you risk ending up with magic-powered space ships and what have you.
Now, I am not an overt "genre fan" or anything, i merely like Star Wars, but why would you call that movie Fantasy? Okay, it has a very black-and-white morality and such, but really, lots of fantasy don't have that, and they are still fantasy books. Sci-fi is the genre dealing with space, other planets, advanced technology and the like, and Star Wars has all that. Yes, it has fantasy elements, but i can't see how that puts it firmly in the fantasy genre.
Feel free to ignore the above rant.
Quote from: PhoenixI dispute Dune having magic. The psychic abilities of the Atreides line are genetic, initially sparked by a substance that changes brain chemistry.
If it allows them to effect the physical world by mind alone then I don't see how it's not magic.
I view the Star Wars powers as psychic based upon what effects they accomplish: sensing, mental communication, post- and/or precognition, telekinesis, energy projection, mind control, control of the body functions. All powers typically attributed to "psychics" of one form or another. Plus based upon how they are accomplished: they are controlled by peoples' minds. They do stray from normal psionics territory by placing the origin of the power source outside minds, but so long as they continue to act like it's the mind that matters and nothing about the body I'm going to continue to view them as psychics.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatSomehow, though, I believe that psychic powers are more believable. Not necessarily more realistic, though. I believe this stems from magic being viewed as "superstition", yet psychic powers are viewed as "paranormal".
Quote from: PhoenixI think it comes back to being psionics as a form of "scientifically explained" magic.
I don't see how people can believe that "mind power" is any more believable than just plain old magic. If you look at "mind power" it's built on the premise that the mind is some sort of special (and often distinct) thing rather than a bunch of energy going off in a bunch of gloppy matter. How is that even close to scientific and not magic?
That ties to why I don't like psionics. Other then the difficulty of using it the fact is that psionics IS magic. I have never seen a need to separate them and thus never a need to use psionics.
Quote from: Crippled CrowNow, I am not an overt "genre fan" or anything, i merely like Star Wars, but why would you call that movie Fantasy? Okay, it has a very black-and-white morality and such, but really, lots of fantasy don't have that, and they are still fantasy books. Sci-fi is the genre dealing with space, other planets, advanced technology and the like, and Star Wars has all that. Yes, it has fantasy elements, but i can't see how that puts it firmly in the fantasy genre.
Feel free to ignore the above rant.
Classifying speculative fiction is always subjective, but I personally agree with the definition offered on wikipedia:
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawIf it allows them to effect the physical world by mind alone then I don't see how it's not magic.
I think it comes back to being psionics as a form of "scientifically explained" magic.[/quote]
I don't see how people can believe that "mind power" is any more believable than just plain old magic. If you look at "mind power" it's built on the premise that the mind is some sort of special (and often distinct) thing rather than a bunch of energy going off in a bunch of gloppy matter. How is that even close to scientific and not magic?[/quote]
I didn't say it was more believable, it's just a more modern term. Magic, in the modern sense, is something we consider spiritual and thus beyond the realm of science to explain. Psionics is a name for the exact same thing that para-science attempts to explain.
It ceases to be the same thing when authors create external sources for magic--gods, magic crystals, or whatever.
Quote from: NomadicThat ties to why I don't like psionics. Other then the difficulty of using it the fact is that psionics IS magic. I have never seen a need to separate them and thus never a need to use psionics.
I am in the same camp here. In Celtricia, there is a school of magic called Mentalist magic. Psionics were an attempt to include the same idea in a more limited system, or, if you prefer, to add another school of 'magic' to that system. Just semantics.
Quote from: ../../e107_files/public/1219069548_4_FT53990_schlock20020413.png(//../../e107_files/public/1219069548_4_FT53990_schlock20020413_.png)[/url]
Quote from: PhoenixUntil about the fifth book, the only psychic power is prescience--in the form of an expanded consciousness being able to analyze chains of causality and predict the future that will result from any given action. This leads Paul into a trap, a self-fulfilling prophecy of the future which he escapes only by his death.
It does not involve creating fireballs, bolts of lightning, or other magical tropes. Even after the fifth book, one does not see other powers in the same sense you might see in, say the Wheel of Time. Characters may access genetic memory or have the ability to vastly accelerate their metabolism, but you still won't see fireballs or teleporting.
Ah, my bad: I really only know about it from the movie, and that doesn't really attempt to explain anything.
Quote from: PhoenixMagic, in the modern sense, is something we consider spiritual and thus beyond the realm of science to explain. Psionics is a name for the exact same thing that para-science attempts to explain.
What I consider funny about this is that I can explain magic (pseudo-)scientifically, but not psionics as normally presented.
Wash: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: We live in a spaceship, dear.
Wash: So?
Really, it's all about flavouring. Somebody at some point decided that Psionics worked with Sci-Fi, and now it's a standard. If you want to do something supernatural in a world with technology, nine times out of ten you use psionics.
But why should psionics and magic be different? I think it has a lot to do with sacred cows people simply will not discard.
Starwars is Fantasy because the focus of the story is on the journey of the Hero, which is a traditional fantasy element. If it was a science fiction story, the focus of the story would be on how the force, blasters, and FTL travel changes society.
But, defining fantasy and science fiction as entirely different genres is futile. Both genres, along with Horror, are under an umbrella genre called "Speculative Fiction". In fact, in both text books I've had for Sci Fi and for Fantasy, all three genres were collected in the same text.
My use of the word "believable" is because I believe that most people can believe psychic powers more than magic. It's difficult to explain.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatStarwars is Fantasy because the focus of the story is on the journey of the Hero, which is a traditional fantasy element. If it was a science fiction story, the focus of the story would be on how the force, blasters, and FTL travel changes society.
But, defining fantasy and science fiction as entirely different genres is futile. Both genres, along with Horror, are under an umbrella genre called "Speculative Fiction". In fact, in both text books I've had for Sci Fi and for Fantasy, all three genres were collected in the same text.
My use of the word "believable" is because I believe that most people can believe psychic powers more than magic. It's difficult to explain.
This is true with the films and some of the books. However you will find a large collection of star wars books that focus heavily on the tech and living with the tech of star wars. So you can't really lump all of star wars into fantasy. You can only successfully do that to the movies and a small section of the books.
When I say "Starwars", I am refering to the films (and mostly refering to the first 3 films, not the prequals). The EU goes off on its own thing.
For instance, I don't think anyone will deny Harry Potter as fantasy, but if I wrote a fanfiction that was somehow a Hard Science Fiction story, it wouldn't change that Harry Potter is fantasy. Sure, the Starwars novels aren't fanfiction (though I'm sure some purists might argue that) as they were sanctioned, but I believe I've heard that Lucas doesn't recognize them as cannonical.
I've never read the Starwars novels, so I'm not going to attempt to interpret them. But I still stand by my assertion that the Force is Magic, not Psionics, and it is perfectly accepted in that world. The Force's scope, though, is more in line with the scope of psychic power (Mind Trick, Telekinesis of various sorts, super-speed/jumps). In the films, the only thing that realy breaks this mold is Force Lightning. From what I understand of the EU through the RPG, there are many other Force powers that step further into the realm of magic.
Perhaps it is that scope that leads to it being accepted more. There is a lot of magic-like stuff in Stargate, even non-technological "powers" such as the ascendants and the near-ascendants.
The novels are indeed sanctioned and approved by Lucas (and indeed many of them are based off ideas he has given the authors). For this reason if you say Star Wars I am going to include them in my thought since I consider them Star Wars as they are officially sanctioned books. However I never said that the force is psionics. As you will recall from my earlier posts I don't acknowledge a distinction between psionics and magic. On that note, magic does not a fantasy make. The fantasy aspect of course being the hero's journey as was said. To be honest I consider star wars a mesh between sci-fi and fantasy as sci-fi has expanded from just the hard stuff to include a broad range (a range that much of star wars falls under). In the end though I much prefer hard sci-fi over the fantasy/science mishmash that is all too common now days.
Sactioned doesn't mean canonical though. There are several glaring inconsistencies in the early books, far before the next batch of three turds were flushed into theatres, that predated new "canon" from Lucas. My issue with Lucas is that his stuff just isn't consistent storywise...
Sorry to digress, moving on!
I wasn't saying the Force was Psionics, just that it follows the effects of psionics more closely than the more common effects of magic.
And I didn't mean that Lucas didn't sanction the books. I just mean that, from what I remember, he has said he recognizes them as being a different version. I'll search for the quote.
This is just not something I am going to agree on in terms of canon vs non-canon (I don't acknowledge the prequels as canon but I do strongly consider many of the books as canon). I do agree that Lucas isn't very consistent and in my opinion he has ruined his setting.
Back on the topic though when I hear that something is psionic but not magic my mind translates it to "something is magic of the mental schools and not of the other ones". I cringe when I see something called psionics as a separate thing from magic (I also cringe when it is used in sci-fi; but again I like hard sci-fi).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatIn the films, the only thing that realy breaks this mold is Force Lightning.
Actually that's in line with psychic powers such as the ability to start fires at a distance, essentially energy creation/control.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonThis is something that's always bothered me, as well. I've never really "accepted" most reasoning for why one kind of supernatural flimflam is acceptable and another isn't, because I don't usually see a fundamental difference between them.
One thing to keep in mind is that the definition of what is and is not science fiction has changed a lot over the years, and has become much more relaxed. Much early sci-fi (like the now-rare subgenre, "hard" sci-fi) concerned itself with projecting realistic technological advances into the future, extrapolating future possible scientific revelations while still obeying physical laws. For example, the fiction of Sir Arthur C. Clarke was so grounded in sound scientific principles that he predicted advances including geosynchronously-orbiting satellites and electromagnetic pulse weaponry.
Of course, much of what we get nowadays is "soft" sci-fi, which is no longer grounded in any kind of respectable science, and which is essentially fantasy literature which happens to take place in the future and/or in outer space. In that kind of context, it's much easier to reconcile psychic power, since it's just magic with a different coat of paint on it. (Similarly, a lot of silly soft sci-fi technology is also magic with a different coat of paint on it.)
Quote from: siriusWell I think it might have something to do with the fact that there has been real scientific research into psi abilities.
Many other people have commented on this, but I feel that I should just clarify my post.
Yes and that is why I used the term "research". The point of the post was the fact that there has been research into psi abilities and that could be the reason why they are classified under sci-fi. At no point in the post was there corroboration that these powers do or do not exist.