Honors 313 Seminar, Section 3 - Science and Science Fiction - Fall 2019 Instructor: Prof. Calvin Johnson, Department of Physics Office: P-135 Phone: 4-1284 E-mail: cjohnson@ sdsu.edu Official office hours: MTu 2:00-3:00pm. If my door is open, you are welcome. Class time and place: EBA 249 Tuesday 3:30pm - 6:10 pm Class Website: http://sci.sdsu.edu/johnson/ssf/ also posted on Blackboard Class description This class will expose you to broad scientific frameworks and their portrayal in fiction, and will place science fiction properly against known scientific context and methodologies. The class will compare science with mythology and how science is viewed as mythology both in fiction and by non-scientists. We will discuss tools and paradigms for analysis and criticism of fictive portrayals of science; we will also emphasize basic science literacy as background for these stories. Although a course about science, this class will be heavy on reading and writing: every two weeks you will read a book and more and write a paper. Required Texts: Timescape, Gregory Benford (1980). Physicists try to send a message back in time to 1962 UC La Jolla to stop an environmental disaster. The Dispossessed, Ursula LeGuin, (1974). Physicist develops faster-than-light communication, against the backdrop of personal and political drama. Aurora, Kim Stanley Robinson, (2015). Interstellar colonization runs into trouble, both scientific and social. Robinson may join us via Skype later in the semester. The Three-Body Problem, Cixin Liu (2014). A dangerous alien invasion set in motion by China's Cultural Revolution. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, (1932). Cloning, capitalism, and communism collide in this classic novel. Nekropolis, Maureen F. McHugh (2001). Genetic-engineered humans from future North Africa flee to Europe. Note: some sexual themes. + additional readings to be discussed in class Films to be viewed in class, in whole or in part: Metropolis (1927): Labor issues beneath a utopia for the privileged. Silent classic. Things to Come (1936): After a devastating world war, a utopia arises--but resistance to "progress" remains. Planet of the Apes (1968): Cultures and truths collide when astronauts land on a planet ruled by apes. Gattaca (1997). In the near future, your genes are your destiny. Sleep Dealers (2008). Technology may change, but border issues do not. Set in near- future Tijuana. The Martian (2015). Ingenuity and grit save an astronaut stranded on Mars. Honors 313 Science and Science Fiction Fall 2019 How this course is structured In this course you will engage with narratives about science, and will compare and contrast those narratives with how science is actually done. This is not a course about scientific correctness so much as understanding how science is really done as well as developing an awareness of how people talk about science. We will also talk about some basic scientific principles. Primarily you will read science fiction texts, novels and online short stories, and will be responsible for writing five papers, discussed in detail below, analyzing the narratives about science in those texts. You won't be doing this in isolation; you will break up into small groups of 4-5 members each, and regularly workshop drafts of your papers. These peer workshops are intended to, first, help you craft better papers and, second, expose you to the thoughts and insights of your classmates. We will also watch, in whole or in part, movies that illustrate major themes and ideas in this course, and you will have an opportunity to write about dramatic presentations of science fiction. Nonetheless our primary focus will be on written texts, as we want to grapple with science fiction as a "literature of ideas" and dramatic presentations tend to emphasize dazzling visuals over ideas. While I will lecture on science, science fiction, how we "read" science fiction, and various elements of science and science fiction, and present my own analyses of our texts, we will also have lengthy class discussions. I expect everyone to participate in discussions, and to enforce this, for each of our assigned novels there will be four student discussion leaders; that is, everyone will be required to speak to the class about at least one novel. These discussions will be informal, that is, I don't expected a prepared lecture, but I do expect you to make thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments based upon evidence from the novel. There is no exact format: the four discussion leaders could each speak separately or participate in a back-and-forth. Everyone is welcome to discuss each novel, by the way, but I expect the discussion leaders to, well, lead. I will also prompt people who do not speak frequently to add their voices as well as keeping notes on who participates in discussions. We will also discuss, and you will have the opportunity to incorporate into your papers, narratives about science found in wider society, such as in news items and in so- called "controversies" such as climate change, evolution, vaccines, and genetically modified organisms. Often we will be asking: are these narratives really about the correctness of the science, or about something else? You come from a wide variety of disciplines and I hope you all bring your diverse perspectives to our discussions and to your papers. I do not want you to simply parrot my analyses, but to bring your own creativity and insight to your analyses. This also means I am not interested in mere "opinions." I want you to bring logic and above all evidence to support your arguments. I also want you to be ware of the difference between how science is done and how it is often talked about. Assignments and grade basis: Class participation (15%): missing no more than 2 classes; leading discussion on one of our assigned novels; regular contributions to and participation in class discussion; active participation in small group workshopping of papers. Four short papers (15% each) plus final paper (25%). Honors 313 Science and Science Fiction Fall 2019 I expect in your papers (a) relevance to focus of class, i.e., science fiction as commentary on our relation to technology and science; (b) well-stated theses, that is, a particular conclusion about the text(s); (c) use of evidence from the texts, especially close reading of texts, to support the thesis; (d) demonstration that you understand how science works, i.e., is based primarily upon reproducible empirical evidence, and to be able to contrast with narratives based upon rhetorical arguments; (e) clarity and organization of the argument, as well as correct grammar and spelling and clear, crisp writing; (f) originality; although naturally I expect you to use some of the tools I provide in class, simply parroting arguments I make will not get you a high grade; and (g) participation in small group discussion and peer critique (workshop) process. This means you must turn in a first draft and a final draft of each paper. The final draft should show evidence of improvement over the first draft; furthermore, while overall I will not comment on your first drafts, really poor first drafts (i.e., ones where you clearly did not put in effort) will lower your grade. In other words: try hard on your first draft, and then make it even better for your final draft. You must turn in a first draft; if you do not turn in a first draft at the assigned time you lose half the points for that paper. Grading scale: 90%= A, 87%=A-, 83%=B+, 80%= B, 77%=B-, 73%=C+, 70%=C, 67% C- , 63%=D+, 60%=D, 57%=D-, 50%=F. As a rough guide: C = submitted all material but showed poor critical thinking and weak or trivial evidence; B = presented non-trivial ideas but still vague in portions of argument and/or evidence, or simply recycled lecturer's analyses of texts; A = outstanding, clear and original arguments well supported by the texts, as well as demonstrating understand of how science is based upon empirical evidence. To get above 90% your work must be truly outstanding, not merely “nothing wrong with it.” For each paper I will give you three scores out of 100, on: first, relevance to class material (i.e., it must be on narratives regarding science and technology); second, how persuasively you structure your arguments, in particular evidence from your source material; and third, quality of writing, i.e., good grammar, appropriate word choice (pro tip: don't call a novel a short story and vice versa), clear, concise writing. Late submissions: Late first drafts lose 50% for each day late, and final drafts 25% for each day late. On papers You will submit four short papers (about three to five pages or 600 to 900 words) and one long final paper (about five to eight pages, or 900 to 1500 words). Word/page counts are just approximate and for your guidance; I'm not going to carefully count. Each short paper will compare and contrast the themes and narratives about science and technology of one of our novels and one of the following: 1. narratives in the media about science and technology; these can be newspaper, television or online news articles or op-ed pieces; while I will allow blog posts, be wary of choosing obscure sources. This can also include text books and materials for other Honors 313 Science and Science Fiction Fall 2019 courses/fields, i.e., narratives about science and technology you find in a class on literature, political science, etc.. You should, where possible, provide a citation/link to the source (either URL or reference to origin of the news item).