Psion Errata?

[dreamingbadger]

Hi Guys,
couple of things

Science (Psionics) is this the same as Life Science (Psiconology)?

Should Science (Temporal) and Science (Dimensional) be Space Sciences or have we introduced a generic Science Skill?

 

[Loz]

I think the two new sciences are both Physical Sciences.

Do treat them as such.

 

[FreeTrav]

My inclination is to agree with Loz, with a minor caveat - they should be assumed to be physical sciences, unless the method of time/dimentional travel is explicitly otherwise. In other words, if time travel is a psionic phenomenon, then Temporal Science is the same sort of discipline as Psionics, and in fact may be a subfield of Psionics.

The test that I would use might be something along the lines of "Can I create a device that, unobserved/unmonitored, and with no living beings with high-order minds aboard (insects, arthropods, et cetera, are not high-order minds. Gerbils and birds are), will be able to successfully make a temporal/dimensional transistion, record video and audio of its surroundings, and return to its point of origin?". If I can, then Temporal Science or Dimensional Science are Physical Sciences. If not, then I have to know why that test failed, and classify accordingly.

 

[dreamingbadger]

FreeTrav I sort of understand what you are getting at? I think what you mean is if a sophont is powering the time or dimensional travel then it is Life Sciences (psionics) skill.

Just out of interest why physical and not space?

 

[FreeTrav]

FreeTrav I sort of understand what you are getting at? I think what you mean is if a sophont is powering the time or dimensional travel then it is Life Sciences (psionics) skill.

Just out of interest why physical and not space?

Not so much "powering" as "a necessary/critical part of the process". Looking at Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, the hyperspace mass detector is the sort of thing that I'm thinking of - the watcher's mind isn't necessarily POWERING the device, but that watcher's mind is a critical part of the process (although how/why isn't explained - and doesn't need to be for Niven's purposes).

As far as "Physical" rather than "Space"...

That's basically because I don't see Space as a science discipline so much as an engineering discipline. I'm not aware of anything that we have learned as a result of our space program that we could not, in principle, have learned without the space program. Yes, the space program provided the impetus for the development of many things, from powdered beverage mixes to teflon and freeze-dried foods - but nothing that mandates having a presence in space. And what we've learned has pretty much been learned with techniques that were developed on Earth, without a space program; the space program only let us go somewhere new to exercise those techniques - and even the going was more about engineering ways to get there using known techniques than about developing new knowledge to do so. The addition to human knowledge from the space program is more like the addition to human knowledge from having gone to new continents in the Age of Exploration; that doesn't mean that New World biology or mineralogy should be considered "Sea Science" simply because without the seaborne discovery program, we would not have had the opportunity.

On the other hand, physical sciences have been about developing new knowledge from first principles - one could not have arrived at relativity or quantum mechanics by progressive development from known principles; all of the major advances in the physical sciences stemmed from experiments on the fringe of known science, or from accidents of various sorts, which led someone to say "Gee, that's odd... wonder what that's all about..." and then going after it and trying to figure it out. I can't see either time travel or dimensional travel as being anything but that sort of "Gee, that's odd..." development. And the odd effect doesn't have to have anything to do with Space-related studies, either.

I'm not really expressing myself well here... I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.

 

[AndrewW]

Yes, the space program provided the impetus for the development of many things, from powdered beverage mixes to teflon and freeze-dried foods - but nothing that mandates having a presence in space. .

Tang was around before then, just took advantage of the fact that it was used for advertising purposes. (And got NASA to implement a clause prohibiting such use by contractors).

 

[dreamingbadger]

Not so much "powering" as "a necessary/critical part of the process". Looking at Larry Niven's "Known Space" series, the hyperspace mass detector is the sort of thing that I'm thinking of - the watcher's mind isn't necessarily POWERING the device, but that watcher's mind is a critical part of the process (although how/why isn't explained - and doesn't need to be for Niven's purposes).

Yup I wondered if that was where you were thinking, so if a sophont is a critical part of the mechanics, as opposed to a process that can be automated completely.

As far as "Physical" rather than "Space"...

That's basically because I don't see Space as a science discipline so much as an engineering discipline.
...

On the other hand, physical sciences have been about developing new knowledge from first principles - one could not have arrived at relativity or quantum mechanics by progressive development from known principles; all of the major advances in the physical sciences stemmed from experiments on the fringe of known science, or from accidents of various sorts, which led someone to say "Gee, that's odd... wonder what that's all about..." and then going after it and trying to figure it out. I can't see either time travel or dimensional travel as being anything but that sort of "Gee, that's odd..." development. And the odd effect doesn't have to have anything to do with Space-related studies, either.

I think so, the view is that "Space Science" is "applied" and physical science is "pure", and i dont disagree with it from a Physics and Chemistry POV, though i don't understand how electronics isn't a "space science" by that type of definition, as there is nothing in the electronics field that cannot be established by either the chemical properties of the components and the laws (i tend to think of them more as guidelines ) of physics?

maybe we need a Mathamatics Sciences? To house dimensional and temporal, we could also put "number theory" in there as well as a placeholder for all the large number type problems.

 

[FreeTrav]

Yes, the space program provided the impetus for the development of many things, from powdered beverage mixes to teflon and freeze-dried foods - but nothing that mandates having a presence in space.

Tang was around before then, just took advantage of the fact that it was used for advertising purposes. (And got NASA to implement a clause prohibiting such use by contractors).

Which is news to me; thanks for the education - but it sorta reinforces the point: We didn't need the space program to develop it.

 

[EDG]

In common parlance, "Space Science" is more about "engineering in space" - i.e. the technology of artificial satellites, rockets, getting up there, surviving up there, solving problems etc.

Astronomy, Cosmology etc are "Physical Sciences" - more theoretical and based on observation and experimentation.

So yes, it's "applied science" vs "pure science", if you want to put it that way.

Electronics on its own isn't "space science" though - electronics can exist as a technology in its own right without any application to engineering in space at all.

 

[dreamingbadger]

In common parlance, "Space Science" is more about "engineering in space" - i.e. the technology of artificial satellites, rockets, getting up there, surviving up there, solving problems etc.

Astronomy, Cosmology etc are "Physical Sciences" - more theoretical and based on observation and experimentation.

So yes, it's "applied science" vs "pure science", if you want to put it that way.

Electronics on its own isn't "space science" though - electronics can exist as a technology in its own right without any application to engineering in space at all.

so can robotics

 

[FreeTrav]

I think so, the view is that "Space Science" is "applied" and physical science is "pure", and i dont disagree with it from a Physics and Chemistry POV, though i don't understand how electronics isn't a "space science" by that type of definition, as there is nothing in the electronics field that cannot be established by either the chemical properties of the components and the laws (i tend to think of them more as guidelines ) of physics?

maybe we need a Mathamatics Sciences? To house dimensional and temporal, we could also put "number theory" in there as well as a placeholder for all the large number type problems.

Not so much 'applied' vs. 'pure'; I consider "applied science" to be closer to "engineering". 'Science', to me, has the specific implication of adding to the body of human knowledge, often (but not universally) from first principles. 'Applied science' seems to me to be more of a case of seeing how a theory works or fails in conditions other than ideal, and using that knowledge to build a better mousetrap. It's about how to USE the new knowledge that the theory gives us, not about developing the theory. Discovering the principle of refraction is science; inventing the magnifying glass once you know about the principle of refraction, or experimenting to determine what materials make the best magnifying glasses, is applied science; developing the techniques for grinding lenses for eyeglasses, or inventing the refracting telescope, isn't science, it's engineering.

I don't consider electronics a space science (it's a physical science); it really did exist before the space program did - it certainly existed during WWII when the British were developing RADAR; it can be argued as having existed from when Marconi first transmitted an intelligible message over his wireless telegraph, or from when Alexander Graham Bell called for his assistant, Watson, over his experimental device that eventually developed into the telephone, or from when Samuel F. B. Morse transmitted an intelligible message over a wire using dots and dashes, or possibly even earlier. For me, the question of whether something is a "Space science" turns on the answer to the question "Could we, IN PRINCIPLE, have learned the knowledge (and underlying principles) in question without an actual presence in space?" If the answer is "no", then it can be argued to be 'Space science'. If it's "Yes", then it's not 'Space science'.

 

[FreeTrav]

And after all that, Evil Doctor Ganymede lives up to his adjective by summarizing two paragraphs in little more than two sentences...

 

[dreamingbadger]

If it's "Yes", then it's not 'Space science'.

So Robotics is a Physical Science, it certainly doesn't need space flight and in one shape or form has been around since the 1200's at the latest... well before space travel...

 

[FreeTrav]

If it's "Yes", then it's not 'Space science'.

So Robotics is a Physical Science, it certainly doesn't need space flight and in one shape or form has been around since the 1200's at the latest... well before space travel...

Yes, I would say that robotics is Physical, not Space - and may only be engineering.

 

[Jacqual]

There is no ERRATA everything mongoose prints is perfect in every way, all materials that are labeled ERRATA are actually compilations of information that unperfect players and GM's need to explain there own imperfections. lol jk is there any errata.

 

[BP]

For those who might have missed it - there are some compilations of information that unperfect players and GM's need to explain their own imperfections located here.