Arthur C. Clarke

Sorry to hear about the passing of Arthur C. Clarke, although 90 is a good age. His were just about the first science fiction stories I read as a teenager, which is something you don't forget, and some of his futuristic speculations actually made sense.

What I always liked about Clarke was his attitude towards scientific dogmatism, viz:

New ideas pass through three periods:
1) It can't be done.
2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing.
3) I knew it was a good idea all along!

and

If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

(Not sure about 'elderly' there... )

Clarke was sceptical about UFOs, insisting that pretty much every unexplained sighting could be accounted for eventually. But he had quite a different take on poltergeists, arguing that there is 'impressive evidence that small objects an be thrown around, or even materialised, with no apparent physical cause.'

Usually there is a disturbed adolescent in the background, and although adolescents are quite capable of raising hell by non paranormal means, this persistent pattern over so many cultures and such a long period of time suggests that something strange is going on. If so it is a complete mystery, and labels such as 'psychokinesis' are only fig leaves to conceal our ignorance.

That rubbed militant sceptics up the wrong way - always a good thing. 'I should not be surprised if the average person does not understand scientific method, but I really expected something better from Arthur C Clarke,' grouches Victor Stengler (Physics and Psychics, p. 71), who quotes him saying that 'many poltergeist cases cannot be easily explained away'. Of course Stengler goes to do just that, wheeling out James Randi's debunking of Tina Resch and referring vaguely to 'many other cases' of trickery being suspected or exposed. I think Clarke realised that cases like Miami and Rosenheim, which of course Stengler doesn't mention, raise questions that the debunkers' speculations barely touch.

In short, someone one could relate to. It's comforting to remember, at moments when one starts to doubt it, that there are figures who scientists and atheists respect as one of them, who are passionate and knowledgeable about science, and whose critical faculties are not in doubt, yet who are open to the most inexplicable and ridiculous of human experiences being true. Perhaps that's what makes a great science fiction writer.