Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
theaveng

Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?

Recommended Posts

(see subject)

 

IMHO the answer is "yes". If the tv, book, whatever does not have science and/or has false science, than the proper label should be "Futuristic Fantasy". Example: Star Wars is fantasy. Ditto Battlestar Galactica (which was made to imitate SW).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it should, or fictional science. But i disagree with both your examples of futuristic fantasy. Either you need to broaden your definition of science, or remember science isn't using scientific terminology. Otherwise you cast alot of the great science fiction literature of the years into the pit of "futuristic fantasy", included in that is the Frank Herberts Dune Series, and Issac Asimov's Foundation series. WHat makes those classic books science fiction is the same thing that makes battlestar galactica science fiction. Even Star Wars is science fiction and for some of the same reasons, its alot lighter science fiction, still sci-fi all the same though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble and/or new/high technology.

Science Fiction without science would just be fiction or science fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it should' date=' or fictional science. [/quote']
Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble...

To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy.

 

Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty.

 

That's not Science. Those are lies.

 

 

And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy.

 

Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty.

 

That's not Science. Those are lies.

 

science fiction

n.

 

A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

 

science

n.

 

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.

3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

fiction

n.

 

1: a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact

2: a deliberately false or improbable account [syn: fabrication, fable]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments"

 

Key words. You wouldn't expect to find people magically flying through a science fiction story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the problem with using ACTUAL science is that you cannot have futuristic stories using ACTUAL science. You have to use speculative technobabble. That is, things which sound plausible, and could, with current knowledge of the subject, be plausible, but are not actual science. Actual science does not allow for the technology in Star Trek. It allows for the POSSIBILITY of such technology, which is why things like a "Warp Drive" are technobabble. Technobabble doesn't mean "untrue, but sounding good", it means "Unprovable given current scientific knowledge, but sounding good". Thatr's why, in Science Fiction, you won't see people flying magically, but you could see people traveling faster than the speed of light. Both are, given current scientific knowledge, impossible. However, faster-than-light travel is PLAUSIBLE. Thus, it is technobabble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it should' date=' or fictional science. [/quote']
Yes. Sci-Fi should have Science, false science, tecnobabble...

To me, there is no such thing as "fictional science" or "false science". Science is the search for truth/understanding about the universe/reality. Either it's true science or it's false fantasy.

 

Science & falsehoods don't mix. If I was watching Trek, and suddenly I heard them say, "Flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat" or "We can cure disease by bleeding-out the bad ethers", I would call that a travesty.

 

That's not Science. Those are lies.

 

 

And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*.

 

the hardest science fiction i've ever read, all has false science in it, it takes current science and says what if?? or makes up a new science some sort of new discovery. What you are describing is a romantic comedy about a nerdy female scientist discovering her inner beauty.

 

and you can expect people to go flying around in science fiction, the difference is its explained in science fiction using some sort of science, real or not. In fantasy it is not explained or explained not using science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[And finally "technobabble" = meaningless words = nothing. Worthless. I see no reason to include babble... just use the *actual words*.

 

You don't think Scotty and Jordy used techno babble? Heck that is one of the things that made it great--much of the babble at the time became the science of today--nano technology for instance; and who would a thought "Beam us up Scotty" would mean "buy a round of Jim Beam woodya?" or "on my command, Mark!" would mean "hell no, kick it up a notch and buy a round of Maker's Mark!" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and by the way Commander theaveng --I luv ur little graphic --gonna have to figure out how to make me an appropriate one of those . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - Science in Star Trek was very important i think. And if you listen to it - some of it actually makes sense which is cool. Star Trek brought in facts about science and.....stuff like that and changed them slightly to fit the 24th century. But it still made sense and i think Star Trek without Science would be crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and by the way Commander theaveng --I luv ur little graphic --gonna have to figure out how to make me an appropriate one of those . .

I didn't make it. I ripped it from a Microsoft Xbox game called DOA XXX Volleyball...... it's nothing but scantily-clad women the whole game through.

 

In other words, it's a really, really stupid games designed to boost sales with titillation (like enterprise with the gel-rubbing/near-naked shower scenes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we have a weiner....uh...whiner...um..winner...

This thread got off topic in just over 4 hours, how's that compared to warp speed?

So, "Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?"...hmmm....

If you take the science out what is left?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aks me I'll say most of todays Sci-Fi series is:

 

SPACE OPERA

 

Actually that term doesn't bother me at all. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science fiction should have a good structure to it. Not just something like "the heisenburg manifold is causing a state of triphasic alpha particle flux!". Which means what exactly? Nothing. It's like watching a monkey immitate a lawyer. It's an insult.

 

And I agree, scifi is drama/soap opera of a specific type. It shouldn't be, but it is because humans are still basicly mindless idiots. We may be the smartest species we know of, but that doesn't say we're suffiently developed yet.

 

I think the factor everyone is ignoring is that regardless of whether or not you realize it, media shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you. Especially fiction, because you don't really think it does; you mostly believe that all that is happening is that you are being entertained. If you've ever done a serious academic study of the effects of media on the human mind, you'd know what I'm talking about. Anyhow, for this reason scifi should be intelligible instead of just reducing everything down to an excuse to have cool space battles.

 

But down here in "the mob", I supose I am wasting my time with this kind of talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, it needs science of some kind. Be it space ships, high tech weaponry, expermients, you name it it needs either false or true science. The fiction part is pretty easy to nail.

 

Now, I do disagree with Troy. I definitely think BSG and SW are science fiction first and foremost, with fantasy a second. Original BSG was made to imitate original SW but it was still science fictin firstmost. New BSG is even moreso science fiction, space ships, killer robots, artificial intelligence, etc The only "fantasy" in new BSG is the "possible" inclusion of "gods"/"god" which so far has just been in conversation between characters not actually shown on screen.

 

For SW, I could see how the original triology might have fantasy with the whole "force" thing alongside Jedi's but it's still science fiction above the rest. The prequel triology event went a further degree to prove it was science with the whole "midichlorin" thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest c4evap
Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?

 

Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers?

 

Are basket balls really made from baskets?

 

Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels?

 

Who really cares?

 

c4 :cyclops:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?

 

Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers?

 

Are basket balls really made from baskets?

 

Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels?

 

Who really cares?

 

c4 :cyclops:

 

I care :(

 

(let the record note I had a really great reply in mind, that included a picture of the Simpsons version "crying Indian who cares" but no thanks to google I couldn't find a picture of him so this will have to do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest c4evap
Should Science Fiction have actual *science* in it?

 

Is the Beaver Dam really made from beavers?

 

Are basket balls really made from baskets?

 

Are Camel cigarettes really made from camels?

 

Who really cares?

 

c4 :cyclops:

 

I care :(

 

(let the record note I had a really great reply in mind, that included a picture of the Simpsons version "crying Indian who cares" but no thanks to google I couldn't find a picture of him so this will have to do)

 

Ah...sorry. I meant - who cares about the questions I asked. Thought the "cyclops" smiley who indicate that. Oh well...

 

c4 B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer would have to be “Yesâ€ÂÂ.

 

The long answer is probably incoherent…

Yes, science fiction should have its base in science, but not necessarily “real†science, hence the “fiction†part. I can only imagine how boring our “Science Fiction†shows and movies would be if they were based on ALL science FACT.

Anyways, isn’t that what the Discovery Channel is supposed to be for? ;)

 

One of the definitions of “Fantasy†is:

Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

 

I think the key word is “supernaturalâ€ÂÂ, focusing on the “natural†part.

If it happens as an act of God, some deity or by evolution, then it should probably be considered Fantasy. (IE: Dragons, Fairies, Physic abilities…)

If someone from any race makes it or manipulates it, even if it’s at a molecular or sub-atomic level, then it should probably be considered science since it’s not natural, even though it’s presently not scientifically possible. (IE: Starships, Time Machines, Androids…)

 

No doubt at times these two cross, mix and match but SW & BSG I think are defiantly more scientific than fantasy. And I think Battlestar gives a pretty good look into a possible progression of space sciences, with everything being kinda clunky and such, similar to the Nostromo in Alien.

 

Please give an example of something that you consider strictly Science Fiction?

 

Thanks for listening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science fiction should have a good structure to it. Not just something like "the heisenburg manifold is causing a state of triphasic alpha particle flux!". Which means what exactly? Nothing. It's like watching a monkey immitate a lawyer. It's an insult.

 

And I agree, scifi is drama/soap opera of a specific type. It shouldn't be, but it is because humans are still basicly mindless idiots. We may be the smartest species we know of, but that doesn't say we're suffiently developed yet.

 

I think the factor everyone is ignoring is that regardless of whether or not you realize it, media shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you. Especially fiction, because you don't really think it does; you mostly believe that all that is happening is that you are being entertained. If you've ever done a serious academic study of the effects of media on the human mind, you'd know what I'm talking about. Anyhow, for this reason scifi should be intelligible instead of just reducing everything down to an excuse to have cool space battles.

 

But down here in "the mob", I supose I am wasting my time with this kind of talk.

 

Arktis --Whoever told u u were smart ----must have been an idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest c4evap

MOD NOTE:

OK ppl...let's watch the insults!

 

c4 :thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For SW' date=' I could see how the original triology might have fantasy with the whole "force" thing alongside Jedi's but it's still science fiction above the rest.[/quote']

 

Nonsense. Star Wars is the classic "knights having duels" fantasy tale. Sure, they moved it into the future, but it's still just "knights having duels". Still just fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my dictionary:

 

fiction:

- An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality.

- The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

- A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.

- The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.

- Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

 

fantasy:

- The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy.

- Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.

- A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.

- Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

 

science fiction:

- A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

 

 

See any similarities?

 

Of course, they could start calling it fantasy-science-fiction, but why make things more difficult than they need be...

 

SW is clearly sci-fi (since it fits the description), if you don't like the current explanation for sci-fi, than you can allways try to convince the people who make these dictionaries, but I fear your request would fall on deaf ears, since I'm quite convinced that the majority of people would classify SW as sci-fi, if presented with the question: Is Star Wars science-fiction? Just have a look in your local library, at least in mine, I can find SW in the sci-fi section, not in the fantasy section.

 

Science fiction is no more than fantasy in space / in the future / with extraterrestrials / .... Yes, there is some mention of science in there, but usually the science part is about 'fictional' science, things we can't do atm and of a lot of those things they use in sci-fi it isn't even known whether we'll ever be able to do them.

 

Science fiction: as in fictional science, you see....

 

 

If you can only make science fiction about real science, then we might as well strike the designation from the dictionary, since the few works that will remain, will not be worth it to have a seperate classification for. We might as well all start reading non-fiction, if the science has to be real... The furthest we could go than would be:

Moon Trek: these are the voyages of the space shuttle, eh... no, that wouldn't go, the space shuttle isn't suitable for travel to the moon.... You see: fiction, FICTION, stories emanating from a writers mind that are not necessarily possible for real. And when they needn't be possible for real, why should the science be possible for real? Of course, it should bare some resemblance to what we know now, if not, a lot of people wouldn't enjoy it, but that is not the most important part of the stories.

 

Maybe a new classification is in order: non-fictional science fiction... For those who are not happy with the current classifications...

 

You know, I can just keep on going about this, I could write an entire page and more why science fiction should not be based solely on real science, but also on fantasy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×