Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does Science Fiction Need Science?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Does Science Fiction Need Science?

    http://www.syfyportal.com/article.php?id=2040

    Nowadays “believability” has become the mantra for producers of science-fiction shows and films. Viewers have to believe that a particular alien creature could exist, or that a certain piece of futuristic technology could do what it’s doing.

    To create that believability, writers include characters with scientific credentials and make them say things that make reference to real scientific findings. But given that this is “science fiction,” how real does the science have to be to make genre films and television shows believable?

    Ask a dozen scientists what science is and you may get a dozen different answers. I will settle for saying that modern science is any method of inquiry that relies on the so-called “scientific method.” The scientific method is a putatively objective series of inductive steps that starts with an observation and proceeds through studies to test explanations (hypotheses) for that observation.

    Science fiction typically has at its core ideas or theories arrived at using the scientific method. We don’t generally include stories about political or social issues under the heading of “science fiction” unless they include speculative ideas about subject areas that we more commonly associate with this approach (such as biology, physics, chemistry and anthropology). Technology, of course, is also strongly associated with science fiction and tends to cross the boundaries of the aforementioned subjects.
    gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
    so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
    love Torri

    #2
    I guess the answer to the question is both yes and no. Only the scientific concept is required, but as long as the story is good, all else can be forgiven. If the science is completely implausible to the viewer however, even a moderately well written story can falter when the incredibility of the science becomes so obvious that even the average joe viewer stops paying attention to the story to point out the failings of the scientific concepts.

    In science fiction, you can often make up your own rules. But once you start, just like in the real world, you need to stick with them and not change your mind. The science doesn't need to be accurate, just consistent. If I say the sky is blue because aliens farted in the atmosphere, then the aliens better have anuses.

    But without an iota of truth to the science, it wouldn't be science fiction, just fantasy.

    "You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who makes people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea." - Jack Handy

    Comment


      #3
      I always though Science Fiction had Science in it. this really changes my head.
      sigpic

      Comment


        #4
        Who needs science when you have hot stars who you can thunk over!!!

        Comment


          #5
          *cough* Chaya *cough*
          gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
          so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
          love Torri

          Comment


            #6
            King Kong as SF? I never considered KK that way, any more than I see the Indiana Jones movies as SF.

            I think that tv and movies have so diluted the SF genre because of time restraints(for series tv) which don't give the writers enough space to truly develop plausible SF concepts, and because the guys with the money are not always the guys with the mind for science.

            That's why the best SF, the real SF is still in the form of books.
            Gracie

            A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
            "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
            One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
            resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
            confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
            A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
            The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."


            Comment


              #7
              My thought was that science fiction was fictional stories that take place in a time and place not like our own (either completly fictional, i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek and Firefly, or a modified version of our own time and place, i.e. Stargate SG-1, the 4400 and to a degree, Doctor Who). Basically, stories that can't logically take place in the real world as we know it.

              Forgive the references used, but I'm very partial to television science fiction.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by White Knight
                My thought was that science fiction was fictional stories that take place in a time and place not like our own (either completly fictional, i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek and Firefly, or a modified version of our own time and place, i.e. Stargate SG-1, the 4400 and to a degree, Doctor Who). Basically, stories that can't logically take place in the real world as we know it.

                Forgive the references used, but I'm very partial to television science fiction.
                No, that's not quite the definition of science fiction. Old wild Westerns, or Medieval stories, Braveheart, etc, are stories not from our time, but they are not considered SF by anyone's standards. Also, the CSI type stories, though they use tech and science extensively, are not classed in the SF genre, but the murder mystery genre.

                True SF should include the story of how society or individuals have been helped or harmed either by the application or the banning of science.

                I Robot - even the movie version - is SF because it shows us how a society might look when robots are everywhere. We saw evidence of enemployment, shoddy building housing wonderous appliances, wonderful health-related appliances that did nothing to heal the damaged soul, machines considering the meaning of soul and souless machines deciding what's best for a soul. These are the types of concepts SF should be showing.

                SG-Atlantis' Poisoning the Well was a perfect example of SF, IMO.

                Star Wars, IMO, was never SF, but fantasy. Despite the idea that the midiclorians were behind the "force", the series never once focused on the midiclorians as a society-shaping element. It was just "there' for the Jedi to use, and the story simply revolved around the users.

                OTOH, I am currently reading a series of books by James Alan Gardner(So far 5 books in the series. Currently reading #4, Trapped) where the people of Earth live in a medieval type society and go to schools to learn sorcery, psychic abilities, precog schools, etc. Yet it's not Fantasy, because the abilities are actually a "gift" of nanites they seeded throughout the planet and they placed the nanite's functions within the realm of what the aliens observed as a major human interest - in the occult and magic. Our heros know this, and the nanites figure heavily throughout the story and are used and abused in such a way as to shape the heros and the society they live in.

                Anyways, to quote Daniel, "that's just how I happen to feel about it."
                Gracie

                A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
                "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
                One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
                resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
                confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
                A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
                The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."


                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by NowIWillDestroyAbydos
                  I always though Science Fiction had Science in it. this really changes my head.
                  I don't see why anything written so far would change your mind. Science fiction is based on hard facts taken to the next step: scientifical theory: unproven but plausible leaps of logic based on what is known. As stated before: without it, science, the rest is sheer fantasy.

                  "We'll keep the light on for you."

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think Science Fiction is secretly an analogy for real science.
                    TEAM SG1 LIVES

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by MarshAngel
                      I guess the answer to the question is both yes and no. Only the scientific concept is required, but as long as the story is good, all else can be forgiven. If the science is completely implausible to the viewer however, even a moderately well written story can falter when the incredibility of the science becomes so obvious that even the average joe viewer stops paying attention to the story to point out the failings of the scientific concepts.

                      In science fiction, you can often make up your own rules. But once you start, just like in the real world, you need to stick with them and not change your mind. The science doesn't need to be accurate, just consistent. If I say the sky is blue because aliens farted in the atmosphere, then the aliens better have anuses.

                      But without an iota of truth to the science, it wouldn't be science fiction, just fantasy.
                      I agree, science is necessary for science fiction but it doesn’t have to be accurate or true science.

                      Science fiction shows need to establish the rules of their own universe, these rules have to be somewhat logical (i.e. people should be able to work out and see the relation of the rules based on the other established rules) and then once established the rules must be abided by.

                      The closer the universes rules are to reality the easier it is for the audience to suspend belief, but I don’t think that the lack of actual science is what causes most fans to get upset or call a show crpy. I think most show lose their audience when they start breaking their own rules or if the show never establishes any rules or rules that have no hope of making any logical sense.
                      Joseph Mallozzi -"In the meantime, I'm into season 5 of OZ (where the show takes an unfortunate hairpin turn into "the not so wonderful world of fantasy")"

                      ^^^ Kinda sounds like seasons 9 and 10 of SG-1 to me. Thor, ya got Aspirin?

                      AGateFan has officially Gone Fishin (with Jack, Sam, Daniel, Teal'c) and is hoping Atlantis does not take that same hairpin turn.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        It´s always good when a book has it´s science right but it´s hardly required to do so for it to qualify as science fiction. Let´s face it, every book with FTL is not based on real science but only on make believe.

                        I also don´t believe that the book has to focus or talk about how the science effects society, it´s enough to have it impact whats happening to the central characters.

                        Now, I like reading both types so long as the story being told is good. I hate it when the science overwhelms the story, which is one of the reasons I never liked reading Arthur C. Clark. I´m currently reading a hard SF by Charles Sheffield, he always remembers to have a good story behind everything else.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          To me a good piece of science-fiction has a healthy dose of science and a healthy dose of 'make believe'. As long as both these are present, I'll give a show/movie a chance. sci-fi isn't all 'based in space' stuff like alot of people think, surely Jurrasic Park is sci-fi?

                          Like most things in life...we're all different and what constitutes as sci-fi to me me might be completely different to what constitutes sci-fi for someone else.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Egeria
                            To me a good piece of science-fiction has a healthy dose of science and a healthy dose of 'make believe'. As long as both these are present, I'll give a show/movie a chance. sci-fi isn't all 'based in space' stuff like alot of people think, surely Jurrasic Park is sci-fi?

                            Oh yes, absolutely, I agree; Jurrasic Park is SF. DNA, cloning, evolution, environment, gender control gets out of control, and these science elements stay front and center through all the running and screaming and messy devouring of the secondary characters.

                            And what makes JP the movie premiere among modern SF stories is its focus on the moral dilemas that resulted from the application of that science

                            <begin rant>
                            Most of the tv/movie entertainment that gets classed as SF has tech - and sometimes, even science - and has moral dilemas, but they are not, IMO, SF. Why? Because usually the moral dilemas do not arise from the application or banning of the science that may or may not be present in the show.

                            It's Romeo & Juliet, or How the West was Won, or Pearl Harbor set in space with the heros in scanty leather outfits and laser guns. Take away the setting and the wardrobe and in what genres would you class the three examples above? Not SF, that's fer shur!
                            <end rant>
                            Gracie

                            A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
                            "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
                            One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
                            resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
                            confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
                            A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
                            The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."


                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Wyrminarrd

                              I also don´t believe that the book has to focus or talk about how the science effects society, it´s enough to have it impact whats happening to the central characters.
                              In this you and I disagree. The science has to be the main focus of science fiction. It doesn't have to be all equations and technobabble, but it has to be the focus, otherwise it's just fiction, not science fiction.

                              Now, I like reading both types so long as the story being told is good. I hate it when the science overwhelms the story, which is one of the reasons I never liked reading Arthur C. Clark. I´m currently reading a hard SF by Charles Sheffield, he always remembers to have a good story behind everything else.
                              Whereas in this I totally agree. I like AC's ideas, but he was no storyteller.

                              If you can't write a good fiction for your science, then write a science paper instead and call it science theory and send it to NASA, not to the SF section of Barnes&Noble.
                              Gracie

                              A Cherokee elder sitting with his grandchildren told them,
                              "In every life there is a terrible fight – a fight between two wolves.
                              One is evil: he is fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
                              resentment, and deceit. The other is good: joy, serenity, humility,
                              confidence, generosity, truth, gentleness, and compassion."
                              A child asked, "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
                              The elder looked the child in the eye. "The one you feed."


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X