Science belligerency towards science fiction

[PlutonianEmpire]

Over the course of my observations of science-minded people and actual scientists over the years, I have noticed an extreme level of belligerency towards the realm of science fiction, as well as a large bias against it, especially so among actual scientists.

Is this observation correct? If this is indeed correct, then what is the reason behind the belligerency? Is this reason a logical reason? Is it rational, or irrational? Why or why not?

It seems to me that it is a "holier-than-thou" attitude, probably triggered by their high intelligence and knowledge, a psychological phenomenon or something. "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you're an idiot," so to speak. I realize that for some, it is simply personal taste, but I have observed these attitudes to be, apparently, a system-wide occurrence.

Is there more to this than meets the eye?

What have you observed? Can anything be done about this?

 

[emzie]

A lot of scifi is just poorly written fantasy, where science plays the role of magic. It gives a false impression of what science is. But the real problem is so much of it is just wrong and science-minded people can't look past that.

 

[GoodGame]

Over the course of my observations of science-minded people and actual scientists over the years, I have noticed an extreme level of belligerency towards the realm of science fiction, as well as a large bias against it, especially so among actual scientists.

Is this observation correct? If this is indeed correct, then what is the reason behind the belligerency? Is this reason a logical reason? Is it rational, or irrational? Why or why not?

It seems to me that it is a "holier-than-thou" attitude, probably triggered by their high intelligence and knowledge, a psychological phenomenon or something. "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you're an idiot," so to speak. I realize that for some, it is simply personal taste, but I have observed these attitudes to be, apparently, a system-wide occurrence.



What have you observed? Can anything be done about this?

I think science professionals are people and they respect science fiction for what it is---a diversion. Humans like diversions.

But if you think about the amount of science illiteracy in a nation, and then think that concepts of science are influenced by mass media science fiction (e.g. laser beams, supermutants, yaddah yaddah) that are just barely based in science, then I think it'd be clear that a science professional would be a little critical of the way science is portrayed in science fiction. Especially since public opinion of science can influence the availability of funding for science. To portray that as "holier than thou" is stupid. It's crafty.

A similar case---if you spend literally years of your life, and lots of your money (or public funds) to attend science courses and be certified as a "science professional", and then watch some seriously botched portrayal of science in mass media, then it will catch your eye.

I have no anecdotes really. The main "meme" of the OP that I've seen are books written to debunk the "science" of various science-fiction (e.g. The Physics of Star Trek, etc.. etc...).

Also what Contre said, a lot of science fiction is poorly thought out compared to "the golden age of science fiction" and is basically some kind of fantasy with space suits, funny looking aliens (or animorphic aliens), laser guns, faster than light travel dues ex machina, and force powers.

 

[ArneHD]

I think you are confusing picking apart for belligerence. For a scientist half the fun of science fiction is poking holes in what is happening and why the movie is wrong.

 

[emzie]

I think you are confusing picking apart for belligerence. For a scientist half the fun of science fiction is poking holes in what is happening and why the movie is wrong.

My wife hates when I do this when watching films.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

A lot of scifi is just poorly written fantasy, where science plays the role of magic. It gives a false impression of what science is. But the real problem is so much of it is just wrong and science-minded people can't look past that.

That seems to be where "Im right, you're wrong, therefore you're an [insert insult here]" comes into play.

I think science professionals are people and they respect science fiction for what it is---a diversion. Humans like diversions.

But if you think about the amount of science illiteracy in a nation, and then think that concepts of science are influenced by mass media science fiction (e.g. laser beams, supermutants, yaddah yaddah) that are just barely based in science, then I think it'd be clear that a science professional would be a little critical of the way science is portrayed in science fiction. Especially since public opinion of science can influence the availability of funding for science. To portray that as "holier than thou" is stupid. It's crafty.

See above. And below.

A similar case---if you spend literally years of your life, and lots of your money (or public funds) to attend science courses and be certified as a "science professional", and then watch some seriously botched portrayal of science in mass media, then it will catch your eye.

I have no anecdotes really. The main "meme" of the OP that I've seen are books written to debunk the "science" of various science-fiction (e.g. The Physics of Star Trek, etc.. etc...).

Also what Contre said, a lot of science fiction is poorly thought out compared to "the golden age of science fiction" and is basically some kind of fantasy with space suits, funny looking aliens (or animorphic aliens), laser guns, faster than light travel dues ex machina, and force powers.

My question is, why attack science fiction? Yes, it is poorly written, yes it depicts technology as magic, but that's the point. Science fiction is harmless fun.

Which begs another question, why is having harmless fun considered a bad thing?

I think you are confusing picking apart for belligerence. For a scientist half the fun of science fiction is poking holes in what is happening and why the movie is wrong.

What's the point of saying it is necessarily wrong? Why can't it be something to aspire to?

Simply saying science fiction is "wrong" eliminates the opportunity to question and explore whether they themselves might be "wrong" in some way, shape, or form. It is the sign of closed-mindedness. Treating current scientific understanding as if it were set in stone is no different than a religious zealot treating his understanding of the universe around him as set in stone.

 

[Kozmos]

Because there is actually hard-sf that at the very least attempts plausible science. If I want fantasy I will read fantasy, don't bring elemental space beings into my sf please.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

A lot of scifi is just poorly written fantasy, where science plays the role of magic. It gives a false impression of what science is. But the real problem is so much of it is just wrong and science-minded people can't look past that.

Do we even have a modern Arthur C. Clarke anymore?

That seems to be where "Im right, you're wrong, therefore you're an [insert insult here]" comes into play.

Well if you're going to write "science fiction" you can't do the "science" poorly. Just a thought.

 

[ArneHD]

What's the point of saying it is necessarily wrong? Why can't it be something to aspire to?

Simply saying science fiction is "wrong" eliminates the opportunity to question and explore whether they themselves might be "wrong" in some way, shape, or form. It is the sign of closed-mindedness. Treating current scientific understanding as if it were set in stone is no different than a religious zealot treating his understanding of the universe around him as set in stone.

Because it is fun? Isn't that the point, at least in part? Also because finding out why something could happen and realising that the writers did their research is almost as fun as finding an error. Also most writers treat science as a magical macguffin creator thing, not really giving it the respect it deserves. So if writers don't respect the science, why should a scientist respect the writing?

That is not to say that a movie or book cannot be good even if the science is poor. I think most scientists are still capable of enjoying Star Wars even if the science is impossible and everything is justified through essentially magic.

 

[Riffraff]

I thought the core fanbase of science fiction came from the science community itself. Nowhere to find more trekkies than in a physics faculty for instance.

 

[Silurian]

Well scientists, such as Alastair Reynolds, do write SF.
I think it is more a case of any profession looks more closely at how their profession, its results are portrayed.

From Wiki

Alastair Preston Reynolds (born 1966) is a British science fiction author. He specialises in dark hard science fiction and space opera. He spent his early years in Cornwall, moved back to Wales before going to Newcastle, where he read physics and astronomy. Afterwards, he earned a PhD from St Andrews, Scotland. In 1991, he moved to Noordwijk in the Netherlands where he met his wife Josette (who is from France). There, he worked for the European Space Research and Technology Centre, part of the European Space Agency, until 2004 when he left to pursue writing full time.[1] He returned to Wales in 2008 and lives near Cardiff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Reynolds

 

[Traitorfish]

I honestly see far more belligerence towards science in science-fiction than the reverse. For all their love of gadgets and jet-packs and things that go "pew", a lot of sci-fi creators have a ferocious luddite streak. Just because something has a spaceship on the front doesn't mean that it can't harbour significant anti-scientific, and I'm sure that a lot of scientists are quite aware of that.

Obligatory comic:

Spoiler :

 

[Dachs]

Obligatory comic:

Spoiler :

Don't get me started on the vicious sodomizing Diaz gives history

 

[ParkCungHee]

Don't get me started on the vicious sodomizing Diaz gives history

Don't start. Diaz is a nobody who has accomplished nothing, and I wish people would pay him no mind.

 

[GoodGame]

My question is, why attack science fiction? Yes, it is poorly written, yes it depicts technology as magic, but that's the point. Science fiction is harmless fun.

All I can say is to repeat what ArnieHD said----don't confuse belligerence (attacks) and criticism. Scientific processes are full of criticism, whether in reviewing science-based literature or in reviewing an experiment. That probably holds for entertainment forms that a scientist gets a hold which claims a degree of "science". But that probably isn't limited to "sci-fi" but also any entertainment that involves science (e.g. forensic science in action/adventure/mystery fiction, archeological science).

Criticism is natural. Persons A criticize item B. Persons C criticize Persons A for criticizing item B. Persons A criticize Persons C for criticizing Persons A for criticizing item B. If you produce a work of art, expect some criticism. If you're a human being who interacts with other human beings from time to time, expect some criticism and an opportunity to dish some out yourself.
So I'd almost say all you are doing is saying "Why criticize art?". Well that's an inherent nature of art. That's all I can say to that then, if you can't accept the other rationales. In other words are scientists really honor bound to not wear an art critic role too?

And there's no reason that science fiction can't be written with a strong sense of science without boring the reader/viewer with depths of detail. It tends not to be the case though for whatever socioeconomic reason.

Anyway counter questioning, can you actually cite some examples where you felt scientists have "Occupy Science Fiction" or what not?
I can only cite that you can buy books analyzing the 'science' or 'physics' of popular mass media (e.g. Star Trek, James Bond). Or maybe a teacher discussing say "The Hot Zone" in a biology course----strictly discussion of pros/cons and not pejorative.

And also why pick on science professionals with your questioning? Why not pick on history professionals who criticize the way historical dramas abuse history that they've studied (I'm sure Dachs can tell you some)? It's very similar.

 

[Glassfan]

It's particularly the movies that offend. They are dumbed-down for the public, often insulting the intelligence of educated people - and therefor inviting criticism.

On the other hand, dinner and a movie is a common date strategy. You end up at a coffee house and discus the movie (before heading to the bedroom). The discussion often centers around unlikely events portrayed. It's not just SciFi, it could be anything. Aren't there any cops in this city? Is every criminal falsely accused? How did everybody in the whole world catch that disease so quickly? She fell in love with him?

SciFi movies are particularly suceptable to criticism because the Screenwriter is not a scientist. He will take a script from say, Micheal Crichton, and butcher it into a bunch of special-effects explosions.

 

[CKS]

In my experience, most scientists enjoy science fiction, though not all of it. (Many books of every genre are garbage.) Sometimes the enjoyment comes from picking apart the bad science, sometimes it is despite the bad science, sometimes the science is good.

I don't require the science in my stories to be perfect, but I have issues when it isn't internally consistent. That is, I'll go along with magical FTL travel for the sake of the story, but if the rules for how it works on page 20 disagree with the rules on page 80, that bugs me. I also don't like when the rules of Newtonian mechanics ought to apply, but they don't for no reason. If you want to not conserve momentum in deep space, you'd better invent a contraption to explain why. If the story is interesting, I'll go along with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Don't get me started on the vicious sodomizing Diaz gives history

I didn't realise that posting one of his comics would be considered that provocative.

 

[Dachs]

Don't start. Diaz is a nobody who has accomplished nothing, and I wish people would pay him no mind.

A reasonable course of action indeed

 

[Synobun]

Also note that scientists today have rather large egos and are adamant in what they have been taught. They refuse the idea that something is actually possible in the future because they were taught it isn't possible today (see FTL). Normal humans are corrupted by greed (aka money/power), intelligent humans are corrupted by personal ego.