Is science fiction bad for you?

[lemit]

Well, is it?

 

This may be a productive thread or it may get me thrown out of Hypography, but do fans of science fiction prove willing hosts to the parasitic pseudoscientists, snake oil salesmen, and conspiracy theorists that I can easily shake off because they remind me of science fiction, to which I seem to have an immunity? Can liking science fiction be a liability to a serious scientist?

 

Most of the serious scientists I've associated with over the years--mainly animal scientists, with some medical researchers, engineers, and geologists thrown in--most of these scientists seem to disdain science fiction. They seem to agree with me that science fact is weird enough for one lifetime. We don't need to create fake worlds we don't understand; understanding the world we already have is enough work.

 

I think I've just associated myself with serious scientists and set myself against all the degreed scientists around here. I'm supposed to be the non-science guy here. I'd better get out of this before I get myself into serious trouble.

 

But I'm still curious.

 

--lemit

[Boerseun]

I wouldn't think so.

 

Although I can certainly understand where you're coming from, Science Fiction does indeed inspire lots of kids to study science instead of, say, accountancy. And we certainly can do with more scientists and less accountants. Or lawyers, for that matter.

 

There's a big difference, however. You get "Science Fiction", and then you get "Science Fiction". Some of it is utter crap, and some is completely within the realm of possibility. There's Fantasy (which should be read for it's own sake and be appreciated on its own merits), then there's hardcore Science Fiction which never crosses the line from what's scientifically possible into the impossible.

 

A couple of years ago, things like cellphones (the ability to immediately speak to anybody anywhere on the planet from a device you can carry anywhere with you in your pocket that's no bigger than, say, a pack of Lucky Strikes), existed only in the realm of science fiction. The question can be asked to what extent the designers of such products were influenced by science fiction in their youth.

 

I like science fiction, and don't fear that you'll get any flack here for raising this point. We're an open minded bunch.

 

But I have to say that there are some books and movies that gets labelled as "science fiction" that has no right to exist in either this or any other universe. But the same could be said of any other genre, I suppose.

 

But each to his own, I guess. Personally, I love the stuff.

[lemit]

Boerseun,

 

You just reminded me--by mentioning cell phones--of another thing: "future studies." They are nothing more than science fiction (in my unreformed frame of reference) with the seeming discipline of psychics. If any psychic or future studier, or anyone beyond Richard Clark and those who assisted him, really predicted September 11, 2001, before September 11, 2001, then I could be converted, although I would have some fairly stringent requirements for documentation.

 

Does anybody know of other people who really predicted September 11, 2001? Any examples of really good, disciplined future studies?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. My real-world examples of people who get paid to predict the future have been highly paid, highly respected economists I've known. I think as a group psychics have a better record.

[Moontanman]

I for one am a rabid science fiction fan, Star Trek for instance is a very inspirational concept of a positive future, although I have seen people who seemed a little nutty about it I see no harm in Star Trek in particular or science fiction in general. Science fiction is often a source of inspiration for people to study science and related subjects. These is always a small core group of people who have a very light hold on reality that go nuts over fiction, fiction of any type can inspire this in specific people. Look at what the fiction of the bible inspires in some people. I see no problem with escapist literature or the people who enjoy escaping with it.

[Donk]

Science fiction has been an important part of my life for over 50 years. It stimulates the imagination, turning "what if" into an art form.

 

I like the speculative aspect when we're drawn into the author's ideas of a possible future. Sometimes, of course, they get it badly wrong. We can probably forgive Asimov for deciding in 1947 that the slide rule would still be an important tool 30,000 years in the future. The transistor was brand new, and nobody, not even its inventors, could have predicted that one day a single integrated circuit the size of a thumbnail would carry billions of them.

 

I'm not so sure about all the pre-spaceflight references to our "green" planet, or "green-brown". Didn't anyone realise that it would look blue/white from space?

[CraigD]

Is science fiction bad for you

I think there’s a bit of an overgeneralization in this question, somewhat like asking “is electrical wiring bad for you?” Bad wiring can be very bad for you. Proper wiring, most people, I think, will agree, is generally very good for you. One can live well without any electrical wiring at all, but few people want to. And, if you know something about wiring, you can avoid the dangers of the bad kind, and even learn from it.

 

Some writing and TV/movies classified as scifi/fantasy can, I think, be very bad for some people. One can study what, who, and how this happens, and what can be done to prevent, lessen, or cure its ill effects, at great length – but I think discussion of such is premature at this point in the thread.

 

Most of the serious scientists I've associated with over the years--mainly animal scientists, with some medical researchers, engineers, and geologists thrown in--most of these scientists seem to disdain science fiction. They seem to agree with me that science fact is weird enough for one lifetime. We don't need to create fake worlds we don't understand; understanding the world we already have is enough work.

I, too, have had similar discussions. Though I’d not much connected it to scientific disciplines, and have far to small and anecdotal a sample for a semblance of statistical validity, now that lemit mentions it, it seems to me that life scientists – in my case, mostly microbiologists and clinical scientists (public health, medicine, etc.) – are more likely to have this attitude, and to have little informal or formal acquaintance with science fiction, or fiction in general, while mathematicians and physical scientists tend to like science fiction, and be more acquainted with it. A significant number of professional science fiction writers are physical scientists, which seems to support my speculation.

We don't need to create fake worlds we don't understand; understanding the world we already have is enough work.

On a purely semantic level, I think the overt and implied assertions in this sentence are incorrect.

 

According strictly to the scientific method, in order to advance, one must make hypotheses, which are, in essence, “fake facts”, AKA speculation.

 

The implication that science fiction writers “don’t understand” the fictional worlds of their writing is, I think, widely true only of a certain genre of the literature, know as “soft science fiction”, and the adjoining and overlapping fictional genre of “science fantasy” – and not typically, even in these “soft” genres.

 

“Hard science fiction”, practically by definition, requires its writer to “play by the rule” of not contradicting, and its speculations being reasonable of, know science. It requires its writers to understand it, and explain it – though not necessarily easily, to its audience.

 

As with any subject, I think that before one can meaningfully criticize science fiction, it’s important to understand it – if not from actual reading acquaintance, at least understanding its history and classification.

[lemit]

All right, I have been undone. While I cling to the fond hope that someone some time will agree with my original post, I'll admit that I love the original Star Trek with its poor production values but great human values, the movie 2001, and the mystical book Slaughterhouse Five.

 

I grew up loving 1984, which still can be debated as vigorously as it was in 1964, and Twilight Zone, which I still watch on that channel whose name I probably shouldn't mention here, but which has been in my cable favorites since it had MST3K, which I taped so I can still watch it.

 

Any suggestions for scifi I'd enjoy in the way that I've read The Ox-Bow Incident not just as a western and Graham Greene books not as travelogues?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I love Futurama too.

[Janus]

 

A couple of years ago, things like cellphones (the ability to immediately speak to anybody anywhere on the planet from a device you can carry anywhere with you in your pocket that's no bigger than, say, a pack of Lucky Strikes), existed only in the realm of science fiction. The question can be asked to what extent the designers of such products were influenced by science fiction in their youth.

 

 

Here's a good one. In 1946, Murray Leinster wrote A Logic Named Joe. If you read it today, you would be amazed to see the parallels between what we have today with personal computers hooked up to the internet and what he describes in the story.

Keep in mind that in 1946, the first general purpose computer, Eniac, had just been built and it used 17468 vacuum tubes, 1500 relays and took up 680 square ft. It had a total of 80 bytes of high speed memory.