Tag Archives forscience fiction imagination

Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction

Alien bounty hunter by Bear1037

Alien bounty hunter by Bear1037

This is the first of what I hope will become a regular “column” on this blog about topical scientific articles of the week and how the news plays into the world of science fiction.  In other words, how might I construct a story out of the information in the article?  It is going to be a sort of scratch pad of ideas that explores how stories are constructed and, who knows, I might even publish the finished product later.

What Kind of Life Would We Find On Titan? Continue reading

How The Science in Science Fiction Works

As a writer of science fiction, I often am confronted with misconceptions about the playground my imagination runs through. What does Sci-Fi have to do with actual science?

Despite several centuries of contributions to society, art and literature among others, few people seem to understand science. I should be more specific, here. Most people do not understand the scientific method, which has and will continue to lead to a lot of bad misconceptions in the popular press and social networks.

Comets Kick up Dust in Helix Nebula (PIA09178).jpg
Comets Kick up Dust in Helix Nebula (PIA09178)” by NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Ariz. – NASA – Comets Kick up Dust in Helix Nebula. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.


What, exactly is Science?

To quote Wikipedia : Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

So It seems that science is an activity and not, as is more commonly held, a body of knowledge, which is cool. But the one thing you will note about the definition, if you dig into the subject to any degree, is that science, or the pursuit of it, does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that:

a) we know the answers to the questions about stuff we study

b) that anything science professes is complete or true.

You see, despite all of the high esteem in which we hold the study of science, much of it is based upon models and ideas that are supported or refuted by experimental observation. To make a short point of it, it is based upon a belief system.

Science and faith

Now, before I am dismissed for a religious apologist, please understand, that I am a scientist by education and profession ( For 35 years I practiced the commercial application of geophysics in the Petroluem industry but not pure research…which may taint me in the eyes of some purists, but so be it.)

Every scientific “fact” or principle which we presently ascribe to currently falls into the realm of belief. You see, the fundamental axiom of science involves the proposal of an hypothesis, followed by experimental observation and the incorporation of these observations into a theory that is, normally, continually evaluated by new experimental observations. This process is continued until a situation arises where the experimental observations cannot be adequately explained by the present theory. When this happens, deep thinkers work hard to develop new, updated theories that incorporate all of the observations and the cycle continues.

So, you see, we never really know the truth, we only accept certain theories about the truth, which amounts to a certain form of faith. As no sane person would try (or be capable of) reproducing the body of experimental observations to demonstrate the validity of a theory, he/she must accept that the observations made by those who came before are valid. In other words, he must believe what has come before. In many respects, this differs little from religious belief.

When do we get it right?

So how do we know when science gets it right? We don’t. We only know when it gets it wrong when our theories do not explain our observations. When our theory explains our observations, it does not mean our theory is right, it only means that our theory is one possible explanation for things.

In no place is this better illustrated than in the realm of modern physics. We have multiple competing theories like String Theory, Loop quantum gravity, and others I am sure, which attempt to explain the nature of the universe, all using arcane forms of mathematics to explain themselves and make themselves conform to the growing body of experimental and observational data. They can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong and thrown out if a newer, better idea turns up in some theorist’s churning brain down the road.

Big Data & Any Data

Science has a constant need to be fed by more data. Whether derived from impressively expensive experiments like those at the Large Hadron Collider, or the observations from space based telescopes like Kepler or the venerable old Hubble, one thing is clear; the appetite for data is huge and shows no signs of fading. The cool thing about science is that it is not just confined to the super sexy big press grabbing stuff mentioned above. Biologists can find data about bugs in the Amazon rain forest or in your own back yard. Geology can be studied by measuring seismic movement around active volcanoes or by hiking near a rock outcrop looking at hand samples.

What has any of this to do with Sci-Fi?

Nothing and everything! Hard Sci-fi tries to restrain its flights of fantasy by framing the stories to the existing framework of scientific theory. Soft Sci-fi is less concerned with adhering to the existing state of scientific theory and more in the potential technology derived from it ( think FTL, Light Sabres and shape shifting telekinetic space aliens). Both branches share elements of the other to many degrees. Hard Sci-Fi may be more concerned in working within the confines of existing theory and so, limit its play in fantastic tech. Soft Sci-Fi may gloss or completely avoid discussion of the actual science behind its ideas in order to put forth an entertaining story. Both have advantages and disadvantages and are equally fun to read when well executed.

Because theories are subject to modifications with new and different observations, the scope of ideas we can explore within the genre expands hugely.  Playing “what-if” scenarios around ideas like: “What if we discover tunnels on the far side of the moon?” does not invalidate current scientific understanding, but explores the logical outcome of the consequences of such an hypothetical observation.

My point is that science is not a fixed body of facts that we must slavishly adhere to, but a process of exploring nature, whether that be the nature of the universe or the nature of mankind’s response to that exploration process. It is the human journey of that exploration that makes for the most interesting stories, in my opinion.  The possibilities are endless to the active imagination.

I still think old Bill Shakespeare said it best in Hamlet (I paraphrase it here): “There are more things in heaven and earth…than are dreamt of by your philosophy.” Therein lies the purpose and fun of writing Sci-Fi: Exploring the possibilities of the exploration of science.

What are your thoughts on the role of science in Sci-Fi? What kind of the art form do you like? Let us know in the comments below.


Pax Vobiscum

Imagination is a Muscle

Steampunk style future Typewriter. Hand/home made model.

Imagination is a muscle that needs exercise if you want to develop it.  Many people believe themselves to have a good imagination;  I used to be one of them.

In Childhood, Our Imaginations Reign Supreme

As children, we naturally run and play, both physically and imaginatively.  My 3 year old granddaughter reminds me of this constantly.  She is forever playing make believe games, by herself or with whatever adult she can convince to join with her.  In her mind, reality and fantasy are all one beautiful spectrum and she freely bounces from point to point along the continuum.

I remember being like that, not just as a preschooler, but also as I grew.  I was constantly inventing fantastic scenarios in my mind when I should have  been paying attention in church or class.  My fantasy worlds were rich and detailed and a joy to spend my idle hours in.  In my time, back in the late Cretaceous period, we had only two television channels in my town, and most of the good programs that I watched (Thunderbirds, Fireball XL5, Stingray…mostly Gerry Anderson stuff, now that I recall) fuelled my imaginative worlds while I rode through the neighbourhood on my bicycle until it was time go inside.

I didn’t just re-live old TV episodes.  I invented entirely new adventures, often based on the shows.  I also created my own worlds, inspired by my meagre TV watching.

Growing Up Kills the Imagination

Then I went to university and got a degree in Geophysics.  I still thought I had an active imagination, but it mostly came out in my wit and humour and I noticed that my fantastic scenarios were replaced by dreams of marriage and family and career.

I was fortunate.  Working in the oil industry as an exploration geophysicist, I was required to use my imagination to conceive and develop oil and gas prospects.  So, while I was using my imagination on an almost daily basis, instead of be fantastic and free wheeling, it was now constrained to scientific principles and “reality”.

I consider myself fortunate.  I could have been an accountant or petroleum engineer.  Those poor buggers had no opportunity for creativity in their day to day work, and heaven help the ones who went into middle and senior management! (If you doubt this, take a good close look at the executive suite in any major corporation and tell me if you see any imagination at all!  Most of them are lemmings that won’t make a move unless it is something already done by someone else.  But I digress…)

Discovering that the imagination needs bulking up

With the recent oil price drop, when demand for my technical abilities dried up, I decided to resurrect my fiction writing.  What I discovered was, to say the least, shocking.  I found it difficult to get my imagination to flow freely with the kind and quality of fantastic ideas that occupied my mind in my youth.  I had ideas for stories, sure, but they were heavily constrained by “reality”.

The truth, I realized, was that I had been neglecting my imagination for many years and it was now a weak remnant of what I remembered.  In the months since I have been writing, I have found that, by practise, the ideas are flowing more freely now.  They are still constrained, but not so much as before, and I have every hope that I can enjoy a level of creativity that I once enjoyed and took for granted.

I have nothing but envy for the authors who never allowed the “real” world to interfere with their imagination muscle.  I read works by many and feel totally inadequate to the task of writing to such a calibre of imaginative fancy.  I know I will improve and get closer to my goals, but I do so admire those whose work I fear I will not be able to approach.

Still, what they write comes from their experiences and is an expression of themselves.  My work is a sum of my experiences and, as a result, is unique to me.  My work will never, nor should it be, the same as that of others.  Then it would be only derivative.  I want to be imaginatively original and will continue to exercise the muscle that is the engine for that.

I think I will go and hang out with my granddaughter, now.  I need another lesson in imagining.

How about you, dear reader?  What is your experience with imagining new worlds and scenarios?  Do you think the new generation of video games and movies helps or restrains imaginative creativity?  I would love to hear your comments.

Pax Vobiscum