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.
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.
Science Fiction is often described as stories dealing with the scientifically possible where science takes a major role in the story. Fantasy, within the Sci-fi & Fantasy genre, is described as stories dealing with the scientifically impossible in a fantastic world. It is an incomplete definition, but it does leave a lot of room for interpretation, and hence my following words of opinion:
The other night I was doing a bit of marketing research and decided to do a head count of the types of books listed in the Amazon Kindle top 100 best selling ebooks in the Science Fiction and Fantasy category. One thing I encountered, and didn’t really expect, was the high percentage of Paranormal Romance novels that are being marketed in this category.
By Paranormal Romance, I mean books featuring wimpy, twilight-ish, 1000 year old vampires whose main interest is chasing down nubile young teenaged girls (I always thought that classified as pedophilia?). Those wimpy boy-toys are nothing like the original nosferatu written about by Bram Stoker…now that vampire was scary!
The other category of books in this grouping are what is now called shifting romances. I had to look that one up. Apparently what we used to just call plain old werewolves or, in spin offs, were-creatures, are today now sexy beefcakes that like to get it on with human females, who in turn are very excited by the idea of being ravaged by a hairy beast. Apparently it’s all the rage. Go figure.
My question after all this review of the contents of the Science Fiction and Fantasy to 100 best sellers was…what the hell does any of that romance/erotica crap have to do with the genre it is being marketed under? What does Amazon think it is doing? If you took those books out (I estimated it was between 10 to 15 titles) it would have made room for other books more appropriate to the genre in question.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind a little sex in a well written story, as long as the purpose of the sex is incidental and not the main focus on the book. Once it becomes the main selling point of the book, then it becomes smut (or erotica in polite circles).
I recognize that sex sells. How else can you explain the shear number of erotica titles being marketed on Amazon? How can you explain the runaway success of books like “50 Shades of Gray” except that women readers like to read something steamy? I get that. But take away the main character’s billions, then put him in a trailer park, and the story of 50 shades would be more appropriately shown on an episode of “Criminal Minds”, don’t you think?
I think that the idea of Fantasy, as discussed in the genre Science Fiction and Fantasy, has become co-opted by people who don’t understand our genre. It you look at is seriously, every novel is a fantasy. Amazon gives lots of virtual shelf space to paranormal romance, erotica, women’s literature, etc., all of which are code words for “smut for women”. Why do they need to take up valuable space in the Science Fiction and Fantasy category to market that stuff.
C’mon, Amazon. Give us a break, would ya?