Thursday, September 23, 2010

So, what do scientists think of science fiction?

I'm not a huge fan of the genre, myself, but I know some of you are, and I thought you might find this article interesting.

This quote from paleoanthropologist John Hawks is kind of intriguing:
You know, it seems to me that the best science fiction gets one science concept really right, even if it leads to results that seem unrealistic.

My favorite along these lines is a classic, Cyril Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons." It's the original version of "Idiocracy" — the basic idea is that selection now favors the stupid, and so if we go forward in time, that's what we'll see. The concept is simple and well-drawn; the consequences unexpected.

7 comments:

richard mcenroe said...

The ironic thing about SF is that while it's technological fantasies are often short-sighted (e.g. E.E. Smith's giant starship engines controlled with organ-like keyboards and seat-of-the-pants flying) it's sociological predictions are usually more correct the more extreme they are. Fred Pohl, Keith Laumer and Ron Goulart would have recognized our modern world a lot more readily than Jules Verne or Wells (although Wells would have been heatbroken to see what has become of his elitist socialist dreams)...

Yojimbo said...

Not science fiction people, he is just speaking in Neo-Rovian code.

Marching Morons=May Day Parades
Idiocracy=Public education system

JeffS said...

I've pointed out "The Marching Morons", in a similar context, in other blogs before. It's chilling in it's accuracy.

RebeccaH said...

I've loved science fiction since I picked up my first scifi book at the library when I was 13. It never bothered me that some of the science depicted was ridiculous. It was the story, the characters, the situations and worlds they found themselves in, that lit up my brain. Science fiction is just an examination of the human being, using unusual circumstances.

Ric Locke said...

One of the reasons I don't blog more is that people keep getting major attention for stuff I did weeks ago.

Regards,
Ric

TimT said...

They're always going on about what science is predicted in science fiction, or what scientific scenarios it predicts. (The classic way of describing this was the term 'hard science fiction'). I generally prefer those books that take an idea and exaggerate it, or develop it in ways that are literary, not scientific. (Italo Calvino's Cosmicomics for instance - a wonderful mish-mash of scientific ideas told in surrealistic ways.)

Paco said...

TimT: I agree completely. The best science fiction puts the emphasis on the fiction, not the science.