Silly Science in Science Fiction

[MolotovCocktail]

You know, it seems to me that many modern sci-fi books, and many sci-fi TV shows and movies for that matter, feature alot of silly science. Most of what I read in the books are either very inaccurate or not possible scientifically.

Other times, I find that some books, especially in the Dune series, find some excuse to put some sort of medieval hocus-pocus magic crap in it. (Not saying the Dune series doesn't have alot of scientifically feasible things, but there are some things in there, especially weapon systems and human abilities, that are quite questionable in terms of practicallity and feasibility).

Another thing that really bothers me, especially in modern science fiction, is that they tend to use alot of big words borrowed from actual scientific terms to explain how their stuff works, without actually explaining it in a way that makes any sense.

Also, I tend to see alot of societies ruled by kings and emperors, with people who could be granted titles of nobility, or in that the economic system represents that of mercantilism or early capitalism, even though there is no way that such a society could possibly form in the future. Although, I'm pretty sure that a dictatorship could still form some time in the future, but it won't be anything like kings and emperors ruling over it.

Also, any warfare that is described in the science fiction books resembles that of the way wars were fought in both WWI and WWII, with the weapon systems working more or less the same way they did back then (i.e. excessive collateral damage, no guidence systems, no information or electronic warfare, obsolete battleship technology, etc.) Yes, the weapons involved have vastly more power, but in terms of the way they are used.... come on!

And then of course, there are various nuiances such as laser weapons and railguns that have recoil, hearing sound in outer space, aliens that don't have any unique language system or a unique way of communicating, anti-matter shields that don't annihilate with the regular matter particles, robots as strong as superman, etc.

Mind you, I do know that there is a lot of technology, inventions, or physical laws that haven't been discovered or thought of yet. And there are some good science fiction books that I have read that are very good and have a lot of scientifically or sociologically feasible things in it (e.g. books by Jules Verne and some modern ones like Philip K Dick and the Martian Chronicles by Kim Stanley). But sometimes I find that the majority of the science fiction books out there are either unimaginative or don't seem to follow along with any of the known laws of physics.

[kythe]

I doubt this counts as "real" sci fi, but the first movie that came to my mind was Resident Evil. It's based on a video game, so what can you expect, but the "scientific" explanation for zombies was so stupid to me I couldn't suspend disbelief at all. For me, that one takes the cake for most rediculous science in a movie.

[Ian Whates]

Originally Posted by Atomika

Other times, I find that some books, especially in the Dune series, find some excuse to put some sort of medieval hocus-pocus magic crap in it. (Not saying the Dune series doesn't have alot of scientifically feasible things, but there are some things in there, especially weapon systems and human abilities, that are quite questionable in terms of practicallity and feasibility).

It is worth pointing out that Dune was first published more than forty years ago. Science has moved on considerably since then in every field. Things that we now know to be "questionable in terms of practicality and feasibility" were not necessarily so then.

Also, what has made Dune such an enduring classic is not its science, but the thrill of the narrative itself and the rich complexity of the world and society it is set against. It's often been imitated since but at the time, no world in the whole of SF had ever been so vividly portrayed as Herbert's desert planet Arrakis. You could almost feel the grains of sand...

Having said that, I do take your general point that pseudo-science, when it takes itself too seriously, can be a distraction and a pain at times.

[Dave]

Biology is particularly badly served.

Plant life is almost always depicted by Flowering Plants - which only developed on Earth very recently. Either that, or they are particularly barren rocky planets without plants at all, but still with an Oxygen atmosphere.

Aliens are usually humanoid with recognisable human-like faces, or else it is a parasite peculiarly adapted to attack a species (us) that it has never even met before.

Anything to do with Aging or Cloning is never correct. Have you noticed how Clones are always the same age as the donor, with his/her memories and skills, even with very different upbringings and environmental factors?

Accelerated aging is always reversible!

De-evolution is possible!

Creatures can be enlarged or miniturised!

If you can't explain it, it must be a virus!

[Nikitta]

Originally Posted by Dave

If you can't explain it, it must be a virus!

That's what doctors go by

If any of you have read John Scalzi's Old Man's War and Ghost Brigades, I'd like to hear if you think they are exceptions.

I'm also curious as to whether the world described in Karl Schroeder's Sun Of Suns is physically possible or not. I know that we wouldn't be able to replicate it now, but would it be physically posswible given sufficiently evolved technology? I don't know nearly enough about the laws of physics to figure that out, myself.

I just wonder.

[j. d. worthington]

In earlier sf, a lot of the societal models were based on earlier periods in history (Asimov's Foundation series, for instance, where the model was the decline of the Roman empire... but then, the young Asimov saw that as a science fiction adventure story, rather than hard sf, to a large degree).

You know, it's interesting to see this, as many of these comments were made over 70 years ago, by Lovecraft, in his "Some Notes on Interplanetary Fiction". I haven't seen that particular one on the 'net, but if I come across it, I'll pass on the link....

[littlemissattitude]

The first instance that comes to mind wasn't even in a science fiction novel, I don't think, but serves as a shining example of bad science in literature. You know you're in trouble with the science when the archaeologist (who would very well know better or they should rescind his Ph.D.) comes along and proposes dating some rocks using the Carbon-14 method.

I can't recall the name or author of the book...this happened in the first thirty pages or so, upon which I threw the book across the room in disgust and got it back to the library as soon as I could get the hideous thing out of my house.

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

The first instance that comes to mind wasn't even in a science fiction novel, I don't think, but serves as a shining example of bad science in literature. You know you're in trouble with the science when the archaeologist (who would very well know better or they should rescind his Ph.D.) comes along and proposes dating some rocks using the Carbon-14 method.

I can't recall the name or author of the book...this happened in the first thirty pages or so, upon which I threw the book across the room in disgust and got it back to the library as soon as I could get the hideous thing out of my house.

Maybe my startling ignorance of anything scientific is useful after all as it allows me to enjoy stuff that is patentaly rubbish - blissfully unaware that the writer has done little or no reasearch.

[Talysia]

Science never was my strong point, but I do get a little annoyed when something scientific is misquoted or misused (which doesn't happen very often, given what I do know about science.)

[scalem X]

I guess it's the argument of fun versus real.
It's not only science fiction. I for example study Asian studies. I won't elaborate but consider the fact that your Chinese around the corner serves food that is in fact almost nowhere in China to be found. That of course doesn't make the food bad. You can still enjoy it. Fantasy isn't probable at all, but still is enjoyed by many for the story.
If you read scifi for the realness, why not read scientific publications?
The fact about predicting the future is improbable in itself.

It's a matter of personal taste.

[kythe]

Originally Posted by scalem X

If you read scifi for the realness, why not read scientific publications?

Because real scientific publications can be dry and boring. I think one of the aspects of being human is that we love imagination and we need a certain amount of creativity to stretch ourselves.

You do make some good points about "fantasy" vs reality in other areas of life.

Predicting the future is impossible, but sometimes we surprise ourselves when things previously thought to be scientifically impossible turn out to have some truth due to new advancements in development. Imaginatinative inventions can lead to real advancements, too, since it plants a desire for research in new areas. Sci fi can also spark interest in real science. We can learn even from things we know not to be true, because it motivates us to find out what is true.

[MolotovCocktail]

yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:

-all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).
-all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.
-Being at the center of the Earth and have the same gravity as Earth's surface (I'm talking about Zion in the Matrix here).
-All intelligent species look exactly like humans except for one or two distinguishing facial features.
-Lasers that have recoil or make noise
-Evil aliens that look like savage beasts while good ones look like heavenly angels
-The whole "Q" non-sense.
-Every single alien homeworld is suitible for humans, with corresponding atmospheric pressures and the correct amount of Oxygen/Nitrogen mix.
-BS solutions to otherwise catastrophic problems.
-Weapon systems that have been borrowed and adapted from the colonial and industrial era, and work in pretty much the same way, with WWII battlefield tactics, strategies, and style of fighting for that matter.
-And other countless atrocities that are too numerous to list.

[bruno-1012]

What gets me is the Engineering fallacies - mainly I suspect due to my background in that field.

This is not restricted to SF in its various forms but a couple of examples:

Tonight I saw a bit of I-robot with a suspension bridge where the cables still described a catenary and supported part of the structure.

Using a traffic computer to set all the traffic signals in a city to green. Ok the UTC could issue a command but the individual controllers at each junction would tell the system to get stuffed as it would compromise the inherent safety features - but it looks good...also crash changes to a green wave for the vehicle to pass straight through - ignoring safety minimums.

[dwndrgn]

How about this one:

Changing all of Earth's people's DNA so that they all have the extra chromosome that makes us girls, well, uh, girls and yet men are still born...
yup, just read it.

[RidderMark]

Originally Posted by Atomika

yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:

-all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).
-all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.
-Being at the center of the Earth and have the same gravity as Earth's surface (I'm talking about Zion in the Matrix here).
-All intelligent species look exactly like humans except for one or two distinguishing facial features.
-Lasers that have recoil or make noise
-Evil aliens that look like savage beasts while good ones look like heavenly angels
-The whole "Q" non-sense.
-Every single alien homeworld is suitible for humans, with corresponding atmospheric pressures and the correct amount of Oxygen/Nitrogen mix.
-BS solutions to otherwise catastrophic problems.
-Weapon systems that have been borrowed and adapted from the colonial and industrial era, and work in pretty much the same way, with WWII battlefield tactics, strategies, and style of fighting for that matter.
-And other countless atrocities that are too numerous to list.

Oh, I cannot possibly agree more. While this does not apply to all science fiction, specifically books, a great majority IMO are very inaccurate in terms of physics, biology, likelihood of planetary conditions, and other things of this nature. I think a great many stories could benefit from following the laws of reality a little more closely. However when it comes to true realism in science fiction, if it were followed properly, it would be a terrible mistake as a writer in my humble opinion.

For example physics. Flight in space almost always is inaccurate in its protrayal. For example, I think we all understand space flight is excessively different from atmospheric flight. Yet ships generally move in the majority of science fiction as if the ship is in atmospheric flight. Sound in space is another thing that does not exist. Sure, inside ships, you will hear noise, but outside where ther is no pressure, no elements with which to carry pressure sound will not exist (sound is just pressure waves translated for the brain into sound). Yet space fighting is always a noisy affair. Why? because sometimes the alternative is funner. Who wants to watch a battle on mute?

When it serves Biology, I think it is easier to "humanize" things so your audience can relate to it (I know I make myself sound as if I am a sci-fi writer, and I hope to be, but I am not published so take my words with a grain of salt obviosuly :P ). When I say humanize, I mean it in the sense of making life on alien worlds mirror some form of life on Earth. The alternative is creating a more "realistic" creature (I don't think any of us can predict what is realistic at this point in human advancement) that is unintersting. For example, talking to an amobea like entity that communicates through chemical signals simply will not involve the reader much beyond the first couple of paragraphs. Making aliens human like also makes it easier to communicate through body language. I can pretty much guarantee the liklihood of alien life using similar body language to us is pretty slim, yet hand gestures, and facial expression go a long way in getting a point across without forcing the writer to go into long winded explanations as to why this creature is doing what. Not unless you turn it into a joke like Douglas Adams, if your good at that stuff .

I think in the end, the truely imaginative Authors make things more "realistic" in Sci-Fi, but personally if science fiction ever followed reality it would be far to boring to follow (unless we have the capability to do the things we dream about now, which I think is unlikely, but that's for a differnt thread). I do agree though, some of the sci-fi floating around out there is simply absurd IMO.