About a decade ago, I started working casually on just that: a classification of the types of science in sf that would be more detailed than the obvious correct vs. incorrect vs. gray area / fudged
( Read more... )
Tesla’s machine is Anachronistic Super Better Than Science.
The historical Tesla was kind of like that, too.
(I would choose a different term than "Unlikely Science," which makes its subject sound more akin to Magic Science-or a rarefied kind of True Science, since unlikely by definition means improbable but not impossible. It seems that the connotation you want is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, i.e., we can't prove that alien monoliths tinkered with our evolutionary development, so it's neither fake nor magic nor nevermind. There has to be a more specific adjective for that kind of loophole than unlikely.)
I am not wholly satisfied with either "True Science" or "Unlikely Science," terms which were invented the day before the panel. "Best-Guess Science" and "Merely Possible Science" would be more accurate but are too long.
What you are describing about the monoliths applies to them but not to the lifespan of the replicants, which is merely an extrapolation that is not the most probable one. I think I want to leave this category as a catch-all for both types of speculation. In both cases, our response is "that could happen. There's no reason why that couldn't happen. But it's not altogether likely." A lot of sf involves making speculations that are merely possible but not probable, and the purpose is very different from sf which attempts to speculate the most probable implication of some bit of science. On the "Timeless Stories" panel we were talking about Stand on Zanzibar, where the world-building is entirely Brunner's attempt at category 1 (whatever I end up calling it).
This is an excellent list. While I think there's room for debate as to the terms and definitions, I'm all about debate on this subject!
I'm the co-founder and a contributor to Science in My Fiction, a blog where we write about current science and ponder the SF potential therein. I was wondering if you'd be willing to let us repost this on the blog? We'd give full credit of course, including any links you'd like to include. I think our readers (as well as our contributors, all of whom are writers and/or scientists) would really enjoy discussing your list.
You can email me at simf-at-crossedgenres-dot-com. Thanks!
Comments 8
The historical Tesla was kind of like that, too.
(I would choose a different term than "Unlikely Science," which makes its subject sound more akin to Magic Science-or a rarefied kind of True Science, since unlikely by definition means improbable but not impossible. It seems that the connotation you want is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, i.e., we can't prove that alien monoliths tinkered with our evolutionary development, so it's neither fake nor magic nor nevermind. There has to be a more specific adjective for that kind of loophole than unlikely.)
Reply
What you are describing about the monoliths applies to them but not to the lifespan of the replicants, which is merely an extrapolation that is not the most probable one. I think I want to leave this category as a catch-all for both types of speculation. In both cases, our response is "that could happen. There's no reason why that couldn't happen. But it's not altogether likely." A lot of sf involves making speculations that are merely possible but not probable, and the purpose is very different from sf which attempts to speculate the most probable implication of some bit of science. On the "Timeless Stories" panel we were talking about Stand on Zanzibar, where the world-building is entirely Brunner's attempt at category 1 (whatever I end up calling it).
Reply
Reply
Is it, though? What's wrong with "Actual Science"?
and "Acceptable Science" may be better terms.
Given the movies you file under this category, I think you want something a little more enthusiastic than "acceptable."
Reply
This is an excellent list. While I think there's room for debate as to the terms and definitions, I'm all about debate on this subject!
I'm the co-founder and a contributor to Science in My Fiction, a blog where we write about current science and ponder the SF potential therein. I was wondering if you'd be willing to let us repost this on the blog? We'd give full credit of course, including any links you'd like to include. I think our readers (as well as our contributors, all of whom are writers and/or scientists) would really enjoy discussing your list.
You can email me at simf-at-crossedgenres-dot-com. Thanks!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment