The older I get, the more I feel a need to advise youngsters: “Take care with what the sci-fi writers and their TV shows etc tell you, they talk a lot of shit.”

It seems to me that amongst the the barrage of pseudo and anti-science out there, sci-fi contributions inevitably bolster them in all kinds of ways.

Since many people apparently derive their “understanding” of science from science fiction, isn’t it about time we demanded that sci-fi creators either stick to the facts, or re-assign themselves to the “fantasy” genre?

I share your frustration but I doubt any such prescription would take hold. When dealing with events in the far future, speculation about future technology (or even future scientific discoveries) is reasonable.

Bubblecar said:

The older I get, the more I feel a need to advise youngsters: “Take care with what the sci-fi writers and their TV shows etc tell you, they talk a lot of shit.”

It seems to me that amongst the the barrage of pseudo and anti-science out there, sci-fi contributions inevitably bolster them in all kinds of ways.

Since many people apparently derive their “understanding” of science from science fiction, isn’t it about time we demanded that sci-fi creators either stick to the facts, or re-assign themselves to the “fantasy” genre?

Any historical novel or movie suffers the same distortion and misunderstanding. I suppose the writers of history also promote their opinion or at least interpretation, which can and is often incorrect.

Isn’t all science fiction until peer reviewed and universally accepted?

roughbarked said:

Isn’t all science fiction until peer reviewed and universally accepted?

Yep, although I’m sure Zarkov’s peers ticked off his Death of Clouds.

roughbarked said:

Isn’t all science fiction until peer reviewed and universally accepted?

You are right, it isn’t.

I think the “fiction” bit in the name might be relevent.

There is an actual thing called “the CSI effect’ that influences juries where they find fault with cases if they don’t involve a bunch of forensic test results.

Arts said:

There is an actual thing called “the CSI effect’ that influences juries where they find fault with cases if they don’t involve a bunch of forensic test results.

I recall an actual CSI person from the US remarking on the TV show that it was ‘about 40% what we really can do, about 30% what we might do if we had the money, and about 30% daydreams of what we’d like to be able to do’.

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

There is an actual thing called “the CSI effect’ that influences juries where they find fault with cases if they don’t involve a bunch of forensic test results.

I recall an actual CSI person from the US remarking on the TV show that it was ‘about 40% what we really can do, about 30% what we might do if we had the money, and about 30% daydreams of what we’d like to be able to do’.

and about 60% of what they absolutely don’t do.

Bubblecar said:

The older I get, the more I feel a need to advise youngsters: “Take care with what the sci-fi writers and their TV shows etc tell you, they talk a lot of shit.”

It seems to me that amongst the the barrage of pseudo and anti-science out there, sci-fi contributions inevitably bolster them in all kinds of ways.

Since many people apparently derive their “understanding” of science from science fiction, isn’t it about time we demanded that sci-fi creators either stick to the facts, or re-assign themselves to the “fantasy” genre?

Bad ideas in classic science fiction that have strongly influenced real scientists include the following, complete fiction that scientists have tried to build sciences around.

Telepathy
Teleportation
Tractor beams
Tricorder
Hyperspace
Warp drive
Exobiology
Mind meld
Invisibility
Death ray
Force field “shield”
Positronic brain

It’s only a matter of time before some scientist claims to have invented dilithium.

I am so tempted to add wormholes to that list, but that went the othor way, from bad science into science fiction.

>telepathy

I though most people had some sort of modest telepathy

transition said:

>telepathy

I though most people had some sort of modest telepathy

thought

transition said:

>telepathy

I though most people had some sort of modest telepathy

Depends what you mean by modest telepathy.

If you mean transmission of small to middling amounts of information from one human brain to another, without the aid of sound, sight, smell, taste or touch, then I don’t think I have met anyone with that ability, let alone most people.

> It’s only a matter of time before some scientist claims to have invented dilithium.

I was hoping that someone else would also notice that a Scholar Google search turns up 23,800 scientific papers about dilithium.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

The older I get, the more I feel a need to advise youngsters: “Take care with what the sci-fi writers and their TV shows etc tell you, they talk a lot of shit.”

It seems to me that amongst the the barrage of pseudo and anti-science out there, sci-fi contributions inevitably bolster them in all kinds of ways.

Since many people apparently derive their “understanding” of science from science fiction, isn’t it about time we demanded that sci-fi creators either stick to the facts, or re-assign themselves to the “fantasy” genre?

Bad ideas in classic science fiction that have strongly influenced real scientists include the following, complete fiction that scientists have tried to build sciences around.

Telepathy
Teleportation
Tractor beams
Tricorder
Hyperspace
Warp drive
Exobiology
Mind meld
Invisibility
Death ray
Force field “shield”
Positronic brain

It’s only a matter of time before some scientist claims to have invented dilithium.

I am so tempted to add wormholes to that list, but that went the othor way, from bad science into science fiction.

A number of those aren’t unbelievable and a couple are almost reality now, tri-corders are pretty much mobile phones with more capabilities and crappier displays. Death rays could be a number of weapon types, I imagine a military laser aimed at a person would kill them. Invisibility could use advanced flexible type displays that mimic the background they are against.