4 ms·

I feel as if it's the exact opposite. Do any of Asimov's books on "positronic brains" hold up to genuine, in-depth scientific inquiry? He just glossed over the

• derefr 17y ago
  It's not the setting that needs to be scientific for a work to be SF, though, but rather the conflict. The conflict in the Robot books isn't about "positronic brains," it's about robotic interactions with humanity. The science being employed is sociology. To put it another way—the initial state of the universe when the book starts can be anything you like, with any rules you like. SF is just a strict dedication setting up those rules and following them wherever they may lead. ("Hard" sci-fi additionally requires that those rules be a superset of the rules of our own universe.)
  • rbanffy 17y ago
    > The science being employed is sociology. Perhaps in the case of Avatar, the science would be anthropology with a small bite of psychology and history mixed in. A lot of good sci-fi stories gloss over the details of several sciences (and often violate them in ways that would make a screenwriter turn red) to have the opportunity to examine one specific idea. Or, to put it more concisely, they tell one story while pretending to tell another.