5 ms·

What is a "meaningful explanation" of technologies we have not yet created and science we have not yet discovered? In the limit, a work of "hard" "science" fict

What is a "meaningful explanation" of technologies we have not yet created and science we have not yet discovered? In the limit, a work of "hard" "science" fiction ends up like a Star Trek episode scenario before the "tech" bits were filled-in - "Captain, the Tech is overteching. We must tech the tech" [1]. I've read the Expanse btw and it wasn't particularly more "hard" or any less made-up than anything else. I don't remember whether I've read the Mars trilogy. _____________ [1] http://www.bryanreesman.com/2009/10/09/captain-picard-the-tech-is-overteching/ http://www.bryanreesman.com/2009/10/09/captain-picard-the-te... In the interest of full disclosure I'm a total trekkie. I even like ST:E (a lot).

EdwardCoffin 4y ago
Isn't this the opposite of hard science fiction? In my mind, hard science fiction is that where the science rules of the setting permeate and constrain the story, rather than being things to fill in. That said, I see more and more that people are accepting an alternative definition of hard science fiction, which is simply a way of distinguishing science fiction that does not involve outright magic from the fantasy/sf that does.
- throwaway17_17 4y ago
  There is another view of the hard/soft sci-fi scale that has gained popularity among younger (i.e. under-30) commentators and reviewers where the scale is from: soft == any and all science things, discussions, or principles are merely set dressings to tell a story; hard == the science is the basis for the work and the consequences, interactions, etc of dealing with or addressing the ‘science things’ is the purpose of the work It’s kind of like saying the scale goes from just telling a story set on a space ship to writing a dissertation on long-haul space flight’s effects on human behaviors, which might have a narrative through line. I am not really sure I even like the premise of this usage of hard/soft sci-fi, I am much more prone to use the possible/impossible technology type of scale when discussing ‘hardness’ of sci-fi, but I don’t get to dictate the usage of language.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    The two are correlated. To write proper hard sci-fi in your sense, you have to a) understand the relevant science and engineering (and I mean understand - not necessarily to a PhD level, but enough that you can reason about the phenomena and principles on your own), and b) let it permeate and constrain the plot. This naturally makes it more likely that a hard sci-fi story will be about "science things", because science and engineering not only constrain your plot, but you also have to explain their basics to the audience, which takes space. Conversely, the soft end of sci-fi has a lot more authors with little to no familiarity with the relevant sciences, and even less care for them. There are obviously exceptions to this "new hardness scale", but I think overall the two scales give almost identical readings in practice. And personally, I'm not against the new scale either, because it aligns with what I personally care about. That is, I want to read sci-fi that's hard on this new scale. I like my sci-fi to be about science, technology, social dynamics, and everything other than individuals and their emotional journeys and petty conflicts. There's enough of that in every other genre, not to mention, in real life itself.
fartsucker69 4y ago
>What is a "meaningful explanation" of technologies we have not yet created and science we have not yet discovered The question is already not the right one to ask. Many technologies he thinks up flat out oppose our current understanding of physics, therefor there is no adequate explanation for them in any case. Just to drill this point in a bit more because people often don't understand this: It's not just a case of "maybe we will discover new physics in the future that make this possible and the author writes in a sort of gap of our understanding", like good hard scifi authors, but more along the lines of "the author doesn't understand physics and this fantasy technology they dream up relies on apples falling up instead of down when you throw them". 99.9% of the time when any author writes something that is FTL-related for example, this is the case. It's really just a few authors who bend the rules in reasonable ways enough and then introduce good enough restrictions so it can be believably handwaved away. A lot of physics related descriptions in the Trisolarian books are also wildly innacurate and based on an extremely superficial laymans understanding of physics. That section where they house a black hole in that one custom facility for example, ugh.
elkos 4y ago
> even like ST:E (a lot). Pity that they cancelled that show as soon as it was getting interesting.

EdwardCoffin 4y ago

Isn't this the opposite of hard science fiction? In my mind, hard science fiction is that where the science rules of the setting permeate and constrain the story, rather than being things to fill in. That said, I see more and more that people are accepting an alternative definition of hard science fiction, which is simply a way of distinguishing science fiction that does not involve outright magic from the fantasy/sf that does.

throwaway17_17 4y ago
There is another view of the hard/soft sci-fi scale that has gained popularity among younger (i.e. under-30) commentators and reviewers where the scale is from: soft == any and all science things, discussions, or principles are merely set dressings to tell a story; hard == the science is the basis for the work and the consequences, interactions, etc of dealing with or addressing the ‘science things’ is the purpose of the work It’s kind of like saying the scale goes from just telling a story set on a space ship to writing a dissertation on long-haul space flight’s effects on human behaviors, which might have a narrative through line. I am not really sure I even like the premise of this usage of hard/soft sci-fi, I am much more prone to use the possible/impossible technology type of scale when discussing ‘hardness’ of sci-fi, but I don’t get to dictate the usage of language.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  The two are correlated. To write proper hard sci-fi in your sense, you have to a) understand the relevant science and engineering (and I mean understand - not necessarily to a PhD level, but enough that you can reason about the phenomena and principles on your own), and b) let it permeate and constrain the plot. This naturally makes it more likely that a hard sci-fi story will be about "science things", because science and engineering not only constrain your plot, but you also have to explain their basics to the audience, which takes space. Conversely, the soft end of sci-fi has a lot more authors with little to no familiarity with the relevant sciences, and even less care for them. There are obviously exceptions to this "new hardness scale", but I think overall the two scales give almost identical readings in practice. And personally, I'm not against the new scale either, because it aligns with what I personally care about. That is, I want to read sci-fi that's hard on this new scale. I like my sci-fi to be about science, technology, social dynamics, and everything other than individuals and their emotional journeys and petty conflicts. There's enough of that in every other genre, not to mention, in real life itself.

fartsucker69 4y ago

>What is a "meaningful explanation" of technologies we have not yet created and science we have not yet discovered The question is already not the right one to ask. Many technologies he thinks up flat out oppose our current understanding of physics, therefor there is no adequate explanation for them in any case. Just to drill this point in a bit more because people often don't understand this: It's not just a case of "maybe we will discover new physics in the future that make this possible and the author writes in a sort of gap of our understanding", like good hard scifi authors, but more along the lines of "the author doesn't understand physics and this fantasy technology they dream up relies on apples falling up instead of down when you throw them". 99.9% of the time when any author writes something that is FTL-related for example, this is the case. It's really just a few authors who bend the rules in reasonable ways enough and then introduce good enough restrictions so it can be believably handwaved away. A lot of physics related descriptions in the Trisolarian books are also wildly innacurate and based on an extremely superficial laymans understanding of physics. That section where they house a black hole in that one custom facility for example, ugh.

elkos 4y ago

> even like ST:E (a lot). Pity that they cancelled that show as soon as it was getting interesting.