Comment permalink

Which is more entertaining Science Fiction or Science Fact?

When I was in college, I had a professor who enjoyed science fiction, but had a problem with some of the liberties taken by authors. If you are going to be a science fiction writer, then you need to have at least a basic understanding of science, but the whole point is fiction.


If you actually saw how scientific advances are made, then it would bore you to tears. Writers created an idea called suspension of disbelief. It's where you are willing to overlook some scientific improprieties for the sake of a good story.


I admit that when I began my study of physics, I loved the romantic view of it. It was the Star Trek version I loved and not so much the actual math of it. Real science is made up of complex equations and experiments are much more about slow advancement and repetition than anything else. In science fiction books, advances happen quickly and go from the lab to real world in record time.


Scientists in labs spend years making baby steps before coming for a fundamental conclusion and often that conclusion on leads to more experiments. The idea is in 15-20 years to have a new way to store data on a quantum level or peer into the building blocks of matter. There is a reason why science fiction is adventurous and exciting. The reality is much more mundane and calculated. It would take decades for many of the advances created in science fiction to go from the lab to practical use. Scientists don't have the benefit of suspension of disbelief.