# How much do you care about scientific accuracy?



## Alpha72 (May 9, 2012)

A friend of mine went on a rant over this. She was annoyed by how so many sci-fi stories don't use accurate science. I'm curious, does this bother a lot of people?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Quite a lot, really. I expect scientific accuracy in my science fiction. For me, science errors are as jarring as grammar errors. There are exceptions, I can read the Barsoom books and not care that Burroughs' Barsoom isn't at all like the real Mars. If it is planetary romance, I don't ask that the science be correct.

The author can depart from science if it aids the story, but science errors because the author didn't understand the science are jarring. Things like not understanding inertia, not understanding distance between stars, etc.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

QuantumIguana said:


> Quite a lot, really. I expect scientific accuracy in my science fiction. For me, science errors are as jarring as grammar errors. There are exceptions, I can read the Barsoom books and not care that Burroughs' Barsoom isn't at all like the real Mars. If it is planetary romance, I don't ask that the science be correct.
> 
> The author can depart from science if it aids the story, but science errors because the author didn't understand the science are jarring. Things like not understanding inertia, not understanding distance between stars, etc.


If it isn't scientifically accurate then it isn't science fiction. It might as well have dragons in it as it is just fantasy.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

DarkScribe said:


> If it isn't scientifically accurate then it isn't science fiction. It might as well have dragons in it as it is just fantasy.


  You say that like dragons aren't real!    

For me, if I notice errors of fact it does detract from my enjoyment of the book. I wonder, "if they got that wrong, what else might they have wrong". If it's just one little thing I can probably move past, but if there are a lot of errors I notice I'll probably stop reading. And if I noticed one I kind of subconsciously look for others.  If a major plot point hinges on it, that kills it for me.

Geographical misplacement annoys me; as in the book I read where the character talked about crossing Memorial Bridge from VA into DC and seeing the Jefferson Memorial on the left. Yeah. It's not on the left, it's on the right and I'm not sure it's even visible from that bridge. It is visible on the left from the 14th Street Bridge, but that bridge doesn't go straight towared the Lincoln memorial which he also referenced.  Sometimes times authors will say something like, "I moved things a bit for purposes of the story" and I'm o.k. with that because they're acknowledging that the setting their using differs subtlety from the 'real' place.

Timeline errors also annoy me, if I notice them. Things like having a young fisherman's son in the 1500's in England talking about reading books at night before bed. The printing press had been invented, but books still weren't the sort of thing regularly found in fishermens' cottages. And if they were it wasn't fairy stories for kids.  And I'm reading a SciFi story right now that apparently takes place in the early 21st Century. Gee, we're in the early 21st century right now, but we don't have any of this stuff -- safe nuclear powered rockets, manned bases on the moon and mars, sonic rifles. Not even close.  The book was written in the early 1990's. . . . . . I kind of feel like the author would have done better to project things a bit further to the future. Once you get past the timeline, it's not a bad story, so I've just told myself it's not OUR earth, it's an alternate reality earth. But it does jar every time I come upon a date. . . . .

I'm sure there are a lot of things that are errors that I miss because I just don't know. . . .


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

It matters to me. A deliberate change, such as faster than light travel or communication, is OK but otherwise getting the science wrong based on what was common knowledge at the time the story was written bothers me. As was said above, if scientific accuracy is ignored I think of it as fantasy, not science fiction. It has sometimes been bad enough that I stopped reading.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

If I'm reading hard science SF, then I want the science to be on a strong, realistic foundation - even if they then extrapolate from there.  But, I also like Space Opera so I'm all for FTL space battles and empires spanning a galactic arm.  And, I like science fiction where the science is just part of the framework and not integral to the story.  

I'm the same way with my fantasy though.  If it's a book set within a specific mythos, then be true to it.  Otherwise, make up your own or do as you will.

For me, it's the story itself that's most important.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

It depends. If a piece of fiction is claiming to be dead accurate and is actually not, that's painful. But if an author is obviously just having fun and letting his/her imagination run riot (Burroughs has already been mentioned; I'd add Verne and Conan Doyle, and the movie 'The Core' is another good example) then I'm happy to just let them take me wherever they want.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

If it's trying to be "hard" sci-fi, then I do expect it to be scientifically accurate as far as is possible. Ann's example of a book written in the 90s would bug me because a scientifically literate person would know that those things would not be realistically possible in the next twenty years. If it's a book that was written a longer time ago, like Verne, I'd be more forgiving in that area.

Some sci-fi, though, like the space opera that Geoffrey mentioned, really is fantasy set in space. That's cool, too, but, since it's fantasy, I don't worry about the science but just accept it as inherent to that world.


----------



## Audrey Finch (May 18, 2012)

Not much in fiction.  I think its almost impossible to predict what can happen in 5-10 years.  I once had a book which explained the science behind Star Trek, but when it comes to fiction, as long as it is plausible and entertaining, I'm happy. Guess that makes me quite shallow huh lol


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

marianneg said:


> Ann's example of a book written in the 90s would bug me because a scientifically literate person would know that those things would not be realistically possible in the next twenty years. If it's a book that was written a longer time ago, like Verne, I'd be more forgiving in that area.


To be fair, the 'explanation' as given in the story is that in the mid/late 90's a message was received from another galaxy. This triggered a real explosion of the development of space technologies. . . . . fair enough; I still thought it happened too fast. Which is why I'm treating it like it's much farther in the future, or an alternate timeline.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

_Any_ time an author gets "facts" wrong, whether they be scientific, historical, or whatever, it will jar the reader out of their willing suspension of disbelief if the reader in question knows enough about that particular subject to recognize that something is wrong. As an avid Sci-Fi reader and also a reader of science fact, I can be jarred by just plain incorrect science, but more problematic can be some of the gray areas: my suspicion based on my current understanding of physics is that humans will probably never travel faster than light, nor through time. While neither is, at this time, theoretically impossible, all the evidence seems to point to it consuming staggering amounts (might I say "astronomical amounts"?) of energy and resources -- assuming it really is possible. However, FTL and time travel are such established tropes in the genre that I can give them a pass in some stories, particularly the more "space opera" type that is more about action than it is about science. At other times, though, when they simply "engage the hyper/warp/<insert_name_here> drive", I can be momentarily taken out of the story as I think, "Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?" And then there's something like _Angels and Demons_, where much of the early story along with the whole concept of being able to move anti-matter around in an easily carried container jarred me, while I probably missed a lot of historical and art details he took liberties with as my depth of knowledge in those fields is less.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

NogDog said:


> _Any_ time an author gets "facts" wrong, whether they be scientific, historical, or whatever, it will jar the reader out of their willing suspension of disbelief if the reader in question knows enough about that particular subject to recognize that something is wrong.


^This. In general, I don't care that much about the science in science fiction, though. I'm not a hard core science fiction fan and I don't particularly care if it's too "science-y." I guess I'm more of a space fiction fan...

But there can be science, accurate or inaccurate in genres other than science fiction, too.

Betsy


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Even in fantasy, there are facts you should get right if you want your story to be believable and non-jarring to discerning readers. To wit, see Poul Anderson's classic essay: "On Thud and Blunder".


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I generally want a degree of scientific accuracy: it doesn't have to stand up to peer review but the science shouldn't be make-believe either; authors need at least a basic understanding of the natural world and it physical laws before they write something that breaks it.    Also, nobody, I mean nobody, should have stories that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  (A borrowed idea for somewhere.)

There was a quote I like, can't remember where,  along these lines:  "The science in most movies seems like something invented by English majors who were sleeping off  nights of partying when taking the required basic science survey courses as  freshmen  in college."  A lot of books probably fit that bill too.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Geemont said:


> I generally want a degree of scientific accuracy: it doesn't have to stand up to peer review but the science shouldn't be make-believe either; authors need at least a basic understanding of the natural world and it physical laws before they write something that breaks it. Also, nobody, I mean nobody, should have stories that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (A borrowed idea for somewhere.)
> 
> There was a quote I like, can't remember where, along these lines: "The science in most movies seems like something invented by English majors who were sleeping off nights of partying when taking the required basic science survey courses as freshmen in college." A lot of books probably fit that bill too.


And for any not familiar with the 3 laws of thermodynamics, the most concise explanation I've see:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.


----------



## Marc Davies (Aug 9, 2012)

For me, it depends on the genre.  For hard SF, I expect very good scientific accuracy, and if its wrong, then it annoys me a lot.

For all other genres, I'm not too bothered so long as it is sufficiently consistent to be believable by your average (non-scientifically educated) reader.  

I also think there's a big difference between scientific detail and scientific accuracy.  A book can contain, for example, time travel without any explanation as to the scientific basis.  That's fine with me.  But if the book tries to give an explanation which doesn't work, I'd rather the writer just left it vague.  

That's the line I've followed in my own books.  I'm not a physics PHD, so I'm not going to try to fool the sci-fi buffs out there.  Better to leave it vague, and let their imaginations fill in the details.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Geemont said:


> There was a quote I like, can't remember where, along these lines: "The science in most movies seems like something invented by English majors who were sleeping off nights of partying when taking the required basic science survey courses as freshmen in college."


That's very good.   

It's generally the way I distinguish sci-fi from Science Fiction. Sci-fi is written by those English majors, heh.

Mike


----------



## Derendrea (Sep 4, 2012)

A lot - I research accuracy all the time. In fact, I just interviewed an anesthesiologist for my short story. 

It gets me when facts are just completely bogus in a book.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't read a lot of sci fi, and tend to prefer things that are more fantasy set in space (i.e. star wars type stuff) than true sci fi anyway.  So I don't care about scientific accuracy.  If I wanted to read something realistic I'd read a non-fiction book or a piece of dramatic fiction set in the real world.  Now errors in those do bug me since the first is supposed to be factual information and real world settings, history etc. should be depicted accurately.

But if I'm going to read something like sci fi or fantasy, then that's pure escapism for me and I don't care about those type of things as I'm deliberately seeking out things not set in a realistic setting to escape from the world.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

I think accuracy is a must, as long as it doesn't actively get in the way of the story...and then I would recommend avoiding whatever issue is causing the inaccuracy. The best way to do that is decide how much science you are going to use in a particular story, then make sure that science is right. Grounding your story in good science makes it more realistic to the reader.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

I don't really care. But when they do then I think it's super cool.


----------



## BowlOfCherries (May 8, 2009)

Where does "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" type of science fiction fit into this picture?  Does exploring a possible "what if" scenario need to be completely based in detailed, hard scientific data if its main purpose is to explore psychological / sociological ideas and themes?  

What if Martians landed on Maple Street? How would the residents react? Would the Martian space ship need to be technically plausible or can it just be designed to feed the idea or theme being explored?  

How about the short story "The Cold Equations" -  did it need to be technically accurate / technically specific to explore the moral issues the story revolved around?


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I just finished A podiobook "Rebels of the Red Planet"
Overall a pretty good read, but I could not get past one glaring inconsistency.

He spent a lot of time talking about an unterraformed Mars and genetically changing people to be able to survive in the low oxygen, low air pressure conditions without a spacesuit....unlikely but i could live with it. 

But they kept flying around Mars in freakin' helicopters. No amount of science fiction is going to make a helicopter generate enough lift in a near vacuum!

Granted it was a classic from the 60s but still


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Helicopters_on_Mars_prt.htm

Actually, NASA is researching unmanned helicopters for exploring Mars.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Chad Winters said:


> I just finished A podiobook "Rebels of the Red Planet"
> Overall a pretty good read, but I could not get past one glaring inconsistency.
> 
> He spent a lot of time talking about an unterraformed Mars and genetically changing people to be able to survive in the low oxygen, low air pressure conditions without a spacesuit....unlikely but i could live with it.
> ...


Maybe he had some Fairy dust left over from his last fantasy novel? Helicopters with Fairy dust might work.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

I don't read much sci-fi, so scientific accuracy isn't super high on my "Things in Books That Drive Me Batsh*t Insane" list. That being said, it's nice to read something and _not_ go, "C'mon. I was an English major and even I know that's not possible."


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Helicopters_on_Mars_prt.htm
> 
> Actually, NASA is researching unmanned helicopters for exploring Mars.


Yeah I can see something small and light, but these were full-size cargo and people transporters


----------

