Science Fiction on Science Blogs - Science Online ‘09, Day 1
Installment One in a barrage of posts on Science Online ‘09–
Okay, “barrage” is probably the wrong word. I don’t plan a Time-on-Target setup here. Let’s call it a series of posts, instead.
The premise of the session was to explore the use of science fiction in science blogs (hence the title), and it was coordinated by Stephanie Zvan. Stephanie kicked off the discussion (this is an unconference, remember!) by simply throwing out to the audience the question “so…what do you think of it? Using science fiction in your blog?”
The discussion freewheeled almost immediately, delving into such varied issue as how the change of one element of science - essentially creating an innovation via author fiat - is the key to exploring how a character develops, to the fact that much scifi that doesn’t actually have any structure, plot, or characterization, to the question of why it’s always gotta be space dolphins (or space cetaceans)*.
The freewheeling nature of the discussion left the original question quietly weeping in the corner for quite a while, until the facilitator brought the discussion back around to the central question: what about science fiction is or can be useful to scientists who blog?
When we refocused (it’s not hard to get scientists talking about sci-fi; it’s very hard getting them to stop) there were many interesting comments that came out. To list just a few (it went fast - keeping notes was not easy!):
- One ecologist said that the science in sci-fi is so bad, that the utility of it is driven to zero. There’s nothing of value in it to address their topic.
- Likewise, medicine sees so little medicine-focused sci-fi that there’s not much to go on
- Another suggested that credibility is at stake in science blogging - if you blog about science fiction, you risk looking like a lightweight.
Two comments stood out as very cogent comments on where sci-fi fits into the larger scheme of science blogging:
- One, scientists likely make allusions and references to science fiction all the time in their blogs - there is almost a cultural context that is assumed, in that you can reference Lovecraft and Heinlein and Asimov in passing**, and it is simply a subliminal nod. Science bloggers aren’t science fiction bloggers, so the science fiction that they deal with is only in the furtherance of their own point.
- Two, and this was probably the most profound statement of discussion, was that science is by its very nature an exploration of science fiction. Every single hypothesis made is, in effect, the creation of an alternative world that must then be tested.
Of course, for sci-fi authors, the testing side is not part of the process.
Other points to note:
- MIT Bookstore’s sci-fi section is not very good. What?
- If you want in to the Sci-Fi gig, and you don’t care how, shoot for a Star Wars, Halo, or Warhammer 40K gig.
* It’s because Space is an Ocean. Or maybe because space is, as they say, chock full of whales.
** Just use the words “eldritch,” “preternatural,” or “cthonic” in your post.