Good and Bad Science in Science Fiction | Cosmic Variance

Spent a day last week at the bacchanalia of imagination that is . Really an amazing experience, anyone who gets a chance should go at some point. My own excuse was appearing on a panel sponsored by Discover and the Science and Entertainment Exchange, on Abusing the Sci of Sci-Fi. I was joined by Jaime Paglia, TV writer and creator of the very charming show Eureka; Kevin Grazier, JPL scientist, , and science advisor to both Eureka and Battlestar Galactica; and Zack Stentz, writer for Fringe and the upcoming Thor movie. We were ably moderated by , and Tricia Mackey provided technical wizardry behind the scenes. We packed the room to bursting, with a long line of people who unfortunately weren’t able to fit inside. There’s a huge demand for this kind of discussion. See also reports , , , , .

And yes there is a video record of the whole event! (And .)

The rough idea was to point out examples of good and bad science in science fiction on movies and TV. Phil scored the best example of bad science, finding a brief clip from Armageddon where Bruce Willis is doing delicate work on the surface of an asteroid — in the rain. Jaime and Zack, who actually work in Hollywood, wisely foresaw the pitfalls of holding up someone else’s stuff as an example of badness, and graciously both chose examples from their own work. Sometimes the science must take a backseat to the story.

But not usually. In my own presentation I tried to move beyond the model of scientist as copy-editor, running through stories and films looking for violations of the laws of physics, wagging the finger of shame with ill-concealed glee. I think scientists should take a more creative role, helping fiction writers to develop consistent rules for their fictional worlds and extrapolating the consequences of those worlds, even if those rules are not the rules of our real universe. We should be more than scolds.

Update: since the two clips I showed were apparently missing from the video, I’m linking to them here. The first was a forward-looking philosophy of , and the second was an example of carefully exploring .


(1) San Diego Comic-Con
URL: http://www.comic-con.org/

(2) blogger
URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/

(3) Phil Plait
URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

(4) here
URL: http://soberingconclusion.com/movies/?p=4432

(5) here
URL: http://www.scriptphd.com/?p=2246

(6) here
URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2010/07/23/comic-con-science-even-if-its-fake-can-make-fiction-better/

(7) here
URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/24/comic-con-1-abusing-the-sci-of-scifi-panel/

(8) here
URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2010/07/24/comic-con-fringe-producer-declares-science-must-yield-to-story/

(9) other Discover videos
URL: http://discovermagazine.com/video/events/discover-comic-con-2010-abusing-sci-fi

(10) the proper relationship between science and narrative
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvwtS0htyk

(11) the logical consequences of an imaginary world
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5ZrGHeR1M



Incoming Post Search Feeds:
Modern marvels regenerative medicine
latest indian mision mars
Dr biochemistry gmail edu
ison nibiru
techno fruhstuck correspondence heart beat
nibiru
nasa nibiru 10 11 2013
petru aurelian simionescu 2013
ppsspp monster hunter freedom unite tablet
liberty generator tube

Related Post

Comments are closed.