# Silly Science in Science Fiction



## MolotovCocktail (Mar 4, 2007)

You know, it seems to me that many modern sci-fi books, and many sci-fi TV shows and movies for that matter, feature alot of silly science. Most of what I read in the books are either very inaccurate or not possible scientifically. 

Other times, I find that some books, especially in the Dune series, find some excuse to put some sort of medieval hocus-pocus magic crap in it. (Not saying the Dune series doesn't have alot of scientifically feasible things, but there are some things in there, especially weapon systems and human abilities, that are quite  questionable in terms of practicallity and feasibility). 

Another thing that really bothers me, especially in modern science fiction, is that they tend to use alot of big words borrowed from actual scientific terms to explain how their stuff works, without actually explaining it in a way that makes any sense. 

Also, I tend to see alot of societies ruled by kings and emperors, with people who could be granted titles of nobility, or in that the economic system represents that of mercantilism or early capitalism, even though there is no way that such a society could possibly form in the future. Although, I'm pretty sure that a dictatorship could still form some time in the future, but it won't be anything like kings and emperors ruling over it. 

Also, any warfare that is described in the science fiction books resembles that of the way wars were fought in both WWI and WWII, with the weapon systems working more or less the same way they did back then (i.e. excessive collateral damage, no guidence systems, no information or electronic warfare, obsolete battleship technology, etc.) Yes, the weapons involved have vastly more power, but in terms of the way they are used.... come on!

And then of course, there are various nuiances such as laser weapons and railguns that have recoil, hearing sound in outer space, aliens that don't have any unique language system or a unique way of communicating, anti-matter shields that don't annihilate with the regular matter particles, robots as strong as superman, etc. 

Mind you, I do know that there is a lot of technology, inventions, or physical laws that haven't been discovered or thought of yet. And there are some good science fiction books that I have read that are very good and have a lot of scientifically or sociologically feasible things in it (e.g. books by Jules Verne and some modern ones like Philip K Dick and the Martian Chronicles by Kim Stanley). But sometimes I find that the majority of the science fiction books out there are either unimaginative or don't seem to follow along with any of the known laws of physics.


----------



## kythe (Mar 4, 2007)

I doubt this counts as "real" sci fi, but the first movie that came to my mind was Resident Evil.  It's based on a video game, so what can you expect, but the "scientific" explanation for zombies was so stupid to me I couldn't suspend disbelief at all.  For me, that one takes the cake for most rediculous science in a movie.


----------



## Ian Whates (Mar 4, 2007)

Atomika said:


> Other times, I find that some books, especially in the Dune series, find some excuse to put some sort of medieval hocus-pocus magic crap in it. (Not saying the Dune series doesn't have alot of scientifically feasible things, but there are some things in there, especially weapon systems and human abilities, that are quite questionable in terms of practicallity and feasibility).


 

It is worth pointing out that _Dune _was first published more than forty years ago. Science has moved on considerably since then in every field. Things that we now know to be "questionable in terms of practicality and feasibility" were not necessarily so then.

Also, what has made Dune such an enduring classic is not its science, but the thrill of the narrative itself and the rich complexity of the world and society it is set against. It's often been imitated since but at the time, no world in the whole of SF had ever been so vividly portrayed as Herbert's desert planet Arrakis. You could almost feel the grains of sand...  

Having said that, I do take your general point that pseudo-science, when it takes itself too seriously, can be a distraction and a pain at times.


----------



## Dave (Mar 4, 2007)

Biology is particularly badly served. 

Plant life is almost always depicted by Flowering Plants - which only developed on Earth very recently.  Either that, or they are particularly barren rocky planets without plants at all, but still with an Oxygen atmosphere.

Aliens are usually humanoid with recognisable human-like faces, or else it is a parasite peculiarly adapted to attack a species (us) that it has never even met before.

Anything to do with Aging or Cloning is never correct. Have you noticed how Clones are always the same age as the donor, with his/her memories and skills, even with very different upbringings and environmental factors?

Accelerated aging is always reversible!

De-evolution is possible!

Creatures can be enlarged or miniturised!

If you can't explain it, it must be a virus!


----------



## Nikitta (Mar 4, 2007)

Dave said:


> If you can't explain it, it must be a virus!



That's what doctors go by 

If any of you have read John Scalzi's Old Man's War and Ghost Brigades, I'd like to hear if you think they are exceptions.

I'm also curious as to whether the world described in Karl Schroeder's Sun Of Suns is physically possible or not. I know that we wouldn't be able to replicate it now, but would it be physically posswible given sufficiently evolved technology? I don't know nearly enough about the laws of physics to figure that out, myself.

I just wonder.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 4, 2007)

In earlier sf, a lot of the societal models were based on earlier periods in history (Asimov's Foundation series, for instance, where the model was the decline of the Roman empire... but then, the young Asimov saw that as a science fiction adventure story, rather than hard sf, to a large degree).

You know, it's interesting to see this, as many of these comments were made over 70 years ago, by Lovecraft, in his "Some Notes on Interplanetary Fiction". I haven't seen that particular one on the 'net, but if I come across it, I'll pass on the link....


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 4, 2007)

The first instance that comes to mind wasn't even in a science fiction novel, I don't think, but serves as a shining example of bad science in literature.  You know you're in trouble with the science when the archaeologist (who would very well know better or they should rescind his Ph.D.) comes along and proposes dating some rocks using the Carbon-14 method. 

I can't recall the name or author of the book...this happened in the first thirty pages or so, upon which I threw the book across the room in disgust and got it back to the library as soon as I could get the hideous thing out of my house.


----------



## jackokent (Mar 4, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> The first instance that comes to mind wasn't even in a science fiction novel, I don't think, but serves as a shining example of bad science in literature. You know you're in trouble with the science when the archaeologist (who would very well know better or they should rescind his Ph.D.) comes along and proposes dating some rocks using the Carbon-14 method.
> 
> I can't recall the name or author of the book...this happened in the first thirty pages or so, upon which I threw the book across the room in disgust and got it back to the library as soon as I could get the hideous thing out of my house.


 
Maybe my startling ignorance of anything scientific is useful after all as it allows me to enjoy stuff that is patentaly rubbish - blissfully unaware that the writer has done little or no reasearch.


----------



## Talysia (Mar 4, 2007)

Science never was my strong point, but I do get a little annoyed when something scientific is misquoted or misused (which doesn't happen very often, given what I _do_ know about science.)


----------



## scalem X (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess it's the argument of fun versus real.
It's not only science fiction. I for example study Asian studies. I won't elaborate but consider the fact that your Chinese around the corner serves food that is in fact almost nowhere in China to be found. That of course doesn't make the food bad. You can still enjoy it. Fantasy isn't probable at all, but still is enjoyed by many for the story.
If you read scifi for the realness, why not read scientific publications?
The fact about predicting the future is improbable in itself.

It's a matter of personal taste.


----------



## kythe (Mar 4, 2007)

scalem X said:


> If you read scifi for the realness, why not read scientific publications?


 
Because real scientific publications can be dry and boring.    I think one of the aspects of being human is that we love imagination and we need a certain amount of creativity to stretch ourselves.

You do make some good points about "fantasy" vs reality in other areas of life.  

Predicting the future is impossible, but sometimes we surprise ourselves when things previously thought to be scientifically impossible turn out to have some truth due to new advancements in development.  Imaginatinative inventions can lead to real advancements, too, since it plants a desire for research in new areas.  Sci fi can also spark interest in real science.  We can learn even from things we know not to be true, because it motivates us to find out what is true.


----------



## MolotovCocktail (Mar 4, 2007)

yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:

-all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).
-all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.
-Being at the center of the Earth and have the same gravity as Earth's surface (I'm talking about Zion in the Matrix here).
-All intelligent species look exactly like humans except for one or two distinguishing facial features.
-Lasers that have recoil or make noise
-Evil aliens that look like savage beasts while good ones look like heavenly angels
-The whole "Q" non-sense.
-Every single alien homeworld is suitible for humans, with corresponding atmospheric pressures and the correct amount of Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. 
-BS solutions to otherwise catastrophic problems. 
-Weapon systems that have been borrowed and adapted from the colonial and industrial era, and work in pretty much the same way, with WWII battlefield tactics, strategies, and style of fighting for that matter.
-And other countless atrocities that are too numerous to list.


----------



## bruno-1012 (Mar 4, 2007)

What gets me is the Engineering fallacies - mainly I suspect due to my background in that field.

This is not restricted to SF in its various forms but a couple of examples:

Tonight I saw a bit of I-robot with a suspension bridge where the cables still described a catenary and supported part of the structure.

Using a traffic computer to set all the traffic signals in a city to green.  Ok the UTC could issue a command but the individual controllers at each junction would tell the system to get stuffed as it would compromise the inherent safety features - but it looks good...also crash changes to a green wave for the vehicle to pass straight through - ignoring safety minimums.


----------



## dwndrgn (Mar 5, 2007)

How about this one:

Changing all of Earth's people's DNA so that they all have the extra chromosome that makes us girls, well, uh, girls and yet men are still born...
yup, just read it.


----------



## RidderMark (Mar 5, 2007)

Atomika said:


> yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:
> 
> -all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).
> -all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.
> ...


 
Oh, I cannot possibly agree more. While this does not apply to all science fiction, specifically books, a great majority IMO are very inaccurate in terms of physics, biology, likelihood of planetary conditions, and other things of this nature. I think a great many stories could benefit from following the laws of reality a little more closely. However when it comes to true realism in science fiction, if it were followed properly, it would be a terrible mistake as a writer in my humble opinion.

For example physics. Flight in space almost always is inaccurate in its protrayal. For example, I think we all understand space flight is excessively different from atmospheric flight. Yet ships generally move in the majority of science fiction as if the ship is in atmospheric flight. Sound in space is another thing that does not exist. Sure, inside ships, you will hear noise, but outside where ther is no pressure, no elements with which to carry pressure sound will not exist (sound is just pressure waves translated for the brain into sound). Yet space fighting is always a noisy affair. Why? because sometimes the alternative is funner. Who wants to watch a battle on mute? 

When it serves Biology, I think it is easier to "humanize" things so your audience can relate to it (I know I make myself sound as if I am a sci-fi writer, and I hope to be, but I am not published so take my words with a grain of salt obviosuly  ). When I say humanize, I mean it in the sense of making life on alien worlds mirror some form of life on Earth. The alternative is creating a more "realistic" creature (I don't think any of us can predict what is realistic at this point in human advancement) that is unintersting. For example, talking to an amobea like entity that communicates through chemical signals simply will not involve the reader much beyond the first couple of paragraphs. Making aliens human like also makes it easier to communicate through body language. I can pretty much guarantee the liklihood of alien life using similar body language to us is pretty slim, yet hand gestures, and facial expression go a long way in getting a point across without forcing the writer to go into long winded explanations as to why this creature is doing what. Not unless you turn it into a joke like Douglas Adams, if your good at that stuff  .

I think in the end, the truely imaginative Authors make things more "realistic" in Sci-Fi, but personally if science fiction ever followed reality it would be far to boring to follow (unless we have the capability to do the things we dream about now, which I think is unlikely, but that's for a differnt thread). I do agree though, some of the sci-fi floating around out there is simply absurd IMO.


----------



## Ice fyre (Mar 5, 2007)

Bad science in SF hmmm? Are we talking about the scientific impossibility of Faster than Light travel? Which is central pilllar of most SF.

Quite frankly the science being bad does not bother me.

What bother's me more is bad story telling lazy writing and lack of imagination something Hard sf witers suffer from as much as pulp Sf writers do. 

AS to your point on humanoid species I would point out that we would interact with that which we know. Also this was done on Star Trek for a very good reason. Star trek was telling story's and using Sci-fi to tell them. Humanoid aliens were used as metephors by the writers to shine a spot light on our own predudices and behaviors. That is why most authors I presume use human like species and cultures!

I would leave the last word to Mr Strasinsky when asked what the speed of a Star fury was, his answer was "The speed of convenience" whatever the plot needed the Star fury could do! 

Just relax its all fiction you know.


----------



## chrispenycate (Mar 5, 2007)

Atomika said:


> yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:
> 
> -all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).


while "within a couple of hours" is perhaps excessively limiting, if you go too far outside (Marky wanted a planet where his characters could travel round the equatot at the speed of night, so I tidally locked it, and then gave it a glancing shot with a comet. The meteology became slightly over the top; survivable, but requiring fast footwork, no permanent seas but lots of temporary ones; not a good place to bring up kids)


> -all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.


a habitable planet will look a lot like Earth(assuming you mean (habitable by non-modified human beings)  The lifeforms, however, have no such constraints, and desriptions of many alien planets, while tending to assume the climatic variation of vegetation will parallel   


> -Being at the center of the Earth and have the same gravity as Earth's surface (I'm talking about Zion in the Matrix here).
> -All intelligent species look exactly like humans except for one or two distinguishing facial features.


That's more a Hollywood (and Dr.Who) problem than Science fiction. We've had a wide range of physiologies for over a centory; it's just that the cinema/television had difficulties finding actorswith more than four arms.


> -Lasers that have recoil or make noise


A sufficiently poweful laser does actually produce a pressure; I've got it down as one of my propulsion systems (though if you're only trying to burn bits off people its hardly worh going into the tens of thousands of terrawatts) And, if it's a pulsed laser, in atmosphere it makes a series of clicks as the air in front of it is heated by absorbed light. A linear accelerator (or railgun) has a lot of recoil, and the sound of its projectiles breaking the sound barrier is loud, and quite objectionable 


> -Evil aliens that look like savage beasts while good ones look like heavenly angels


wouldn't it be convenient if life were organised like that?


> -The whole "Q" non-sense.
> -Every single alien homeworld is suitible for humans, with corresponding atmospheric pressures and the correct amount of Oxygen/Nitrogen mix.


if I started listing the environments science fiction has explored as potential niches for lifeforms; The heart of stars, open space, gas giants and moons, neutron stars, computer networks, nebulae - thousands of possibilities. But again, the cinema doesn't want its stars to be bundled up and isolated, so exploration is "wild west" style, preferably in shirt sleeves.  


> -BS solutions to otherwise catastrophic problems.
> -Weapon systems that have been borrowed and adapted from the colonial and industrial era, and work in pretty much the same way, with WWII battlefield tactics, strategies, and style of fighting for that matter.
> -And other countless atrocities that are too numerous to list.



Why assume that democracy is the obvious ultimate step in social developement? I live in the oldest continuous democracy on this planet, and can see the limitations of the system, particularly as regards requiring an educated populace. The aristocratic sytem has a much longer pedigree, and has been proved to work (I didn't claim you had to like it; just that, as social evolution goes, it's a proven survivor.   In a crisis situation strong men come forward, and frequently establish dynasties; kings or whatever are only names



> Plant life is almost always depicted by Flowering Plants - which only developed on Earth very recently. Either that, or they are particularly barren rocky planets without plants at all, but still with an Oxygen atmosphere.





> Anything to do with Aging or Cloning is never correct. Have you noticed how Clones are always the same age as the donor, with his/her memories and skills, even with very different upbringings and environmental factors?


 I could cite several hundred books where cloning is handled realistically; Cherryh, Bujold, Varley, Clarke. I could keep going.The main "clones in batches" (for particular functions) seems to have started with Huxley's "brave new world", not that the word "clone" was yet in general use


> De-evolution is possible!


very likely, if  not at an individual level. "Throwbacks" to an earlier stage of developement occur from time to time in populations, and the tendency could quite possibly be accentuated artificially, though only to  previous forms in that particular path; you'd never get a human embrio developing into a chimp (or a shark; maybe a jellyfish 
All in all, I don't seem to have been reading the same science fiction as some of you; certainly, there are technical errors, and I take a malicious pleasure in finding them, but most of the authors I read _expect_ readers like me. and make it as difficult as possible for us.


----------



## kythe (Mar 6, 2007)

Ice fyre said:


> Bad science in SF hmmm? Are we talking about the scientific impossibility of Faster than Light travel? Which is central pilllar of most SF.


 
A few years ago I picked up a non-fiction book called "Faster Than Light" by Nick Herbert, where he proposes that such travel may be possible.  I only read the first couple of chapters, so unfortunately I can't give a review of his theories.  Not that I probably could anyway, since my understanding of physics is too minimal for me to be able to critique.     The idea is out there, though.


----------



## Dave (Mar 8, 2007)

This link has errors of Physics more typical of Hollywood movie:
Neatorama » Blog Archive » 9 Laws of Physics That Don’t Apply in Hollywood

There are several programmes of TV at the moment - 'Mythbusters' is one - that investigate if things such as the exploding petrol tanks really happen, if a postage stamp can unbalance a helicopter blade, how much sugar in your fuel actually stops the engine.


----------



## MolotovCocktail (Mar 10, 2007)

lol thanks for the list Dave


----------



## mosaix (Mar 10, 2007)

Many people seem to think that you can't hear sound in outer space - this isn't true. 

One way sound is transmitted is by gas. An explosion or a rocket engine produces an expanding gas cloud and this is quite enough to transmit the corresponding sound.  Of course it would dissipate, probably quite quickly, but before that happens, if it reached a human ear, then so would the sound.


----------



## Pyan (Mar 10, 2007)

This was one of the things that most impressed me about *Kubrick's 2001 *- he got the science right - no "Woosh" noises, or rockets roaring past.


----------



## Kelvin Zero (Mar 11, 2007)

Well.. FTL, antigravity and teleportation are all unlikely technologies.

But think I could forgive all that if just _once_ a spaceship would *TURN AROUND AND FACE ITS THRUSTERS THE OTHER WAY* when it intends to stop at a planet.


----------



## isacked (Mar 17, 2007)

What about Isaac Asimov's fiction? I used to love him; he seemed so convincing. Now as an adult I feel he used many Big Words too, so I never figured out if I was being HAD. Is the science behind his stuff real?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 17, 2007)

isacked said:


> What about Isaac Asimov's fiction? I used to love him; he seemed so convincing. Now as an adult I feel he used many Big Words too, so I never figured out if I was being HAD. Is the science behind his stuff real?


 
A fair chunk of it, yes... he was a trained scientist (biochemistry), and had a knowledge of all sorts of other scientific fields (not to mention darned near everything else!).

Like most of the sf writers, however, if a good story demanded it, he would bend the rules at times; after all, he was pretty much convinced time travel was an impossibility, yet he wrote several stories featuring such, "The Ugly Little Boy" and *The End of Eternity* being two that come to mind....

But, generally speaking... yes, he tried to adhere to genuine scientific understanding of the time (or reasonable extrapolations from such) in most his work....


----------



## Ice fyre (Mar 29, 2007)

I would point out that researchers at a universty somwhere managed to teleport and atom.....so it's theoretically possible to transport things. It really isnt practical though!

And I vaugley remmber Einstein had a secon theory of relativity which you could go faster than light, but I thought it involved black holes and time travel.....my brain hurt "thud thud


----------



## Locksmith (Mar 29, 2007)

Again, aimed at films, but:

Intuitor Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics

is pretty amusing. Including, down at the bottom, a series of reviews of films - the one on the Core is particularly good.

As regards Mosaix's point about clouds of gas in space, Intuitor says "_Yes, an explosion probably would create an expanding cloud of gases which would eventually impact a spaceship in its path. However, in the vacuum of space this expanding cloud of gas would have a very low density. When it hit a ship some distance from the explosion it would probably sound like a gust of wind blowing against the spacecraft,_" whichI think you recognised in your post.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 29, 2007)

Great link - thanks for that Locksmith.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 29, 2007)

Ice fyre said:


> I would point out that researchers at a universty somwhere managed to teleport and atom.....so it's theoretically possible to transport things. It really isnt practical though!
> 
> And I vaugley remmber Einstein had a secon theory of relativity which you could go faster than light, but I thought it involved black holes and time travel.....my brain hurt "thud thud



I seem to remember that they transferred the _properties_ of one particle to another - a far cry from teleporting and atom.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 29, 2007)

Okay,my views on this one:
the genre we know & love,and ardently defend against antagonistic views (that is has no redeeming social value,is basically hogwash,etc.),uses the trappings of science,and this most of the times just to engender the necessary suspension of disbelief. Furthermore IMO
it is mostly not about the probable,but about the POSSIBLE.We assume scientist to be among the more logical and /or sane people on our planet,
so they figure in the "puzzle stories",e.g.*dust rag* by Hal Clement.SF has several subgenres which are mostly entertaining hogwash,but hogwash nonetheless.Most sf stories are parables anyway.A time travel story like Poul Anderson's Guardians of Time discusses the mechanix of time travel only summarily,and why:because writers like him,Heinlein and Asimov mostly wrote SF to show how people interacted* with technology,how societies interacted with it,and the way individuals and societies reacted to change.
The science in SF ALWAYS WAS SUBORDINATE.I began reading &*(&* (I'm not going to plug some publications here,as U notice)because most SF showed a disappointing lack of science PER SE(heuristics,data gathering),particular the biological sciences.
However,I do understand the writer's need to _entertain_.
We live in a dumbed-down society where we certainly don't want any science to mess up our fiction.And with this latter remark I do NOT mean contemporary SF,but ***GRIPE*** Hollywood of course.

PLUS TV,of course.
*BY the way:I can't think of any form of literature that deals with this interaction *other* than SF.There is an intrinsic difference with mainstream literature:it doesn't examine people _per se_,but interactions,particularly if they are societally driven.Most societies are driven by their technologies,or lack of it.Science begets technology(physics eventually produces semiconductors)ERGO 
UHMMM,am I making sense here?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 30, 2007)

Yes... and it's a pertinent point. D. C. Fontana said something of the same sort in a symposium of writers of sf/f for tv and film, and was seconded by others such as Matheson, Ellison, Moore, etc. It's "what if" and then look at how that alteration affects people. This is why something like Earth Abides, which has little to do with science as such, is science fiction. Flowers for Algernon (short story or novel): the same. And so on. Which is why even terribly outdated scientific speculation usually doesn't really matter -- it isn't about the science, it's about how changes in worldview brought about by science affects people -- usually entire societies, but sometimes individual people. For all the gadgetry, sf is, at base, a very _humanist_ branch of literature.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 30, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> *For all the gadgetry, sf is, at base, a very humanist branch of literature.*


NAIL ON THE HEAD,JD.
Now this is one of the major prejudices people harboured against SF since its inception as a genre,they presuppose it is about gadgetry,alien invasions, because,let's face it:if U look at movie posters and book covers,who WOULDN'T?.Pick up any story by Simak,Sturgeon,Dick,Heinlein and you'll
find that the science is peripheral,and is meant to be so.I find it very gratifying,by the way,to notice that not all discussion on the board is
frivolous,"head in the clouds"-style.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 30, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> NAIL ON THE HEAD,JD.
> Now this is one of the major prejudices people harboured against SF since its inception as a genre,they presuppose it is about gadgetry,alien invasions,



Slightly off topic here HSF but this is because, by its very nature, the background to any SF story is 'alien' and this all has to be put in context before the story proper can be told. Many authors can't do this 'info dump' well and so most readers don't get past it. It's a great shame. When I try to persuade some friends of mine to read SF I see their eyes just glaze over. I think I'll try Flowers For Algernon on one or two without mentioning SF and then see their response later!


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 30, 2007)

First of all,to all those people who think science/scientific literature is boring:
yes and no.Switch your computer off,please.It is here through the combined efforts of devoted scientists,not scientist who thought :'well I can't be bothered, this is so BORING!'
SF is about the thrill of discovery,exploration,invention*,human endeavour in general,and intellectual curiosity.If a little "silly"science is used by the author,that is fine by me.I know enough of science to know when the author is playing tricks with his/her science. Since when is an SF novel accompanied by the following claim: I hereby swear that every scientific claim in this novel is well researched,every scientific fact is extrapolated from known data,and I'll pay a goodly sum to anyone who feels slightly bothered by my making up several minor details up from scratch,please specify bank account number?
Illogic bothers me more.
It is nigh impossible to create a (from scratch)a world with a believable climatology,geology,ecology,ethnology and history.Not a book would be written if the author was really trying to get every scientific detail right.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 30, 2007)

Dave said:


> Biology is particularly badly served.



Plus geology,climatology,ecology,linguistics,and a host of other things,but hey,I know U're right.


----------

