Writing hard SF

[psikeyhackr]

What writing courses did Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke take? As far as I know without thorough research, Asimov and Clarke intended to be SF writers but did not expect to make livings at it. That didn't happen much back then. Heinlein stumbled into it out of desperation with his first story Lifeline.

 

[Swank]

Scientists used to believe fetuses were fully formed human adults, only smaller.

That doesn't sound like a scientist, but academien: Someone well versed in what other people said was true. Even the most cursory inquiry would demonstrate the truth, but until actual scientists came along this didn't happen in deference to old texts full of nonsense.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

That doesn't sound like a scientist, but academien: Someone well versed in what other people said was true. Even the most cursory inquiry would demonstrate the truth, but until actual scientists came along this didn't happen in deference to old texts full of nonsense.

Hm.

"Even after van Leeuwenhoek discovered sperm in 1677, roughly 200 years passed before scientists agreed on how humans formed. Two primary fields of thought emerged along the way: On the one hand, the “preformationists” believed that each spermatozoa—or each egg, depending on who you asked—contained a tiny, completely pre-formed human. Under this theory, the egg—or sperm—simply provided a place for development to occur."

This is from this article I found online:

The Long, Winding Tale of Sperm Science

...and why it's finally headed in the right direction

www.smithsonianmag.com

I'm going to assume that the scientists who turned out to be wrong were all attempting "the most cursory inquiry." Just like some of what is established science today will turn out to be wrong. My understanding of the Scientific Method is that scientists are always looking for the least wrong answer, not the right one.

Anyway, as a writer/reader, I just preach humility and a healthy suspension of disbelief. If nothing else, it saves me some time.

 

[Brian G Turner]

That doesn't sound like a scientist, but academien: Someone well versed in what other people said was true. Even the most cursory inquiry would demonstrate the truth, but until actual scientists came along this didn't happen in deference to old texts full of nonsense.

Science enquiry is very much driven by accepting prior authority rather than direct inquiry. Presumably you don't believe embryos are tiny adults because you read it in an old text and you trusted its authority.

Getting back on topic: similar applied for the hard SFF writer, who - like most scientists - is in no position to directly test every theory or piece of accepted knowledge, and must rely on existing authorities. Unless they want to be speculative.

 

[Swank]

Science enquiry is very much driven by accepting prior authority rather than direct inquiry. Presumably you don't believe embryos are tiny adults because you read it in an old text and you trusted its authority.

Not at all! Of course, I am not a scientist. But the great shift that happened during the Enlightenment was a questioning of Classic academic authorities and their bona fides. It was eventually discovered that folks like Aristotle had no basis for their claims, which is why science now is presented with both the claim and the experimental procedure used to produce the data. So what changed was where trust in authority was vested. Now it is in the narrative of discovery, rather than the authority of great men.

Getting back on topic: similar applied for the hard SFF writer, who - like most scientists - is in no position to directly test every theory or piece of accepted knowledge, and must rely on existing authorities. Unless they want to be speculative.

As I've always understood Hard SF, they need to get the known science right, but are most welcome to dabble in the areas that scientists themselves speculate in. Something like Peter Watts' telematter drive - there might be a way to capture antimatter and transmit the quantum data that makes it antimatter to somewhere else, causing the matter to change state there and the antimatter at the source to become matter. That's speculation along established lines of enquiry, rather than inserting a whole new kind of (hyperspace) physics into the story.

But it seems like that kind of Hard SF has been increasingly rejected by the faithful.

 

[Serendipity]

Define hard science fiction? What one scientist considers a reasonable extrapolation of science, another scientist considers impossible.

This is the root of the debate that rages on whether a story is hard science fiction or has some fantastical elements.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Define hard science fiction? What one scientist considers a reasonable extrapolation of science, another scientist considers impossible.

This is the root of the debate that rages on whether a story is hard science fiction or has some fantastical elements.

Would passing the Google test constitute hard SF?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Define hard science fiction? What one scientist considers a reasonable extrapolation of science, another scientist considers impossible.

This is the root of the debate that rages on whether a story is hard science fiction or has some fantastical elements.

Blast from the past, 1979.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Science enquiry is very much driven by accepting prior authority rather than direct inquiry. Presumably you don't believe embryos are tiny adults because you read it in an old text and you trusted its authority.

This is the problem. The research for my book Ancient Battle Formations went on for years, and I gradually learned that I had to distrust the prior authorities. There's a fundamental problem with Academia: academics tend to rely on and quote each other which means they can set up vicious circles: an opinion becomes official wisdom which reinforces itself. A consensus can be established by mutually quoting academics that is sometimes - not always, but sometimes - built on the flimsiest evidence. Academics are specialists which means they are familiar with the ground data of their particular field but not with other fields. If the opinions of specialists in other fields contradicts what their own data tells them the pressure is immense to re-interpret that data to conform with the general consensus. This happens more often than you think. Academics of course don't slavishly follow each other. They disagree all the time, but generally the disagreements do not touch on their fundamental assumptions which they hold in common - and which also need to be questioned.

Getting back on topic: similar applied for the hard SFF writer, who - like most scientists - is in no position to directly test every theory or piece of accepted knowledge, and must rely on existing authorities. Unless they want to be speculative.

With hard SF all the writer has to do is propose something that isn't obviously wrong - or at least isn't obviously wrong in popular sources like Wikipedia. It's fortunate that writing a novel isn't the same as writing a book for academics.

 

[psikeyhackr]

. There's a fundamental problem with Academia: academics tend to rely on and quote each other which means they can set up vicious circles: an opinion becomes official wisdom which reinforces itself. A consensus can be established by mutually quoting academics that is sometimes - not always, but sometimes - built on the flimsiest evidence. Academics are specialists which means they are familiar with the ground data of their particular field but not with other fields. If the opinions of specialists in other fields contradicts what their own data tells them the pressure is immense to re-interpret that data to conform with the general consensus.

With hard SF all the writer has to do is propose something that isn't obviously wrong - or at least isn't obviously wrong in popular sources like Wikipedia. It's fortunate that writing a novel isn't the same as writing a book for academics.

I have tried changing Wikipedia.

The NDP equation that economists use does not include the depreciation of durable consumer goods. How many automobiles have Americans trashed since Sputnik.

Every time I added this issue to the Wikipedia entry someone deleted it. The Laws of Physics do not care about economics.

 

[Serendipity]

This is the problem. The research for my book Ancient Battle Formations went on for years, and I gradually learned that I had to distrust the prior authorities. There's a fundamental problem with Academia: academics tend to rely on and quote each other which means they can set up vicious circles: an opinion becomes official wisdom which reinforces itself. A consensus can be established by mutually quoting academics that is sometimes - not always, but sometimes - built on the flimsiest evidence. Academics are specialists which means they are familiar with the ground data of their particular field but not with other fields. If the opinions of specialists in other fields contradicts what their own data tells them the pressure is immense to re-interpret that data to conform with the general consensus. This happens more often than you think. Academics of course don't slavishly follow each other. They disagree all the time, but generally the disagreements do not touch on their fundamental assumptions which they hold in common - and which also need to be questioned.

With hard SF all the writer has to do is propose something that isn't obviously wrong - or at least isn't obviously wrong in popular sources like Wikipedia. It's fortunate that writing a novel isn't the same as writing a book for academics.

While I can see that 'all a writer has to do is propose something that isn't obviously wrong' for it to be hard SF, I think hard SF can be so much more than taking those small steps. Hard SF writers seem reluctant to take that giant leap for the SF genre...