Science put into science fiction

[Isaac Law]

Isaac Asimov=Robotics

Arthur C. Clarke=Astronomy

Mary Shelley=Frankenstein Science

If I had to base my science fiction on a scientific study, I would hope that it would be speculative biology, the study of hypothetical organisms. Examples of those already done are Alien Planet, Dragon's World: A Fantasy Made Real, and Mermaids: A Body Found. For the most part, it would be about speculative on aliens in all studies, SETI, astrobiology, Ancient Astronaut theory, Ufology and so on, taking all research into extraterrestrial life seriously regardless of credibility. What's your opinion?

[ian_sales]

Er, there's no such field of study as "Frankenstein Science".

[Pennarin]

Sometimes I wonder if Isaac ain't trolling a bit.

[ian_sales]

Possibly, given that a) Asimov coined the term "robotics" and his robot stories were hardly scientific anyway, and b) Clarke studied physics and maths, not astronomy, and his stories were more about space travel and space exploration/settlement than they were looking at stars through telescopes...

As for ancient astronauts and ugology... that's all science fiction, anyway. If not outright fantasy.

[Isaac Law]

Frankenstein science is the study of things like placing the head of a monkey on another's body or giving a mouse a human ear. Isaac Asimov's work was good enough to be talked of in a documentary show on the science channel. Stargate SG-1 is believable enough for scientists who love science fiction.

[ian_sales]

I'm not aware of any university offering a degree or post-graduate qualification in "Frankenstein Science", nor of any commercial or government lab in any country that advertises that as its field of study. You can try putting the head of a monkey on another animal's body, but I think you'll find that's both illegal and against most codes of scientific conduct. Googling the term "frankenstein science" results in 22,900 results, the first few pages of which reference the plot and situation of Shelley's book.

Asimov performed no work in robotics. He coined the term and wrote a bunch of stories about anthropomorphic robots. You will notice that the bulk of robots currently in use today are not anthropomorphic. They build cars, for example. They are, in fact, more accurately known as CNC machines. Robots do exist, of course. There is even one on the International Space Station. However, such robots have not been around since the 1940s, and the electronics on which they are based goes back no further than the 1980s. Besides, Asimov's stories weren't about robots per se, but about people.

Science is not "put into" science fiction, because - as the name suggests - science fiction is as much about science as it is about anything else. When Hugo Gernsback first invented it in 1926, he saw it as a type of fiction which was "an idea of tremendous import, but it is to be an important factor in making the world a better place to live in, through educating the public to the possibilities of science and the influence of science on life which, even today, are not appreciated by the man on the street". The didactic role of sf has long since been abandoned, and the use of accurate science is no longer seen as a necessity. But sf at least maintains a scientific worldview; it demands a world that can be explained rationally. It is fiction which embodies science - unlike stories which may feature science, as some mainstream literature does.

[Isaac Law]

If you had to write science fiction, what science would you put into it? Mine would be speculating one exotic life forms worthy of sf. Including extraterrestrials, transhumanism, genetic engineering and organisms that come from Earth in a parallel universe. They say the body is an extension of fashion, when these issues are involved, all bets are off. I'll probably throw in Dragons and Mermaids as well as anthropomorhic animals and explain that with genetic engineering by humans and aliens. What's your opinion?

[Danogzilla]

Frankenstein science might not be very catchy, but chimeric studies definitely are.

[Isaac Law]

Would "chimerology" be good in terms of inventing terms?