From The Guardian:
If pseuodoscience proponents can be criticised for distorting complex science for their own ends, then the same argument could be applied to science fiction writers, Simon Dunn argues
. . . .
They take a vague, science sounding idea, and bolt it onto their product in order to give it some validation. Or they ignore the science altogether. Or they cast science as the bogeyman.
Fiction writers do this all the time.
Think of all the technobabble spouted on Star Trek to help the characters overcome their latest plot hurdle. For every Heisenberg compensator, there’s a dozen polarity reversals and a sprinkling of field dampening plasma vents.
At least they make some effort I suppose. Back To The Future has a scientist in a white coat and mad hair say Flux Capacitor and One Point Twenty One Gigawatts whilst falling off a toilet. But it works. In fact, it works much better than the technobabble. And if it works, writers will do it.
. . . .
And to be honest, as a writer, I used to have no problem with this abuse of science. If it serves the story, that’s all that matters. I don’t even have a problem with it as a reader or a viewer. All I care about is being swept along by a great plot.
But it does beg the question; do we have a responsibility as artists to respect the scientific method?
. . . .
For every Scully, there’s a Mulder with a more compelling story of aliens, implants, conspiracies and cover ups.
Let’s tell better stories. Stories that promote the scientific method. Stories that entertain. Stories that excite. Stories that reflect the real world as much as they explore the magical and the mystical. Stories where science is the hero.
Link to the rest at The Guardian