On Respecting Science

Imagine you're sitting down to watch some sci-fi film or TV show, and suddenly a massive space battle breaks out. Laser bolts are flying, ships are exploding left and right, and it is glorious.

Then some twerp comes along and snidely remarks that, "You realise there's no sound in space, right? You wouldn't really be hearing all those explosions."

Don't you just want to smack him?


This site is an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. To take a quote from it:

"Spacecraft have no need of windows or portholes, for much the same reason as a submarine. (No, the Seaview doesn't count. Strictly science fiction. There are no panoramic picture windows on a Trident submarine). Windows represent structural weakness, and there really isn't much to see in any event. Unless the spacecraft is orbiting a planet or docking with another ship, the only thing visible is the depths of space and the eye-searing sun. And unlike submarines, windows on a spacecraft also let in deadly radiation.

Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica to the contrary, space battles will NOT be fought at a range of a few feet. Directed energy weapons will force ranges such that the enemy ships will only be visible through a telescope. Watching a space battle through a port hole, you will either see nothing because the enemy ships are too far away, or you will see nothing because a reflected laser beam or nuclear explosion has permanently robbed you of your eyesight."

So Star Wars doesn't accurately depict space travel? I hate to sound crude, but no shit, Sherlock! I figured Star Wars wasn't going to be realistic when Darth Vader started Force-choking people and Obi-Wan busted out his lightsaber. This whole "It wouldn't work like that!" attitude is akin to someone reading Beowulf and then saying, "You know, when Beowulf fought those sea monsters, there's no way he could have done it. He wouldn't have been able to hold his breath that long!" It's the same sort of attitude that leads to people reading a fantasy novel like Lord of the Rings and saying, "You know, the real Middle Ages weren't anything like that," because apparently the only reason anyone wants to read Lord of the Rings is to experience a realistic depiction of the European Middle Ages.

This whole "It wouldn't really work like that" mindset was brilliantly in the episode of The Simpsons where Homer takes a job voicing one of the characters on The Itchy & Scratchy Show. At a meeting with fans someone says "In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder!" 

Geeks who point these things out ought to have paid more attention during those English classes they so often deride as "useless," because it's a basic tenet of literary criticism that you don't criticise a work for not doing something its author never intended it to do. Star Wars and Star Trek were never created to be accurate depictions of space travel. Star Wars was conceived as little more than classic heroic myth...IN SPACE!!! Star Trek, in the words of its creator, was intended as a "Wagon Train to the Stars." I freely admit that both of these franchises have little to no scientific grounding, despite the existence of such works as The Science of Star Trek. I freely admit that "real life" starships won't be anything like the U.S.S. Enterprise and that space battles won't be anything akin to what you see in Star Wars.

You know, Mario wouldn't really be able to breathe in space. And that planet is far too small to have sufficient gravity for him to walk on it. What a pitiful excuse for science fiction.

And you know what? I don't care. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of them. You might say I have low standards. But I would say that I just know what to expect from a given work. If I read a bit of hard sci-fi, I'm going to expect scientific accuracy. But I'm not going to apply hard-sci standards to soft sci-fi. To do so is like pointing out how it's an anachronism for clock towers to be featured in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Yes, your observation is technically correct, but so what? You've completely missed the point. I realise that people nowadays use the label "nerd" as a badge of honour, but I'm using it in the worst possible sense when I ask, "How much of a nerd do you have to quibble over minutiae like this?"