Genre definitions aren't created by academics or writers, but by popular use until they become a de facto standard. This mean that genre definitions will change over time as new fans and subgenres enter the equation.
And pretty much Kincaid's problem here is the absence of a certain kind
of science fiction, approaches to the genre he's bemoaning aren't as common as they used to be.
Crystalline Entity wrote:
Leaving aside the general requirements for good fiction-writing, I suppose it's a truism to say that a good sci-fi story should embody, in some sense, the ethos of science itself. So to distinguish from fantasy, your cool new tech toys should be scientifically plausible,
Eh. Entire subgenres of science fiction can be largely written off if we require plausibility - space opera being perhaps the most obvious example.
I mean we can argue that solid hard sci-fi stories or stories that ground themselves in understandings of science are frustratingly rare and/or should be encouraged, but I don't think it has to follow that they are what we call a 'good sci-fi story.'