Is 'Star Trek' science fiction?

[Tentacle]

Matter itself doesnt' go through subspace. I don't have a link for that one but there are theories where sub-space is a concept of all particules throughout the universe resonating to one-another and can be affected for communication purposes, but not travel.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We can all agree that Dune is science fiction.

But didnt dune employ some kind of hyperspace travel, where a navigator, controls the trajectory of one's travel in "hyperspace"?

But then again there are alot more explanation behind the concept. Then the simply RED MATTER creates blackholes.

Actually, Dune left the explanation at "We can fold space because of the Spice; you literally have to be on drugs to understand how this works."

Remember the Guild Navigators consumed so much Spice they actually evolved into giant seahorses or something. Exactly how THIS happens is left mostly unexplained, and probably for the best, because I think it would detract from the story if Frank Herbert wasted too much page space going into the details on that.

From what I understand Dune, there is a giant space folding generator that's attached to the ship. The spice only allows the navigator to perceive, the "hyperspace" it travels in, so the ship can be safely guided out of "hyperspace" and into a destination that you want.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But it still provides an explanation.

Providing the explanation is irrelevant. What makes it a science fiction story is that someone in the story understands the science behind it; that doesn't mean the AUDIENCE understands it, since the explanation is entirely made-up anyway. An imaginary device with an imaginary explanation doesn't become more real than an imaginary device with an unknown explanation.

There is nothing within what we currently know that clearly disprove that a certain drug could not alter your brain to the point of generating the ability to fold space allowing massive ships to cross rift and travel faster than light. It is highly unlikely, improbable, but not completely impossible.

It is, however, COMPLETELY MADE UP. It is not even remotely explicable using REAL science, only the made-up science of the Dune novels. The author doesn't even need to explain the made-up science, he needs only establish that it IS science and not, say, magic or Jesus.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Correct me if I'm wrong. We can all agree that Dune is science fiction.

But didnt dune employ some kind of hyperspace travel, where a navigator, controls the trajectory of one's travel in "hyperspace"?

But then again there are alot more explanation behind the concept. Then the simply RED MATTER creates blackholes.

Actually, Dune left the explanation at "We can fold space because of the Spice; you literally have to be on drugs to understand how this works."

Remember the Guild Navigators consumed so much Spice they actually evolved into giant seahorses or something. Exactly how THIS happens is left mostly unexplained, and probably for the best, because I think it would detract from the story if Frank Herbert wasted too much page space going into the details on that.

From what I understand Dune, there is a giant space folding generator that's attached to the ship. The spice only allows the navigator to perceive, the "hyperspace" it travels in, so the ship can be safely guided out of "hyperspace" and into a destination that you want.

Right, but the point is only the guild navigators understand HOW IT WORKS. And you have to roll around for most of you life in a vat of spice just to begin to understand it.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

Some people tend to think that "real" science-fiction is fiction that uses science that already exists, such as cloning, robotics, or rocket-powered space ships.

It becomes "fantasy" when made-up technologies, like warp drive, time travel, force fields, aliens, and wormholes are introduced.

"Star Trek" was always promoted, since the first episode, as a "Western in space." It has used science-fiction concepts, such as androids, sentient computers, Dyson spheres, black holes, time travel, transporter accidents, etc., but those have always been incidental to the character stories.

I like Brian Stableford's definition above: "The science fiction writer should not stop with just saying: Well, the plot needs this to happen, therefore I'll just do it and I'll invent an excuse for it being able to be done. Proper science fiction ought to require people to begin to explore the consequences of what they've invented.

Most "Star Trek" episodes don't explore the consequences of science; they use a scientific theory to fit into the plot.

Some episodes do explore the consequences of the futuristic world, such as DS9's "Paradise Lost," where the futuristic utopia of Earth (with instantaneous transport, unlimited food and entertainment, no need for money) has made the Federation citizens complacent and vulnerable to manipulation. That story, while it didn't have any giant robots or black holes, did look at the future society and comment on it. I think that's what science-fiction should do.

Obviously, a crew of humans and aliens aboard a starship is a science-fiction premise, but not every "Star Trek" episode tells a science-fiction story. The starship is just the setting, not a story element.

A real science-fiction story should begin with a scientific event or discovery, then explore the consequences of the discovery -- not just insert a scientific discovery in the middle of an already established story.

 

[Islander]

Providing the explanation is irrelevant. What makes it a science fiction story is that someone in the story understands the science behind it; that doesn't mean the AUDIENCE understands it, since the explanation is entirely made-up anyway. An imaginary device with an imaginary explanation doesn't become more real than an imaginary device with an unknown explanation.

I'll give you that point but the confusion probably comes from the comparison to Star Wars specific purely on the FTL travel where there are several other elements that makes it fantasy as opposed to ST or Dune or whatever other sci-fi.

It is, however, COMPLETELY MADE UP. It is not even remotely explicable using REAL science, only the made-up science of the Dune novels. The author doesn't even need to explain the made-up science, he needs only establish that it IS science and not, say, magic or Jesus.

Again, my point isn't if it can be completely or partly explained, but simply it if can be disproven. Current development in actual science involve crazy madeup theories that continues to be evaluated, to a degree, until they can be fully rejected as fabulations.

 

[Gepard]

Again, my point isn't if it can be completely or partly explained, but simply it if can be disproven. Current development in actual science involve crazy madeup theories that continues to be evaluated, to a degree, until they can be fully rejected as fabulations.

You cant disprove Star Wars-style hyperspace under that metric, either, so what the heck are you on about?

 

[Islander]

Obviously, a crew of humans and aliens aboard a starship is a science-fiction premise, but not every "Star Trek" episode tells a science-fiction story. The starship is just the setting, not a story element.

A real science-fiction story should begin with a scientific event or discovery, then explore the consequences of the discovery -- not just insert a scientific discovery in the middle of an already established story.

Analysing single stories one-by-one, this is true. But these stories still contain the element of the already establish sci-fi premise. They exist because of the premise. Star Trek as a whole is a science-fiction show.

 

[Trilliam]

Oh yeah, and members of entirely different species can crossed-breed and have fertile offspring.....

 

[Gepard]

Oh yeah, and members of entirely different species can crossed-breed and have fertile offspring.....

Yeah. Even Star Wars never stooped that low. *





*As far as I know.

 

[Islander]

Again, my point isn't if it can be completely or partly explained, but simply it if can be disproven. Current development in actual science involve crazy madeup theories that continues to be evaluated, to a degree, until they can be fully rejected as fabulations.

You cant disprove Star Wars-style hyperspace under that metric, either, so what the heck are you on about?

Yes, it can. Solo explains that proper calculations is required to avoid the trajectory of hyperspace flight to pass through a planet or a star. If hyperspace is a region beyond our physical realm, this would not have any incidence. If it would be some form of space folding, it would jump over. This implies that the method simply pushes the ship physically faster than light. The theory of relativity clearly disprove this possibility.

 

[Sci]

So, once again, science fiction fans are invoking imaginary definitions of what "science fiction" is in order to try to make themselves feel superior about their chosen entertainment genre -- as though fantasy, or mystery, or romance, or what-have-you, are in any way incapable of the kinds of depth and forethought that science fiction is capable of. :rollseye:

 

[Gepard]

Yes, it can. Solo explains that proper calculations is required to avoid the trajectory of hyperspace flight to pass through a planet or a star. If hyperspace is a region beyond our physical realm, this would not have any incidence. If it would be some form of space folding, it would jump over. This implies that the method simply pushes the ship physically faster than light. The theory of relativity clearly disprove this possibility.

...the fuck? The moving bubble of space-time idea for Trek's warp drive wouldn't "pass over" things either, since the ship is still moving through our universe. It "incidences" just fine, and avoids the issue that Trek frequently uses pseudo-scientific bullshit to justify whatever story element the writers want to use this week.

You really like throwing around elementary-level science terms to sound more knowledgeable than you are, don't you?

 

[EnsignRicky]

I like speculative fiction. It covers pretty much everything I enjoy.

 

[pookha]

I really wanted to like this new movie. But it is an empty action flick, with no science fiction involved.

Science fiction introduces scientific concepts, real or speculative, in detail and explores their social, political and emotional consequences. It has meaning. Depth.

yes it is science fiction..sci fi or what ever you e want to call it.

very much so...
what you considetr science fiction is more later development...

and it has a moral about the danger of unbridled passion..
we finally see why vulcans feared that side of themselves.

 

[pookha]

A real science-fiction story should begin with a scientific event or discovery, then explore the consequences of the discovery -- not just insert a scientific discovery in the middle of an already established story.

uh you just knocked out a lot of stuff that has been considered science fiction for a logn long time.

science fiction, literary genre in which a background of science or pseudoscience is an integral part of the story. Although science fiction is a form of fantastic literature, many of the events recounted are within the realm of future possibility, e.g., robots, space travel, interplanetary war, invasions from outer space.

Columbia Encyclopedia

science fiction is what science fiction editors buy..
joseph campbell

Works of fiction that use scientific discoveries or advanced technology — either actual or imaginary — as part of their plot. Jules Verne and H. G. Wells were early writers of science fiction. More recent ones are Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury
from another dictionary

Damon Knight summed up the difficulty by stating that "science fiction is what we point to when we say it...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Providing the explanation is irrelevant. What makes it a science fiction story is that someone in the story understands the science behind it; that doesn't mean the AUDIENCE understands it, since the explanation is entirely made-up anyway. An imaginary device with an imaginary explanation doesn't become more real than an imaginary device with an unknown explanation.

I'll give you that point but the confusion probably comes from the comparison to Star Wars specific purely on the FTL travel where there are several other elements that makes it fantasy as opposed to ST or Dune or whatever other sci-fi.

That's the problem: BECAUSE of those elements, Star Wars is a sci-fi/fantasy story, not purely fantasy. It has fantasy elements, sure, but the two genre are not mutually exclusive and an overlap between the two is remarkably common (sometimes even within a series; Star Trek has a vast number of entirely fantasy-based episodes, the most noteworthy being "Far Beyond The Stars").

Again, my point isn't if it can be completely or partly explained, but simply it if can be disproven.

What kind of point is that? Wizards, hobits, shapeshifting faeries and Jesus cannot be disproven either, and yet their appearance in movies is invariably described as "fantasy." Seems to me that disprovability has nothing to do with science fiction, the only test is whether or not the goings-on of the story have SCIENTIFIC plausibility within the confines of the story itself.

So when a wizard creates a barrier that the bad guy cannot penetrate, that's fantasy. When a scientist does it, that's science fiction. The only difference between the two scenarios is what the wizard/scientist knows about his actions, and what the audience is led to assume about those actions. Science fiction and fantasy can and do overlap when, say, Tenchi Masaki accidentally releases a trapped "demon" who in subsequent episodes turns out to be an alien serial killer on the lam from a galactic superpower.

 

[pookha]

that it is so hard to seettle on a definition is one reason why the hugo awards goes with the more nbroad speculative fiction .. which recognizes not just science fiction but fantasy and horror.

 

[Overgeeked]

What kind of point is that? Wizards, hobits, shapeshifting faeries and Jesus cannot be disproven either...

Actually they can. Especially that last one.

That's the problem: BECAUSE of those elements, Star Wars is a sci-fi/fantasy story, not purely fantasy. It has fantasy elements, sure, but the two genre are not mutually exclusive and an overlap between the two is remarkably common (sometimes even within a series; Star Trek has a vast number of entirely fantasy-based episodes, the most noteworthy being "Far Beyond The Stars").

Which is why Star Wars is typically referred to as "science fantasy".

But, again, as stated above, these debates are why science fiction is slowly moving to the wayside for speculative fiction.

 

[Gepard]

Actually they can. Especially that last one.

Really? How? Disprove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that faeries don't exist. Or telepathy. Or wizards. Or werewolves or demons or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zombie Jesus.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What kind of point is that? Wizards, hobits, shapeshifting faeries and Jesus cannot be disproven either...

Actually they can. Especially that last one.

Not exactly. They cannot BE proven, so most people concede them as non-existent. The overall point is that since you cannot prove a negative (i.e. "This thing does not exist") then NOTHING can be dis-proven, it can only consistently fail to be proved.

Warp drive, likewise, cannot be proved, because a science fiction writer completely made it up and it will never be real in the way described. Nor can it be disproved, since positive proof of a negative statement is fundamentally illogical.

But, again, as stated above, these debates are why science fiction is slowly moving to the wayside for speculative fiction.

It's not moving by the wayside at all, it's a SUBSET of speculative fiction, since alot of the things that used to be invoked in science fiction are no longer fictional. (This supergenre also includes, at the moment, alternate histories and military fiction which sometimes have covert sci-fi elements to them).