User blog comment:Unownshipper/Can "Burial at Sea" be counted as canon?/@comment-3967731-20131114022302/@comment-6024608-20131116132918

Its a matter of degree (such as 2001 Space Odyssey having nothing spaceshipwise that didnt follow actual physical laws and various workable/probabble designs)

Alot of what is labeled 'science fiction' SHOULD be thrown out of that category (being mislabeled to turn a buck) as having inconsistancy in application of technologies they assume or simple abeyance of physical laws or just crap pseudo-science flippped in as a pretense - so many full of holes you could fly a zeppelin thru. Particularly easy are ones that claim science as their basis (couching their content in misused buzzwords) but then completely ignore what 'science' actually is.

'Fiction' fine. Fantasy so many are. Science Fiction is alot narrower than the marketing/advertisement departments/ignorant critics   push onto people.

Most clever authors are interested in the social impact of the technology and its effect (what science fiction is really about). They state 'this is what works' without of how and keep awayfrom  sloppy details. They avoid trying to justify anything using real science knowing they will fall down if they tried.

Testxyz (talk) 13:29, November 16, 2013 (UTC)