{"id":32,"date":"2020-09-02T01:53:57","date_gmt":"2020-09-02T01:53:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/?page_id=32"},"modified":"2020-09-16T08:16:14","modified_gmt":"2020-09-16T08:16:14","slug":"grading","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kheper.net\/topics\/scifi\/grading\/","title":{"rendered":"Grading SF for Realism"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Grading<\/h1>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

obligatory disclaimer:<\/em><\/strong>
The following is a suggested rating as to the scientific authenticity of science fiction literature and popular culture. Please note that this is not a rating as to the enjoyability of the story, or its quality or value as imaginative literature! It is simply a rating as to the suggested scientific realism of the setting as described within the work in question. A\u00a0soft<\/em>\u00a0science outlook for example is often part and parcel of the author’s desired outcome of the work.<\/p>\n\n

This rating was originally developed by on the basis of discussion on the\u00a0Orion’s Arm\u00a0mail list, but has since been removed from the\u00a0\"externalOrion’s Arm website, as it was felt to be inapplicable to the OA Project. However, most links still connect to reviews on the OA website. Eventually (depending on when I can find time) these will be replaced with links to general reviews, or to amazon com pages featuring specific books.<\/p>\n\n

The Need for Multiple Parameters<\/h3>\n\n

I now consider that the simple linear scale used in that thesis is manifestly inadequate to the complex possibilities of the hard and soft sciences and the imagination, involved in envisaging future or alternative worlds. Ideally,a number of parameters should be used. Specifically, there is the distinction between\u00a0what is actually known<\/em>, and\u00a0what is speculation and hence can go either way<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n

What is actually known<\/em>\u00a0tells us what SF and Sci Fi themes and tropes are absolutely impossible, no matter what future developments in science and technology may bring. e.g. we know that lifeless planets cannot have a breathable atmosphere, that atomic radiation won’t give rise to “postapocalyptic mutants”, that technobabble is not the way that engineering works, that insects can’t grow as big as elephants, that 20 gigaton ray guns require an energy source and have to deal with waste heat, that aliens wont look like\u00a0H. sapiens sapiens<\/em>\u00a0and won’t innately speak English either, and so on.<\/p>\n\n

This is not to criticise any of these things as fun escapist entertainment, and\/or as mytholologic metaphors, only to say that they cannot occur in the “real world”.<\/p>\n\n

What is speculation and hence can go either way<\/em>\u00a0refers to matters regarding which\u00a0we currently simply do no know<\/em>. e.g. aliens may or may not exist and if they do may or may not be roughly humanoid, wormholes may or may not be allowed given current or future insights regarding the laws of physics, FTL and hence acausality may or may not apply, the current understanding of chemistry at nano scales may (wet nano only) or may not (drexlerian nanotech) apply, ditto the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (hence femtotech etc), ditto non-biological intelligence (hence AI and infomorph intelligence). Regarding those critics who state that certain things are absolutely impossible, Arthur C. Clarke had some choice words about pronouncements by elderly but distinguished professors. This does not mean that these things are absolutely possible. It means we don’t know. And SF should be allowed to explore either or both options.<\/p>\n\n

There is a third parameter to be considered, and that is Science Fiction verses Fantasy. We can call this variable “Magic”. This constitutes a gradation from “hard science” in which everything has a physical technical explanation, to some psionic or mystical elements, to full fantasy. There can also be an overlap, in which the same universe may have elements of fantasy and hard science. For this, reason, this variable is considered distinct from “what is known”<\/p>\n\n

However the current page is retained as it would be too difficult to revise everything, and a lot of what is written here is still, I feel, valid, and may be of interest.<\/p>\n\n

The Hard-Soft Sci Fi Gradational Scale<\/h3>\n\n

On the basis of rating of common sci fi tropes from ultra-realistic to pure\u00a0soft sci fi unscientificness, one can posit a grading of the genre from Ultra Hard to Very Soft. This is not intended as, and should not be taken as, a list of absolutes. It is simply one interpretation of what is more and what is less likely, given the current understanding of the universe and how it works. Future discoveries in physics, AI, etc may very well change the placement of some of these stories – some things that are here listed as implausible may become very plausible, and vice versa. However even if, say, warp drive turns out to be viable and wormholes not, there is no way that the Star Trek “bumpy-headed humanoid of the week” galactography could in any way be possible. Hence some things are\u00a0patently absurd<\/em>, no matter what future advances in technology or exploration of space reveal.<\/p>\n\n

However, this should not be taken as a value judgment, because no grade is “better” than any other. So soft science SF as a genre is just as valid as hard science SF. Moreover, you may have a completely different, but equally valid, approach to these things. Other standards might equally well be used to define various levels of “hardness”, and we in no way wish to claim that our interpretation is the only or the best one! In addition, to reiterate, we are not trying to suggest that “hard” science fiction is in any way “better” than the soft sci fi, or pop sci fi franchises. All that is simply a matter of personal taste, opinion, and preference. None of what is written here should be taken as any sort of value judgement.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Major Categories<\/strong><\/td>\nRating used here<\/strong><\/td>\nCommon Tropes<\/strong><\/td>\nA few examples<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hard Sci Fi<\/td>\n“Present Day Tech”<\/td>\nCutting edge Present Day Tech, some developments and speculation, but nothing major that has not been attained today (so no AI). Basic space exploration, very near future<\/small><\/td>\nTechnothrillers, Allen Steele’s\u00a0Orbital Decay<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ultra Hard (Diamond Hard)<\/td>\nPlausible developments of contemporary technologies – AI, Constrained Nanotech, DNI, Interplanetary colonisation, Genetically engineered lifeforms. Nothing that conflicts with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc\u00a0as currently understood<\/em><\/small><\/td>\nWilliam Gibson, Neil Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars” Trilogy, Robert Forward<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Very Hard<\/td>\nPlausible developments of provocative contemporary ideas, bot nothing that conflicts with the known laws of physics, information theory, etc – Assembler Nanotech, Nano-Goo, Uploads, Interstellar colonisation, Relativistic ships, vacuum-adapted life<\/small><\/td>\nGreg Egan, Linda Nagata, Greg Benford’s Galactic Center series, Stephen Baxter’s Manifold Series, GURPS\u00a0Transhuman Space<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Plausibly Hard<\/td>\nThe above but with the addition of some very speculative themes, some of which may well turn out to be impossible, others may be possible. Requires some modification of current understanding, but nothing that is logically impossible, or has been conclusively proved to be impossible (so no FTL without time travel) – Wormholes, Reactionless Drive, Sub-nanotech (Femto-, Plank, etc), Domain Walls, exotic matter, FTL drive\u00a0with<\/em>\u00a0time travel, etc<\/small><\/td>\nStephen Baxter’s Xeelee universe, Greg Bear’s\u00a0Forge of God\u00a0series,\u00a0Orion’s Arm<\/em><\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Firm<\/td>\nAs realistic as the above categories were it not for unrealistic\/impossible plot devices (e.g. FTL without time travel paradoxes), although these are kept to a minimum as much as possible<\/small><\/td>\nAsimov’s “Foundation” Series, “Giants” series by Hogan, Vinge’s\u00a0A Fire Upon the Deep\u00a0and\u00a0A Deepness in the Sky<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Medium<\/td>\nSimilar to the above but with a larger number of unrealistic plot devices; e.g. FTL without real explanation (ore with pseudo-explanation), alien biota in some instances very similar to terragen life, psionics, a great many alien civilizations. However still preserves plot and worldbuilding consistency, and the science is good and consistent.<\/small><\/td>\nNiven’s “Known Space” series, Robert Heinlein’s\u00a0Starship Troopers, Banks’ “Culture” novels, David Brin’s “Uplift” series, Frank Herbert’s\u00a0Dune,\u00a0Traveller\u00a0RPG<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Soft Sci Fi<\/td>\nSoft<\/td>\nA number of unscientific themes – e.g. aliens as anthropomorphic “furries”, handwavium disintegrator guns, Alien Cultures and psychology all extremely uniform, and so on. However, still retains story consistency.<\/small><\/td>\nVarious TV series:\u00a0Babylon 5,\u00a0Farscape,\u00a0Andromeda,\u00a0Matrix,\u00a0StarGate\u00a0for the most part<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Very Soft<\/td>\nAs above but either even more unscientific elements (humanoid of the week, lifeless planets with beathable atmosphere, etc), and story with less consistency<\/small><\/td>\nVarious TV and movie series; for the most part the Star Trek Canon and Star Wars Canon<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mushy Soft<\/td>\nAs above but even more unscientific (alien races never before encountered speak perfect English without a translator, animals too large to stand in Earth gravity (Godzilla), weapons that make energy beams without putting energy in, interstellar travel without FTL or centuries long voyage, mutants with super energy powers, etc)<\/small><\/td>\nGodzilla, Comic Book Superheros, badly written TV sci fi, elements of some franchises<\/small><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n

Note that the above scale does not include Science Fantasy or proper fantasy. Also one person’s fantasy might be another person’s sci fi (e.g. Star Wars is considered “Space Fantasy” by it’s creator, but sci fi by others)<\/p>\n

\n

Hard Sci Fi<\/h2>\n\n

Hard Sci Fi\u00a0is Science Fiction in which the science and tech remains plausible, and the universe is explained in a consistent rationally. It may not always be realistic, and indeed it can sometimes be very speculative and even include unrealistic or impossible plot devices, but the overall approach is one of careful research, scientific, technological, and sociological consistency, and real science rather than meaningless technobabble.<\/p>\n\n

Hard Sci Fi ranges from the most realistic stories limited only to current knowledge and set in the present day or very near future, to science fiction that is only “medium” in realism, but, being more speculative, can be set much further in the future or explore more themes.<\/p>\n\n

Note that some would claim that only the nearest future categories included here can be considered “Hard”, the others being too speculative. However I am following the “John W Campbell” definition of what constitutes “Hard SF” or Hard Sci Fi, and that is that while some speculative ideas are allowed, the story as a whole must be based on scientific research, avoid technobabble or cliches like Bug Eyed Monsters stealing Earth women.<\/p>\n

\n

“Present Day Tech” type Science Fiction<\/h3>\n\n

PRESENT DAY TECH sci fi deals only with known technologies and science, and only the most conservative extrapolation therefrom. This may include such things as flying cars or fusion reactors. Does not incorporate radical or controversial concept like wormholes, any kind of aliens etc. The term is given in inverted commas because the story and even technical details may still turn out to be implausible or impractical in real life, much as it reads well in fictional form. Generally “Present Day Tech” SF would generally take place in either the “present day” or the very near future, as the further ahead the harder it becomes to make decent predictions and the more likely you are to be wrong. While this makes this form of sci fi much more realistic, it can also limit the imagination.<\/p>\n\n

Technologies and Themes in “Present Day Tech” SF<\/h4>\n\n

The following are common themes that occur in “Present Day Tech” settings. All are absolutely certain through extrapolation of current technology.<\/p>\n\n