In science fiction novels or films, we often encounter settings that are beyond reality, sometimes even contradicting current scientific knowledge. So, are such science fiction works still considered legitimate?
To address this question, we first need to understand the value of science fiction works and the role that technology plays within them.
"The Wandering Earth 2"
The Unique Value of Science Fiction: Exploring Scientific Issues
Whether in science fiction novels or films, they are clearly considered works of art. The expression of art is often complex, utilizing various means to support its themes.
In the realm of science fiction, its unique value lies in its ability to explore issues related to science, such as the relationship between humans and technology; what the development of technology might bring to the future of humanity; how humans perceive themselves in the context of technology; even including the relationship between humans and nature highlighted in a technological backdrop; and the extreme relationships between individuals that are mirrored in a technological setting.
Within these themes, technology can serve as the stage where the story unfolds, the key prop that drives the narrative, or even the protagonist of the story itself.
Can we demand that every prop on a theater stage be real? Can we demand that every painting by Van Gogh or Picasso must be an accurate depiction of the world? Can we demand that Guan Yu in "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" return the credit for slaying Hua Xiong to the historical figure Sun Jian?
Why is it that we can be accepting of all other forms of art, yet we are intolerant of science fiction?
Perhaps, this is precisely because we still do not understand science enough, failing to grasp the connection and boundaries between science and the real world.
Between Science and Reality: The Beauty Lies in Systematic Consistency and Logic
In mathematics, there is a branch called group theory.
In group theory, you can redefine an operation as "addition," and correspondingly define "subtraction," "multiplication," and "division."
No matter how nonsensical these operations may seem, they can still form a complete and consistent "system of operations."
A more easily understood example is non-Euclidean geometry. In Euclidean geometry, two parallel lines do not intersect; this is an invariant axiom.
However, what if two parallel lines must intersect at a point? What if two parallel lines must intersect at two points? These seemingly "nonsense" statements gave rise to the great mathematical branch of non-Euclidean geometry.
In fact, on surfaces like the Earth's, two lines of longitude are parallel lines, yet they intersect at two points, the North and South Poles.
Have you noticed: more important than specific technological knowledge is the autonomy of a system and the rigor of its logic, which is the true essence of the "beauty of science" and what science fiction authors strive for in their creations.
In reality, many science fiction masters have written works that deviate from conventional scientific knowledge, with my personal favorite being Kurt Vonnegut's science fiction novel "Cat's Cradle."
In this novel, he imagines a substance called "Ice-Nine," a crucial plot element that, upon contact with water, causes the surrounding water to freeze automatically.
Indeed, water does have multiple phases, including a form of "Ice-Nine," but it can only exist under extreme laboratory conditions and lacks the miraculous "infectiousness" portrayed in the novel. Vonnegut's attribution of this peculiar property to Ice-Nine is more akin to the phenomenon of supercooled water crystallizing upon encountering a nucleation site. Regardless, few readers would likely engage Vonnegut in a discussion on the scientific plausibility of Ice-Nine.
The Debate Between Hard and Soft Science Fiction: Hard Themes May Employ Soft Tools
Of course, this "distortion of science" needs to strike a delicate balance. Just as there is a fundamental difference between a hastily drawn painting and an Impressionist work by Monet.
What constitutes pseudo-science that would repel readers? What constitutes "speculative science" that would make readers chuckle knowingly? This is likely a significant test of a science fiction author's scientific literacy.
In understanding the role and function of technology in science fiction works, the debate between "hard" and "soft" science fiction becomes less significant.
Whether the technology in a work exists in the real world or pertains to cosmic physics or gardening, they are merely tools in service of the work's themes.
A good science fiction author values the themes they wish to convey above the tools they choose for those themes. Regardless of whether science fiction authors are categorized by readers as "hard" or "soft," they probably do not fully endorse such categorizations.
The debate between hard and soft science fiction likely depends on other stringent conditions, such as whether the knowledge domain covered in a science fiction piece is unfamiliar or familiar to a particular reader.
For instance, in a science fiction novel I wrote on biotechnology titled "Bone Painting," the feedback I received was polarized: readers unfamiliar with neuroscience often regarded it as hard science fiction to the extreme, while readers versed in neuroscience found its science fiction hardness index far lower than that of space operas.
Similarly, in Liu Cixin's "The Three-Body Problem," to most of us who haven't delved deeply into physics, it stands as a prime example of hard science fiction, yet to those specializing in physics, it is riddled with loopholes.
In essence: if you find a science fiction piece to be hard, it is likely because you lack understanding in that field.
