Adonis Diaries

Scientists have been claiming in the last 30 years that sciences were stranger than science-fiction stories.  So far, the interviewers and the respondents did not attempt to clarify what is meant by “strange” before extending answers and comments.  So far, we have no clear idea what is meant by “science”; are we talking of natural sciences (labeled hard sciences) or are we including human and social sciences such as biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine…

For example, with the launching of space programs in the late 70’s, many editors of science-fictions complained that actual space programs have pictured space trips fictions as redundant.

It appears that what is meant by science is hard science.  Sciences, meaning natural sciences or “hard sciences”, are so far stranger than science-fiction stories.  Why?

First, sciences are not backed up by any validation process by people, not even by advanced technology:  A few people are specialized and involved in sciences, while most common people take the words of scientists for granted for a single day, until they read or hear other alternative “truths or facts”.  Science-fictions are supported by narrative logic and fictitious rationality, made easy to understand by well-written stories.

Second, Scientists claim that sciences are neutral.  I don’t think anyone can get excited by such neutral approach that disturb their state of mind, though scientists are big liars in matter of neutrality. Science-fictions are based on current frustration, disorientation, doubts, fear… And thus, are not neutral:  They extend a release valve to believing in a better future.

Third, Sciences talk about cosmology, nano particles, expansion of the universe, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, chaos theory…Not of any concern to common people.  Science-fictions describe possibilities of living in different societies, customs, highly man-made environment managed and controlled by robots.  Science-fictions extend our horizon and forces us to re-evaluate our values and the meaning of man and life.

Fourth, Sciences are no longer driving technology advances.  Technology is short-circuiting sciences and has reduced sciences to an “after-thought” validation of a technological invention or processes by trying to explaining why the technology actually works.  Technology is interested in explaining how it works:  Just try to comprehend the manuals of how any device function.  Common people do not care why a device works and are ready to experiment and use it, even if safety and health factors were not investigated and tested before the release of a version.  Science-fictions try to describe why and how in layman terms, and the implication of technology in our daily life; its consequences in our near future.

Five, Sciences are boring and insipid for common people, while science-fictions is here to last in our dreams.

Sixth, Sciences are done within clubs of professionals reading “peer-reviewed” articles, while science-fiction authors communicate with many sources of intelligence and audience:  Safety, health, survival are more important in how heroes and protagonists interacts in the story.

Seventh, sciences are not perceived as factors for change; technology and science-fictions are.  Science-fictions are admitted to be literature for change; a literature that catalyze children to growing in radically different worlds from their parents.

Eight, technology gave science-fictions a big boost via video games and new kinds of movies such as “Star War”, “Matrix”, and the 3D versions.  Sciences do not appear to have made an impact on imagination of science-fiction authors.

Science-fictions were originally based on theories of hard sciences, particularly on mechanical inventions…  It is no surprise that transistors and computer technologies were not predicted in science-fictions:  When Galvani experimented on the reactions of muscles in frogs in the 18th century, applying electrical impulses or shock, it was done on live subjects and in a period when all inventions were focused on mechanical devices, manufacturing mass production tools for the “industrial age”, and boosting colonial expansions… For example, all Jules Verne fictions invariably considered the original people as second grade species good for extermination if they retard “colonial development”…

Suppose the question was: “What is stranger: Social sciences or science-fictions?”  I bet that both common people and social scientists will admit that science-fiction is far stranger.  Why?  Everyone of us consider himself expert in psychology and sociology based on personal experiences, even if based on a single experience that hurts deeply.

In any case, what we call science-fictions nowadays refer to predicting social and human transformations as well as organizational and control mechanisms.  Hard science is not exciting and has stopped inspiring science-fiction authors’ imagination.