Over at the Guardian, writer/comedian Simon Dunn raises a compelling question: when science fiction writers or creators insert junk science or "technobabble" into their stories, are they doing the same thing as the people who promote pseudoscience with a straight face? And isn't technobabble basically the same sort of mumbo jumbo as people use to extol the healing power of magnets?
To be honest, as a writer, I used to have no problem with this abuse of science. If it serves the story, that's all that matters. I don't even have a problem with it as a reader or a viewer. All I care about is being swept along by a great plot.
But it does beg the question; do we have a responsibility as artists to respect the scientific method?
As a skeptic, I decry the way alt.med at once uses and abuses science. Shouldn't I hold my writing up to the same standard?
He closes with a rousing call for science fiction that respects the scientific method and makes science the hero, which I think we can all get behind. [Guardian]