Les scientifiques et la science fiction

[jerome]

Un blog américain a interviewé quelques scientifiques sur la science fiction.

Voici le résultat.

Extrait :
" Have you used science fiction as a starting point to talk about science? Is it easier to talk about people doing it right or getting it wrong?

There were a number of respondents who said they have used SF as a starting point for discussing science:

- Nina Munteanu @ The Alien Next Door : "Yes, I have, particularly to do with my own work. My SF thriller, Darwin’s Paradox, examines—and even challenges— many scientific premises and theories within the context of “what would you do?” SF provides an excellent platform for scientific discussion and the deeper social and ethical questions that follow."

- Peter Watts : "All the time."

- Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics "Absolutely. Not only here at CPP and on my own blogs, but in the classroom. For a couple of years, I taught a freshman composition course based on writing about science. We used one of Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections and a couple of science fiction novels each semester to both illustrate the difference between writing factually and writing about science and to ask questions about science itself. [...] The lesson I learned from this is that most people don't notice whether the science is wrong or right when it's a good story. They suspend disbelief, which is what writers want. What matters is that the plot seems plausible."

[Wandhero]

- Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics [...] The lesson I learned from this is that most people don't notice whether the science is wrong or right when it's a good story. They suspend disbelief, which is what writers want. What matters is that the plot seems plausible."

Voilà. Et l'intrigue semble d'autant plus plausible qu'on a moins de culture scientifique (mais si la psychologie est suffisamment travaillée, alors le reste passe plus facilement).

Toujours le dilemme élitisme/plaisir de lecture.