Things Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Should Know About Science

Science is a process, not a belief system.

Fiction often portrays science as a kind of quasi-religious belief system that presupposes the total nonexistence of things we typically deem supernatural or magical. In reality, scientific philosophy actually says that your explanations should not involve phenomena that cannot be demonstrated to exist, nor involve extraneous phenomena. The question of why apples eventually fall from trees is suitably answered with gravity and biochemical processes. The concept of invisible fairies whispering to the apples that it's time to fall might be a cute idea, but it just doesn't work from a scientific standpoint.

What scientists are supposed to do is follow the scientific method. In the simplest terms, the scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis and trying to find ways to disprove it. For an example hypothesis, let's go with "heat makes water evaporate faster." You might test and attempt to falsify this by setting out two trays of water, one heated (the test sample) and one not (the control sample). If the heated tray evaporates first, then in all probability heat does make water evaporate faster. A more thorough explanation of the scientific method can be found here.

Once a scientist publishes a paper detailing their methods and results, their work is subjected to peer review - in effect, other scientists check their work for possible errors and see if they can get the same results from following the methods they used. And this is where pseudoscientists often get tripped up. If nobody else can get the same results following the same methods the first scientist described, then something's up. Either the first scientist overlooked something in their experiment, or simply isn't being honest.

Now, individual scientists can be very irrational, and some absolutely do cling to hateful or self-serving beliefs out of a fragile ego. Some are even deliberately deceptive, and very carefully and deliberately cherry-pick their data to make it seem as if their claims are supported by evidence. (See: So-called "race science.") Quacks often appropriate scientific terminology and/or the aesthetic of science to make their baloney sound more credible to the average person. In all cases, none of these people are actually practicing science.

It should also be obvious by now that there is simply no reason why the scientific method wouldn't work or wouldn't be useful in a magical setting. Pretty much any practitioner could use it to figure out how to get better, more reliable results. If magic is a demonstrable force or phenomena in your setting, then denying its existence would be completely unscientific, akin to flat earth theory and climate change denialism.

Theories do not become laws.

Laypeople often incorrectly believe that a scientific theory is the same as a hunch, guess, or idea. In fact, the scientific term for that is "hypothesis." An actual scientific theory is essentially the sum of scientifically-acquired knowledge on any given topic.

Therefore, theories never become laws. Instead, laws are part of theories. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation is part of the theory of gravity.

This is why the old chestnut that "evolution is just a theory" is so incredibly silly. Yes, evolution is "just" a theory, in that there's scads of evidence and data to support it, whether it's changes observed in the fossil record, the positions of endogenous retroviruses in simian genomes, or mutations observed in nature.

New discoveries rarely completely overturn what we know, but instead generally refine it.

If newspaper headlines are to be believed, scientists are constantly discovering new information that completely overturns everything they thought they knew before. Because of this, many people are under the impression that scientists on the whole are prone to drawing too strong of conclusions from too little evidence, or that they're all wishy-washy and can't make up their minds.

Scientists, of course, are people, and people do occasionally get a little too attached to their pet hypotheses. But science is practiced by many people, which reduces the odds that something's commonly accepted simply because somebody's just a little too emotionally attached to it considerably - not entirely, but considerably.

Secondly, different studies can suggest different conclusions, particularly when you're dealing with anything as complicated as the human mind or body, where there's an extraordinary amount of variables that are easy to overlook. So let's say that Scientific Study A apparently contradicts Scientific Study B, despite both of them being performed with equal scientific rigor. This doesn't necessarily mean that one of them or the other is completely and totally wrong, but more likely that there might be more variables at play than previously thought. So the question then becomes, "which variables did one or both studies fail to account for?"

The theory of evolution is another one of those things where new discoveries are constantly modifying our conjectures about when and where certain species developed and diverged from one another, but the matter of whether they did develop and diverge from one another has never come under serious question. At one point we believed H. Sapiens evolved from a single point in Africa; now we know our species arose all over Africa due to swapping genes across a large area. We used to believe that different species of humans evolved and remained separate and distinct, but now we know that modern humans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA as well. Thus we've moved from an evolutionary tree model to a sort of braided stream.

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Many writers severely misunderstand evolution and what drives it. Many of these ideas are based in a social Darwinist - and therefore implicitly white supremacist - worldview. So let's go over some things people tend to get wrong about evolution.

"Survival of the fittest" applies to to the entire species as much as to individual members of that species. A species that develops the ability to cooperate with each other and coordinate complex tasks (such as humans and ants) often have an advantage over those that don't.

Evolution does not inherently produce "bigger and better" lifeforms. Rather, organisms that are most adapted to the circumstances and environments they find themselves are more likely to reproduce, and thus pass on whatever genetic traits gave them their advantage.

Evolution is not working toward any particular goal. Shrimp are not on a path toward evolving a more humanlike shape, and humans are not on a path toward becoming psychic energy beings.

A mutation can give an individual creature a reproductive advantage, but evolution is something that happens to populations. An individual creature never evolves; the species evolves as certain genetic traits become more or less prevalent within it through the generations.

Animals such as chimpanzees are not "less" evolved than humans; they simply evolved differently. There's no particular reason to think they should (let alone ought) end up more like us.

Finally, organisms do not have some kind of natural expiration date, where it's fated to die out and be replaced by a "superior" life form. No organism has any kind of natural expiration date, nor is fated to be replaced by a "superior" one at any point. Creatures like sharks, dragonflies, worms, and jellyfish have been here since long before the dinosaurs. (Worth noting, racists often claimed that non-white people were genetically inferior, and therefore were destined to be replaced by white people, so this one is really pernicious.)

Quantum physics don't work that way.

For awhile now, quantum physics have been a favorite go-to for explaining supernatural (or seemingly supernatural) phenomena. On the surface it makes sense; some pretty weird things have been observed on the quantum level that defy everything we thought we knew about reality.

The problem is, these weird effects don't necessarily scale up. While particles can mysteriously pop in and out of existence, pizzas and teddy bears can't and don't. Quantum teleportation works for single particles, but not for anything larger. Quantum physics also hasn't produced any explanation for apparent psychic phenomena, either.

This PDF and Seven common myths about quantum physics explores and refutes some of the misconceptions about quantum physics. This article debunks even more.

The fact is, people often jump on new and poorly-understood fields of research to try and explain supernatural phenomena. It's no different than when spiritualists in the early 20th century proposed that ghosts were made of electricity. (If that's really the case, one must wonder why ghosts aren't affected by magnets, or why all of the electricity in our gadgets and devices don't create weird ghostly effects.) If you ever see anyone trying to use any relatively poorly understood field of study (EG, dark matter) to explain their magical or mystical beliefs, they're just doing this kind of thing and you should ignore them.

Energy doesn't work that way.

Many people envision energy as a floaty cloud of mysterious stuff. In the scientific sense, the word "energy" effectively means "the potential to do work." If you hook a rubber band on the end your thumb and pull on the other end until it's tight, the rubber band is now full of potential energy because the moment you let go, it will snap and fly across the room.

Unfortunately, the public perception of energy as a cloud of mysterious floaty stuff has resulted in a lot of misunderstandings. When scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed, they don't mean it in a sense that proves the human body contains an indestructible animus. Instead, it means that once you stretch your rubber band out, its potential energy will either have to stay right where it is or go somewhere. Let the rubber band go, release all of its energy at once. Let it go slowly, release all of its energy slowly. Place it someplace it can stay stretched out until it decays, release its energy very very slowly.

Energy is not itself a distinct substance; it does not exist as some sort of mysterious gas or vapor. Instead, it's better imagined as a process of interactions and reactions that make things happen and change. Ultimately, saying that something is "made of energy" makes as much sense as saying that something is "made of shove."

If you need a magical term to use instead, "spirit essence" or "aether" might work. If you're going for sci-fi, you might make up a fictional particle and refer to it as a "[particle name] cloud" or something.

Fringe ideas are usually rejected for a good reason.

When you start looking into fringe beliefs or so-called "alternative sciences," you'll find many of their proponents claiming they're being unfairly excluded from scientific circles. In fact, it's usually just the opposite. What's generally going on is:

• They've failed to test their claim, and failed to provide any means for others to test their claim.
• They did test their claim, but the methods were obviously too flawed to produce meaningful results.
• Actual scientific data does not support their claim.

Flat Earth theorists are a good example of this. Their "evidence" that the Earth is flat is extremely spurious, and the fact that it's not flat is easy to prove in many, many ways. Eratosthenes was able to demonstrate the Earth's roundness and calculate its circumferance in over two thousand years ago. Flat Earth theory is incredibly easy to debunk, yet theorists insist there's massive conspiracy dedicated to covering up the truth.

Why is that? It was never about finding the truth. It was always about being contrary to assert dominance. Guess who else embraced a pseudoscientific model of the universe to spite those they declared their enemies and dictate what people believed?

The same thing is going on with so-called "race science." Proponents claim that they're being silenced because "PC culture" just doesn't want to admit the "terrible truth." The reality is that they're being dismissed because their conclusions are based on distorted data and pseudoscientific ideas.

Peddlers of quack cures also like to claim that doctors won't admit that their cures work because that would mean the end of the pharmaceutical industry. First, doctors aren't pharmacists, so they don't profit from their patients' prescriptions. Secondly, while holding back wonder cures so patients will have to keep buying overpriced pharmaceuticals sounds plausible enough in America, America isn't the entire world and you have to wonder why countries with free healthcare aren't interested.

This isn't to say that legitimate science never faces opposition. Germany destroyed the scientific research of Jewish scientists in the 30's and 40's. Women and racial minorities are often discriminated against in science today, and issues that affect them are often underfunded and understudied.

That said, ideas with validity behind them are rarely completely suppressed. Instead, what you usually get is controversy. At least some scientists will find the idea compelling enough to do their own research on it. As the evidence continues to stack in their favor, it'll usually gain more and more supporters. Progress might be slow, but the truth will usually win out in the end so long as people are willing to follow legitimate scientific protocol and question anything that doesn't follow it.




"Shocking" discoveries are made and announced all the time, and it's not a big deal.

A lot of people are under the impression that new scientific discoveries might get covered up because somebody decides they're just too shocking or weird for the public to handle. That's just not how it works.

Weird and shocking discoveries are great for engaging the public's interest and garnering their support, which in turn can lead to more funding. Thus, scientists are actually incentivized to tell people about weird discoveries, not hide them. And if the public could acclimate to things like diamond planets, theropod feathers, and vampire squid just fine, they'd definitely be able to handle Bigfoot and dragons.

In a totalitarian government, discoveries might be covered up if those in charge perceive they challenge their authority somehow. If a government's fake history says that their civilization was the first ever in the region, they might cover up the discovery of ruins that predate it. If somebody discovered magic and it was perceived to be a threat to their power, they might try to keep the public from knowing about it (albeit they'll very likely continue researching it themselves for their own purposes). But covering up a new discovery for no other reason than it being weird or unexpected is super unlikely.




To be a good scientist, you need to get comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and being honest when you don't know something for sure.

Contrary to popular belief that science is about "claiming to have the answer to everything," science works best when scientists are honest with themselves about what they don't know. Good scientists also have to resign themselves to the fact that even though they might personally believe in something supernatural or metaphyiscal, they can't just expect anyone else to take their personal beliefs on faith.

Individual scientists can and do get absolutely pigheaded sometimes - but as mentioned earlier, science isn't something that one person does alone. The best scientists are able to admit that they have their own personal knowledge gaps and biases, and are able to welcome diverse viewpoints. (Diversity in science always create better, more accurate data, because diverse scientists are more likely to look at things through different angles and thereby collectively create a more detailed picture.)

In fact, it's the people who've convinced themselves that they're above all petty emotion and operate on "pure logic and rationality" or whatever who make some of the worst scientists. They're simply too sure of their own objectivity to recognize that they, too, have substantial biases and knowledge gaps and should take other people's viewpoints into account, particularly if those viewpoints come from individuals with less privilege than themselves. They also tend to be in denial over how much their emotions might be impacting their perceptions and judgment, so they can't acknowledge and account for how their own feelings might be affecting their beliefs and opinions.

It also sometimes happens that scientists underestimate how much people know. They occasionally assume that because they, personally don't have an answer means that nobody else does. For example, many scientists have spent years insisting that we don't actually know whether or not cats love their owners, but almost any long-time cat owner could've told you exactly how loving cats can be. Likewise, many white scientists brushed off Native Americans' understanding of ecosystems and land cultivation as primitive superstition. (If you want to read more about that, Braiding Sweetgrass is a good book.) And this is where having just a smidgen of faith really comes in handy - because those who have personal experience with a thing probably know a thing or two about it.




In summary!



• Science it's a belief system; it's a process that can be used to refine one's knowledge of literally anything; including, hypothetically, magic.
• Theories don't become laws, because a scientific theory is nothing more than the sum of knowledge on a given topic.
• New discoveries rarely overturn everything we thought we knew; instead, they usually give new insight and refine what we know.
• Evolution as depicted in fiction is often based on a lot of wonky social Darwinist beliefs. In reality, evolution doesn't mean that bigger, stronger things will always dominate, nor that things will always evolve to be more humanlike, nor that any given life form is predestined to die out at some point.
• Scientists have not discovered anything about quantum physics that can explain magical or supernatural phenomena. Anyone using a poorly-understood field of study to justify the possibility of magic or the supernatural is super sketchy.
• Energy is the potential to do work; it's not a mysterious floaty cloud of stuff.
• Fringe ideas are generally rejected for a good reason. Good ideas are most likely to be ignored when they come from marginalized scientists.
• New discoveries aren't covered up for being shocking or weird. They might be covered up if they challenge a tyrannical goverment's power, though.
• Science works best when scientists are in tune with their own emotions and remain aware that they have biases and knowledge gaps of their own.