Si fi like all other fiction can be great for metaphor. But when you look back at it, and claim it predicted something, that is no different than a theist who points to their holy books or Aquinus and retrofitting after the fact. The real work that ends up in useful things is always in a testable peer reviewed setting.
Roddenberry did not invent the modern cell phone. Microwave technology existed long before that show and lab scientists are always looking to reduce size. You are projecting backwards if you think that. It would be no different than if you assumed Henry Ford could build a modern Lamborghini back when he was a live.
Si fi does not invent things, si fi writters look at science and use it, it still takes testing and falsification. The reality of science is that there is tons of failure more than success, that is REQUIRED to get to the proven.
You are making the same mental mistake theists do when they look at the abundance of life forgetting that 99% is now extinct. In real science for every universal useful think we know works, there is far more competition and things that end up going nowhere. Just like Newton got physics right but Alchemy was bunk.
You dont retrofit after the fact. In si fi you can find much more in those shows, any show, that will never be a reality. Anymore than claiming men can pop out of dirt. If you can accept it when theists try to co opt science after the fact, then why should si fi be treated any differently?
Making a claim that ends up being true does not mean the person postulating it at the time knows that it will be true or has any working knowledge of what they are claiming might be true in the future. Real science has enough in it that points to freaky stuff without laypeople assuming and gap filling.
Otherwise all I have to do is clam "In the future we will find a snarfwidgit behind all this".
Roddenberry did not invent the modern cell phone. Microwave technology existed long before that show and lab scientists are always looking to reduce size. You are projecting backwards if you think that. It would be no different than if you assumed Henry Ford could build a modern Lamborghini back when he was a live.
Si fi does not invent things, si fi writters look at science and use it, it still takes testing and falsification. The reality of science is that there is tons of failure more than success, that is REQUIRED to get to the proven.
You are making the same mental mistake theists do when they look at the abundance of life forgetting that 99% is now extinct. In real science for every universal useful think we know works, there is far more competition and things that end up going nowhere. Just like Newton got physics right but Alchemy was bunk.
You dont retrofit after the fact. In si fi you can find much more in those shows, any show, that will never be a reality. Anymore than claiming men can pop out of dirt. If you can accept it when theists try to co opt science after the fact, then why should si fi be treated any differently?
Making a claim that ends up being true does not mean the person postulating it at the time knows that it will be true or has any working knowledge of what they are claiming might be true in the future. Real science has enough in it that points to freaky stuff without laypeople assuming and gap filling.
Otherwise all I have to do is clam "In the future we will find a snarfwidgit behind all this".
