Nope. Isaac Asimov was a biochemist, why would he be particularly qualified to determine whether robots are safe? Arthur C. Clarke had a bachelor's degree in mathematics and physics, which technology was he an expert in? Heinlein got a bachelor of arts in engineering equivalent degree from the US Naval Academy, that's the closest yet to having an "understanding of technology." Which ones did he write about?

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Holy shit, you don't know about the rise of interdisciplinary science in the 20th century, do you?

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Nor do they know about science communication apparently

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That generally involves training across multiple disciplines.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

So you guys don't know then. Huh. 🤔

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those were a list of authors who were pretty good at getting the science in their sci fi right. They talked to scientists working on the fields they wrote about. They wrote "hard" sci fi

You cannot judge their competence by their formal education

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Well, I also am "pretty good" at getting the science right when I write sci fi. Makes me just as qualified as them, I guess.

The problem remains that the overriding goal of a sci fi author remains selling sci fi books, which requires telling a gripping story. It's much easier to tell a gripping story when something has gone wrong and the heroes are faced with the fallout, rather than a story in which everything's going fine and the revolutionary new tech doesn't have any hidden downsides to cause them difficulties. Even when you're writing "hard" science fiction you need to do that.

And frankly, much of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein's output was very far from being "hard" science fiction.