Abstract
Some see literary Science Fiction as a possible vehicle for critical discussions about the future development and the ethical implications of science-based technologies. According to that understanding, literary Science Fiction constitutes a variety of science communication. Along related lines, popular science communication with science fiction features might be expected to serve a similar purpose. Only, it is far from obvious that it actually works that way.
To fascinate: to put under a spell.Origin: “fascinus”, Latin for spell or witchcraft.(Chamber’s dictionary of etymology 2006).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the following I will use capitalised spelling in order to distinguish between Science Fiction as a literary genre of fiction (the qualitative judgement of which is beyond the professional competence of this author) and the cases of science fiction in public debates that are the subject of this chapter.
- 2.
- 3.
We are concerned here specifically with the English notion of science, as distinct from the much broader Northern and Middle European notions of Wissenschaft (German) or videnskab/vitenskap/vetenskap (Danish/Norwegian/Swedish) that include the humanities. As will be clear from below, this rather narrow Anglo-Saxon understanding of science as being an activity chiefly concerned with the natural sciences (and perhaps, by proxy, with engineering) has had important consequences for the development of (the chiefly Anglo-Saxon tradition of) literary science fiction has been perceived and developed.
- 4.
This claim may of course be contested to some extent, for instance by referring to significant works that were produced in the communist bloc in Eastern Europa and Soviet Union by writers such as Stanslaw Lem or the Strugatsky brothers, where disillusion with the promises of science is often a more prominent theme than in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (e.g. Lem 1961/1970; Strugatsky and Strugatsky 1972/1977) For the purpose of this chapter, however, these counterexamples serves only to reinforce the overall conclusion of its argument. The hegemonic position of the Anglo-Saxon tradition in science fiction (and hence of the Anglo-Saxon conception of science as being an activity chiefly concerned with the natural sciences) may not be universal in time and space. But it is never the less significant enough to warrant special attention in the context of science communication. The latter is supported both by the findings of this chapter and by the fact that American and British authors such as Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke are frequently referred to as the ‘Big Three’ of science fiction (e.g. Parrinder 2001: 81).
- 5.
For a critical discussion of the concept of popularisation, see Meyer (2016b).
References
Altschull, J. H. (1990). From Milton to McLuhan: The ideas behind American journalism. New York/London: Longman.
Arendt, H. (1958/1969). The human condition. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. (2002). Retorik. Rhetoric (translated into Danish by Thure Hastrup). København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.
Asimov, I. (1951). Foundation. New York: Gnome Press.
Beck, S. (2011). Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 11, 297–306.
Bly, A. (Ed.). (2010). Science is culture. New York: Harper Perennial.
Björkstén, U. (2012, October 16). Expertsamhället riskerar att bidra till fördumning. [The expert society may lead to a state of stupidity]. Svenska Dagbladet. Retrieved from: http://www.svd.se/kultur/understrecket/expertsamhallet-riskerar-att-bidra-till-fordumning_7584858.svd.
Born, M. (1965). Von der Verantwortung des Naturwissenschaftlers. [On the Responsibility of Natural Scientists]. München: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung.
Bradley, R. (2015, August 19). Why NASA helped Ridley Scott create ‘The Martian’ film. Popular Science. Retrieved from: http://www.popsci.com/why-nasa-helped-ridley-scott-create-martian-film-and-what-means-future-sci-fi-space-movies.
Burgess, A. (1962/1971). A clockwork orange. New York: Ballantine Books.
Burke, P. (2008). A social history of knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge/Malden: Polity.
Bury, J. B. (1920/1957). The idea of progress: An inquiry into its origin and growth. New York: Dover Publications.
Chambers dictionary of etymology. (2006). Edinburgh/New York: Chambers.
Crick, B. (1962/2005). In defence of politics. London/New York: Continuum.
Dalgaard, N. (2004). Fra Platon til cyberpunk: Science fiction-litteraturens historie. [From Plato to cyberpunk: The history of literary Science Fiction]. Science Fiction Cirklen.
de la Mettrie, J. O. (1747/1995). Man a machine. Excerpt in I. Kramnick (Ed.), The portable enlightenment reader (pp. 202–209). New York: Penguin Books.
Duden, das Bedeutungswörterbuch. (2002). 3. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien & Zürich: Dudenverlag.
Duden, das Herkunftswörterbuch. (2007). 4. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien & Zürich: Dudenverlag.
Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59–79). Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, J. D. G. (1977/2010). Aristotle’s concept of dialectic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975/2001). Afterword. In H.-G. Gadamer (Ed.), Truth and method (2nd rev. ed, pp. 551–580. London: Sheed & Ward.
Gene therapy oversold, panel says. (1995, December 23). Science News. Retrieved from: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gene+therapy+oversold%2c+panel+says.-a017957508.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). The cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hentschel, M. W. (1967). Wir fordern die Enteignung Axel Springers: Spiegel-Gespräch mit dem FU-Studenten Rudi Dutschke (SDS). Der Spiegel, 29(1967), 29–33.
Hughes, A. L. (2012). The folly of scientism. The New Atlantis, 37, 32–50.
Huxley, A. (1932/1972). Brave new world. Penguin Books.
Jenkins, H. (Undated). Media and imagination: A short history of American Science Fiction. Retrieved from: http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/jenkins_mi.html.
Jonas, H. (1984). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Kristeller, P. O. (1961). Renaissance thought: The classic, scholastic and humanist strains. New York/Evanston/London: Harper Torchbooks.
Lem, S. (1961/1970). Solaris. London: Faber and Faber.
Liessmann, K. P. (2002). Günther Anders. München: C. H. Beck.
Linklater, A. (2002). Measuring America: How the United States was shaped by the greatest land sale in history. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Merton, R. K. (1949/1968). Social theory and social structure (Enlarged ed.). New York/London: The Free Press & Collier-Macmillan Limited.
Meyer, G. (2006). How to erode the idea of knowledge. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 239–252.
Meyer, G. (2013). Encounters between science communication idea(l)s. In J. Goodwin, M. Dahlstrom, & S. Priest (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach (pp. 173–185). Charleston: CreateSpace.
Meyer, G. (2016a). Expectations and beliefs in science communication: Learning from three European gene therapy discussions of the early 1990s. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 317–331.
Meyer, G. (2016b). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 433–446.
Meyer, G., & Lund, A. B. (2011). Kræft og mening i medier [Making sense of mediated cancer]. Project report. Retrieved from: http://www.ruc.dk/fileadmin/assets/cbit/CFN/Kraeft_og_mening_i_medier.pdf.
Meyer, G., & Lund, A. B. (2014). Almost lost in translation: Tale of an untold tradition of journalism. In M. Broersma & C. Peters (Eds.), Retelling journalism: Conveying stories in a digital age (pp. 27–46). Leuven/Walpole: Peeters.
Meyer, G., & Sandøe, P. (2012). Going public: Good scientific conduct. Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 173–197.
Midgley, M. (1992). Science as salvation. A popular myth and its meaning. London/New York: Routledge.
Muller, H. (1936). Out of the night: A biologist’s view of the future. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
Ordbog over det danske sprog [Dictionary of the Danish language] [1919–56]. (1966). København: Gyldendal.
Orwell, G. (1949/1989). Nineteen eighty-four. London: Penguin Books.
Outhwaite, W., & Bottomore, T. (Eds.). (1998). The Blackwell dictionary of twentieth-century social thought. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell Reference.
Parrinder, P. (2001). Learning from other worlds: Estrangement, cognition, and the politics of science fiction and Utopia (p. 81). Durham: Duke University Press.
Popkin, R. H. (1979). The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Porter, R. (2001). Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world. London: Penguin Books.
Primas, H. (2002). Fascination and inflation in science. In T. B. Hansen (Ed.), The role of philosophy of science and ethics in university science education (pp. 72–90). Helsinki: NSU Press.
Primas, H. (Undated). The reality of the symbol in the exact sciences. Museumspädagogische Dienst Berlin. Retrieved from: http://www.kunst-als-wissenschaft.de/multimedia/PrimasEn.pdf.
Russ, J. (1975). Towards an aesthetic of science fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 2(2), 112–119. Retrieved from: http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/6/russ6art.htm.
Schnädelbach, H. (2007). Vernunft. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Schwonke, M. (1957). Vom Staatsroman zur Science Fiction: Eine Untersuchung über Geschichte und Funktion der naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Utopie. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution: The Rede lecture 1959. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sontag, S. (1990). Illness as metaphor and Aids and its metaphors. New York: Anchor Books.
Sprat, T. (1667/1966). History of the royal society. London: Routledge.
Stearn, H. (1921/2013). America and the young intellectual. London: Forgotten Books.
Sterling, B. (1999). Distraction. London: Gollancz.
Stock, G., & Campbell, J. (Eds.). (2000). Engineering the human germline: An exploration of the science and ethics of altering the genes we pass to our children. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strugatsky, A., & Strugatsky, B. (1972/1977). Roadside picnic. New York: Macmillan Publishers & Co.
Swift, J. (1726/1970). The text of Gulliver’s travels. In R. A. Greenberg (Ed.), Gulliver’s travels: An authoritative text (pp. 126–187). New York: W.W.Norton & Company Inc.
Tavernoor, R. (2007). Smoot’s ear: The measure of humanity. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Tomalin, C. (2003). Samuel Pepys: The unequalled self. Penguin Books.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. New York: The Free Press.
Verne, J. (1996). The lost novel: Paris in the twentieth century. New York: Ballantine Books.
Wells, H.G., Huxley, J. & Wells, G.P. (1929–1930). The science of life: A summary of contemporary knowledge about life and its possibilities. Part 1–31. London: The Amalgamated Press Ltd.
Wolstenholme, G. (Ed.). (1963). Man and his future: A CIBA foundation volume. London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd.
Worden, B. (2009). The English civil wars, 1640–1660. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meyer, G. (2017). Fascinating! Popular Science Communication and Literary Science Fiction: The Shared Features of Awe and Fascination and Their Significance to Ideas of Science Fictions as Vehicles for Critical Debate About Scientific Enterprises and Their Ethical Implications. In: Baron, C., Halvorsen, P., Cornea, C. (eds) Science Fiction, Ethics and the Human Condition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56577-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56577-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56575-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56577-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)