Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Msf
Changed line(s) 48,49 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology'' -- stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries. ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall here. ''Literature/TheMartian'' is famously about as hard as science fiction can go, falling at the hard end of this subclass.
to:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology'' -- stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries. ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall here. ''Literature/TheMartian'' is famously about as hard as science fiction can go, falling at the hard end of this subclass.
subclass. The [[MundaneDogmatic Mundane Science Fiction]] (MSF) genre/movement, which was developed in 2004, calls for plausible science fiction using existing science and technology. MSF is typically set in our Solar System and it has no aliens, FTL spaceships, or telekinesis.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:A brief sidenote about "Hard Fantasy"]]
There exists a classification known as "Hard Fantasy", which is an attempt to describe fantasy settings that try to play by MagicAIsMagicA so hard that a clever reader [[FairPlayMystery can predict how a mysterious technique was done well before the author reveals it]]. We mention it mainly to say that such a setting has a position on the above scale; a particularly effective version of a "Hard Fantasy" setting is usually between a 4 (One Big Lie) and a 4.5 on the above scale.
[[/folder]]
There exists a classification known as "Hard Fantasy", which is an attempt to describe fantasy settings that try to play by MagicAIsMagicA so hard that a clever reader [[FairPlayMystery can predict how a mysterious technique was done well before the author reveals it]]. We mention it mainly to say that such a setting has a position on the above scale; a particularly effective version of a "Hard Fantasy" setting is usually between a 4 (One Big Lie) and a 4.5 on the above scale.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 38,39 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this class (let's say 2.5 on the scale) contains stories that are generally sound, except the physics aren't our own. Plot aside, they are often a philosophical exploration of a concept [[ScienceMarchesOn no longer considered true]] (such as [[{{Creator/Aristotle}} Aristotelian physics]]) or never considered true in the first place (''e.g.'' two spatial dimensions instead of three, like ''Literature/{{Flatland}}''). Some of Creator/ArthurCClarke's stories fall here. However, given [[ScienceFantasy the overlap with fantasy]], it can [[GenreBusting prove tricky]] to even classify such a story as SF.
to:
A subclass of this class (let's say 2.5 on the scale) contains stories that are generally sound, except the physics aren't our own. Plot aside, they are often a philosophical exploration of a concept [[ScienceMarchesOn no longer considered true]] (such as [[{{Creator/Aristotle}} Aristotelian physics]]) physics]] or the Luminiferous Ether) or never considered true in the first place (''e.g.'' two spatial dimensions instead of three, like ''Literature/{{Flatland}}''). Some of Creator/ArthurCClarke's stories fall here. However, given [[ScienceFantasy the overlap with fantasy]], it can [[GenreBusting prove tricky]] to even classify such a story as SF.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
notes duplicated, merging together
Changed line(s) 18,32 (click to see context) from:
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the consistency of the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on the higher end of the scale that are not generally described as hard science fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the consistency of the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on the higher end of the scale that are not generally described as hard science fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
to:
In using the Scale, please keep the following in mind:
* '''Note 1:''' All the works mentioned below are solely for illustrative
''Note 2:''
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs.
* '''Note 3:''' Remember that Administrivia/TropesAreTools. A story being on
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use
''Note 4:''
* '''Note 4:''' Also remember that Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples. Don't just put down the number and force the reader to visit this page to decipher what it means -- you're free to list the number on the scale, but ''please'' add an explanation.
* '''Note 5:''' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the
''Note 5:'' As far
* '''Note 6:''' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as
''Note 6:''
* '''Note 7:''' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the consistency of the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on the higher end of the scale that are not generally described as hard science
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
Deleted line(s) 60,69 (click to see context) :
----
[[folder:Notes]]
In using the Scale, please keep the following in mind:
* '''Note 1:''' All the works mentioned above are solely for illustrative purposes. Please don't add any new examples to this page; instead, add them to the subpages.
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
* '''Note 3:''' Remember that Administrivia/TropesAreTools. A story being on any given end of the scale doesn't make it any "better" or "worse", especially because different people prefer different ends of the scale, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want any fights like that here]].
* '''Note 4:''' Also remember that Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples. Don't just put down the number and force the reader to visit this page to decipher what it means -- you're free to list the number on the scale, but ''please'' add an explanation.
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment.]]
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Notes]]
In using the Scale, please keep the following in mind:
* '''Note 1:''' All the works mentioned above are solely for illustrative purposes. Please don't add any new examples to this page; instead, add them to the subpages.
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
* '''Note 3:''' Remember that Administrivia/TropesAreTools. A story being on any given end of the scale doesn't make it any "better" or "worse", especially because different people prefer different ends of the scale, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want any fights like that here]].
* '''Note 4:''' Also remember that Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples. Don't just put down the number and force the reader to visit this page to decipher what it means -- you're free to list the number on the scale, but ''please'' add an explanation.
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment.]]
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) :
[[WMG:[[center:[[AC:This trope is [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1640197422056760800 under discussion]] in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop.]]]]]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG:[[center:[[AC:This trope is [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1640197422056760800 under discussion]] in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop.]]]]]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54,55 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology'' -- stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries. ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in this subclass.
to:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology'' -- stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries. ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in here. ''Literature/TheMartian'' is famously about as hard as science fiction can go, falling at the hard end of this subclass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40,41 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes[[note]]although some heroes' individual comics might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]], ''Series/DoctorWho'', and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
to:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes[[note]]although universes,[[note]]although some heroes' individual comics might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]], occasionally[[/note]] ''Series/DoctorWho'', and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 65 (click to see context) from:
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness]], named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
to:
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness]], hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
Changed line(s) 68 (click to see context) from:
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment]].
to:
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment]].equipment.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) :
Which leads us to the Scale.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Restoring the excellent beginning.
Changed line(s) 4,13 (click to see context) from:
SpeculativeFiction fanatics are always raving about how "hard" the science is in various stories -- but what does "hardness" mean in a SF? Why do some people insist on it? And [[SortingAlgorithmOfTropes how do we put a number to it]]? We do it with the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness.
"Hard" ScienceFiction means a story firmly grounded in reality -- almost everything is scientific, and the stuff that isn't is either an isolated fantastic flight of fancy or technology that doesn't exist yet but that smart people are working on. "Soft" sci-fi, by contrast, is more flexible on the rules and relies more on AppliedPhlebotinum -- it's ''fun'', but not necessarily realistic. But the two sides exist on something of a spectrum, and the difference lies not just in how many fantastic elements there are, but also how they're explained -- hard SF relies on something approximating what we know to be the laws of nature, and soft SF won't really [[HandWave bother with much of an explanation]].
Authors who care about science and do research on it will [[ShownTheirWork make it a point to show it off in the story]], and the more authors do the research, the more the bar for "hardness" rises. Unfortunately for analytical purposes, though, this pattern is not universal. Hard SF stories aren't shy about skipping the details of the science; they just have to make sure the basic explanation is correct and [[MagicAIsMagicA consistent with what's been established]]. [[ConLang Conlanger]] Mark Rosenfelder, in his article "[[http://archive.is/9HERI If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories]]", points out that you don't actually ''need'' the stylistic flourishes typical of SF to make the SF hard -- you can be scientifically accurate and internally consistent without that.
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean that the story ''focuses'' a lot on the science so much as that the science it ''does'' contain has a strong basis in reality. In fact, there's a whole genre of SF that focuses on [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction the sociological and psychological]] elements of a fantastic universe, which is sometimes called "soft" not because its science is unrealistic, but because it's just not the focus of the story. The Mohs scale uses the former definition -- the story might have an incredibly fantastic ''society'' and still be "hard" SF, or the story might focus on and illustrate its "science" in painstaking detail and incredible consistency and still be "soft".
Finally, science is a bit of a moving target, because ScienceMarchesOn. However, a story falls on the Mohs scale based on the way science was [[FairForItsDay at the time it was written]] -- if the scientific prediction turns out to be wrong years later, that shouldn't be held against the work. Similarly, there are no points for guessing right if something [[IWantMyJetpack long thought to be the realm of fantasy]] turns out to be realistic, even if [[LifeImitatesArt the scientists were inspired by the fantasy]]. The scale is about how much the writer ''wants'' the work to conform with the state of science, not the extent to which they succeed; MostWritersAreWriters, not scientists.
"Hard" ScienceFiction means a story firmly grounded in reality -- almost everything is scientific, and the stuff that isn't is either an isolated fantastic flight of fancy or technology that doesn't exist yet but that smart people are working on. "Soft" sci-fi, by contrast, is more flexible on the rules and relies more on AppliedPhlebotinum -- it's ''fun'', but not necessarily realistic. But the two sides exist on something of a spectrum, and the difference lies not just in how many fantastic elements there are, but also how they're explained -- hard SF relies on something approximating what we know to be the laws of nature, and soft SF won't really [[HandWave bother with much of an explanation]].
Authors who care about science and do research on it will [[ShownTheirWork make it a point to show it off in the story]], and the more authors do the research, the more the bar for "hardness" rises. Unfortunately for analytical purposes, though, this pattern is not universal. Hard SF stories aren't shy about skipping the details of the science; they just have to make sure the basic explanation is correct and [[MagicAIsMagicA consistent with what's been established]]. [[ConLang Conlanger]] Mark Rosenfelder, in his article "[[http://archive.is/9HERI If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories]]", points out that you don't actually ''need'' the stylistic flourishes typical of SF to make the SF hard -- you can be scientifically accurate and internally consistent without that.
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean that the story ''focuses'' a lot on the science so much as that the science it ''does'' contain has a strong basis in reality. In fact, there's a whole genre of SF that focuses on [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction the sociological and psychological]] elements of a fantastic universe, which is sometimes called "soft" not because its science is unrealistic, but because it's just not the focus of the story. The Mohs scale uses the former definition -- the story might have an incredibly fantastic ''society'' and still be "hard" SF, or the story might focus on and illustrate its "science" in painstaking detail and incredible consistency and still be "soft".
Finally, science is a bit of a moving target, because ScienceMarchesOn. However, a story falls on the Mohs scale based on the way science was [[FairForItsDay at the time it was written]] -- if the scientific prediction turns out to be wrong years later, that shouldn't be held against the work. Similarly, there are no points for guessing right if something [[IWantMyJetpack long thought to be the realm of fantasy]] turns out to be realistic, even if [[LifeImitatesArt the scientists were inspired by the fantasy]]. The scale is about how much the writer ''wants'' the work to conform with the state of science, not the extent to which they succeed; MostWritersAreWriters, not scientists.
to:
SpeculativeFiction fanatics are always raving about how "hard" the science is in various stories -- but it's not like you can rub ''a story'' with a piece of quartz and see if it leaves a scratch on ''the plot''. So what does is "hardness" mean in a SF? Why do some people insist on want it? And [[SortingAlgorithmOfTropes how do we put a number to it]]? We do it it]]?
Beginning with theMohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness.
first question: "Hard" ScienceFiction means a story is firmly grounded in reality -- almost everything is scientific, and the stuff that isn't is either an isolated reality, with only a few fantastic flight flights of fancy not justified by science, or with the technology that doesn't exist yet being nonexistent in today's world but that smart people are working on. probably scientifically possible at some point. "Soft" sci-fi, by contrast, SciFi is more flexible on the rules and relies more on AppliedPhlebotinum -- it's ''fun'', but not necessarily realistic. But rules. Even the two sides exist on something fantastical aspects of a spectrum, and the difference lies not just story will show a divide -- in how many fantastic elements there are, but also how they're explained -- hard SF, they operate through strict, preferably physical, laws, where in soft SF they work in whatever way suits the story best. What this leads to for hard SF relies on something approximating what we know to be is a raised bar for the laws amount of nature, and soft SF won't really [[HandWave bother with much of an explanation]].
Authors who care about science and doscientific research on it will the writer must put into the story, and usually [[ShownTheirWork make this is shown quite clearly]].
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?"
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have apoint seat while I bring you up to show it off in speed]] on the story]], latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the more authors do means by which the research, brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set themore the bar for "hardness" rises. date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accelerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
Unfortunately for analytical purposes,though, this pattern is not universal. Hard universal - hard SF stories aren't shy about skipping can skip over the details of the science; they just have to make sure as long as the basic explanation is correct and [[MagicAIsMagicA consistent with given what's been established]]. [[ConLang Conlanger]] established so far]]. Therefore, regardless of the [[http://archive.is/9HERI typical stylistic flourishes]] ("If all stories were written like science fiction stories" by Mark Rosenfelder, in his article "[[http://archive.is/9HERI If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories]]", points out that you don't actually ''need'' the stylistic flourishes typical a [[ConLang conlanger]]) of SF to make the SF hard -- you can be scientifically accurate SF, the only way to define it is self-consistency and internally consistent without that.
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean thatscientific accuracy.
Which leads us to thestory ''focuses'' a lot on Scale.
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft scienceso much fiction" is used above as that the antonym of "hard science it ''does'' contain has a strong basis in reality. In fact, there's a whole genre fiction", another common use of SF that focuses on the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction the sociological and psychological]] elements science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes afantastic universe, study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is sometimes called often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft"not because its may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In scienceis unrealistic, but because it's fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just not the focus plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. The Mohs scale uses This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the former definition -- the story might have an incredibly fantastic ''society'' and still be "hard" SF, or the story might focus on and illustrate its "science" in painstaking detail and incredible consistency and still be "soft".
Finally,of the science is a bit fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of a moving target, because ScienceMarchesOn. However, a story falls works on the Mohs higher end of the scale based on the way that are not generally described as hard science was [[FairForItsDay fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at thetime it was written]] -- if M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the scientific prediction turns out to be wrong years later, that shouldn't be held against number, but please go on a bit explaining what the work. Similarly, there are no points for guessing right if something [[IWantMyJetpack long thought to be the realm of fantasy]] turns out to be realistic, even if [[LifeImitatesArt the scientists were inspired by the fantasy]]. The scale is about how much the writer ''wants'' the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author toconform make as few errors with the state of science, not the extent respect to which they succeed; MostWritersAreWriters, not scientists.
known fact as possible.
[[/folder]]
----
Beginning with the
Authors who care about science and do
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?"
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have a
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the
Unfortunately for analytical purposes,
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean that
Which leads us to the
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft"
''Note 6:'' In science
Finally,
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to
[[/folder]]
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,37 (click to see context) from:
SpeculativeFiction fanatics are always raving about how "hard" the science is in various stories -- but it's not like you can rub ''a story'' with a piece of quartz and see if it leaves a scratch on ''the plot''. So what is "hardness" in SF? Why do some people want it? And [[SortingAlgorithmOfTropes how do we put a number to it]]?
Beginning with the first question: "Hard" ScienceFiction is firmly grounded in reality, with only a few fantastic flights of fancy not justified by science, or with the technology being nonexistent in today's world but probably scientifically possible at some point. "Soft" SciFi is more flexible on the rules. Even the fantastical aspects of the story will show a divide -- in hard SF, they operate through strict, preferably physical, laws, where in soft SF they work in whatever way suits the story best. What this leads to for hard SF is a raised bar for the amount of scientific research the writer must put into the story, and usually [[ShownTheirWork this is shown quite clearly]].
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?"
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed]] on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accelerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
Unfortunately for analytical purposes, this pattern is not universal - hard SF stories can skip over the details as long as the basic explanation is correct [[MagicAIsMagicA given what's been established so far]]. Therefore, regardless of the [[http://archive.is/9HERI typical stylistic flourishes]] ("If all stories were written like science fiction stories" by Mark Rosenfelder, a [[ConLang conlanger]]) of hard SF, the only way to define it is self-consistency and scientific accuracy.
Which leads us to the Scale.
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the consistency of the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on the higher end of the scale that are not generally described as hard science fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
[[/folder]]
----
Beginning with the first question: "Hard" ScienceFiction is firmly grounded in reality, with only a few fantastic flights of fancy not justified by science, or with the technology being nonexistent in today's world but probably scientifically possible at some point. "Soft" SciFi is more flexible on the rules. Even the fantastical aspects of the story will show a divide -- in hard SF, they operate through strict, preferably physical, laws, where in soft SF they work in whatever way suits the story best. What this leads to for hard SF is a raised bar for the amount of scientific research the writer must put into the story, and usually [[ShownTheirWork this is shown quite clearly]].
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?"
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed]] on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accelerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
Unfortunately for analytical purposes, this pattern is not universal - hard SF stories can skip over the details as long as the basic explanation is correct [[MagicAIsMagicA given what's been established so far]]. Therefore, regardless of the [[http://archive.is/9HERI typical stylistic flourishes]] ("If all stories were written like science fiction stories" by Mark Rosenfelder, a [[ConLang conlanger]]) of hard SF, the only way to define it is self-consistency and scientific accuracy.
Which leads us to the Scale.
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of scientific explanation used in the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness to real world science and the consistency of the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on the higher end of the scale that are not generally described as hard science fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more about it. That's fine if the troper is interested, but if they're already working down the work's page (and only at the M's), they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
[[/folder]]
----
to:
SpeculativeFiction fanatics are always raving about how "hard" the science is in various stories -- but it's not like you can rub ''a story'' with a piece of quartz and see if it leaves a scratch on ''the plot''. So what is does "hardness" mean in a SF? Why do some people want insist on it? And [[SortingAlgorithmOfTropes how do we put a number to it]]?
Beginningit]]? We do it with the first question: Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness.
"Hard" ScienceFictionis means a story firmly grounded in reality, with only a few reality -- almost everything is scientific, and the stuff that isn't is either an isolated fantastic flights flight of fancy not justified by science, or with the technology being nonexistent in today's world that doesn't exist yet but probably scientifically possible at some point. that smart people are working on. "Soft" SciFi sci-fi, by contrast, is more flexible on the rules. Even rules and relies more on AppliedPhlebotinum -- it's ''fun'', but not necessarily realistic. But the fantastical aspects two sides exist on something of a spectrum, and the story will show a divide difference lies not just in how many fantastic elements there are, but also how they're explained -- in hard SF, they operate through strict, preferably physical, laws, where in SF relies on something approximating what we know to be the laws of nature, and soft SF they work in whatever way suits the story best. What this leads to for hard SF is a raised bar for the amount won't really [[HandWave bother with much of scientific an explanation]].
Authors who care about science and do researchthe writer must put into the story, and usually on it will [[ShownTheirWork this is shown quite clearly]].
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How doesmake it work?"
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please havea seat while I bring you up point to speed]] on show it off in the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, story]], and the means by which more authors do the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, setresearch, the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accelerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
more the bar for "hardness" rises. Unfortunately for analytical purposes, though, this pattern is not universal - hard universal. Hard SF stories can skip over aren't shy about skipping the details as long as of the science; they just have to make sure the basic explanation is correct and [[MagicAIsMagicA given consistent with what's been established so far]]. Therefore, regardless of the [[http://archive.is/9HERI typical stylistic flourishes]] ("If all stories were written like science fiction stories" by established]]. [[ConLang Conlanger]] Mark Rosenfelder, a [[ConLang conlanger]]) in his article "[[http://archive.is/9HERI If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories]]", points out that you don't actually ''need'' the stylistic flourishes typical of SF to make the SF hard SF, -- you can be scientifically accurate and internally consistent without that.
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean that theonly way to define it is self-consistency and scientific accuracy.
Which leads us tostory ''focuses'' a lot on the Scale.
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "softscience fiction" is used above so much as that the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use it ''does'' contain has a strong basis in reality. In fact, there's a whole genre of the term is to describe ''soft-science'' fiction: SF that focuses on [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction the sociological and psychological]] elements of a fantastic universe, which is sometimes called "soft" not because its science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", is unrealistic, but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some because it's just not the focus of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hitsstory. The Mohs scale uses the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on former definition -- the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] story might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); an incredibly fantastic ''society'' and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as be "hard" SF, or the story might focus on and illustrate its "science" in painstaking detail and incredible consistency and still be "soft".
Finally, sciencefiction is a bit of a moving target, because ScienceMarchesOn. However, a story falls on the author Mohs scale based on the way science was [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations oftime it was written]] -- if the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level ofscientific explanation used in prediction turns out to be wrong years later, that shouldn't be held against the story. This scale, however, is based mainly on closeness work. Similarly, there are no points for guessing right if something [[IWantMyJetpack long thought to real world science and be the consistency realm of fantasy]] turns out to be realistic, even if [[LifeImitatesArt the science fiction elements. For this reason you may find examples of works on scientists were inspired by the higher end of the fantasy]]. The scale that are not generally described as hard science fiction.
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn moreis about it. That's fine if how much the troper is interested, but if they're already working down writer ''wants'' the work's page (and only at work to conform with the M's), state of science, not the extent to which they probably don't want to wander off on a WikiWalk. You can say the number, but please go on a bit explaining what the number is. For instance:
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
[[/folder]]
----
succeed; MostWritersAreWriters, not scientists.
Which leads us to:
[[folder:The Scale]]
Beginning
"Hard" ScienceFiction
Authors who care about science and do research
Example: a character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set
Therefore, "hard" SF doesn't mean that the
Which leads us to
[[folder:Notes (please read!)]]
''Note:'' The works mentioned below are solely for illustrative purposes -- please add new examples to the subpages.
''Note 2:'' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness,]] named for Friedrich Mohs. (Grammatically speaking, an apostrophe ''after'' the 's' would be permissible; its addition would produce a possessive, i.e., "Mohs' scale", denoting the scale created or promulgated by Mohs. However, it's apparently not used in the standard name for the scale, so its use here would approach a degree of informality utterly unacceptable on The Other Wiki.)
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits
Finally, science
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of
''Note 6:'' In science fiction fandom, classifying something as hard science fiction generally relies on more than just the plausibility of the technology used. "Hardness", in that sense, also depends to the level of
''Note 7:'' When adding this trope to a work page, [[Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples don't simply put down the number and leave it at that]]. This would require a troper to visit this page to learn more
* Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness: 5. This work leans heavily into Mohs/SpeculativeScience -- the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible.
[[/folder]]
----
Which leads us to:
[[folder:The Scale]]
Changed line(s) 39,41 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes,[[note]]although the individual comics of some heroes might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]], ''Series/DoctorWho'', and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
to:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes,[[note]]although the universes[[note]]although some heroes' individual comics of some heroes might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]], ''Series/DoctorWho'', and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence withreality]] and, in-world, is reality]], and in-universe, it's considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with
Changed line(s) 43,47 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this class (arguably 2.5 on the scale) contains stories that are generally sound, except the physics aren't our own. Plot aside, they are often a philosophical exploration of a concept [[ScienceMarchesOn no longer considered true]] (such as [[{{Creator/Aristotle}} Aristotelian physics]]), or never considered true in the first place (e.g. two spatial dimensions instead of three, like ''Literature/{{Flatland}}''). Some of Creator/ArthurCClarke's stories fall here. However, given [[ScienceFantasy the overlap with fantasy]], it can [[GenreBusting prove tricky]] to even classify a story as SF.
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that is responsible for "mass effect", the basis for all of the futuristic technology.\\
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that is responsible for "mass effect", the basis for all of the futuristic technology.\\
to:
A subclass of this class (arguably (let's say 2.5 on the scale) contains stories that are generally sound, except the physics aren't our own. Plot aside, they are often a philosophical exploration of a concept [[ScienceMarchesOn no longer considered true]] (such as [[{{Creator/Aristotle}} Aristotelian physics]]), physics]]) or never considered true in the first place (e.(''e.g. '' two spatial dimensions instead of three, like ''Literature/{{Flatland}}''). Some of Creator/ArthurCClarke's stories fall here. However, given [[ScienceFantasy the overlap with fantasy]], it can [[GenreBusting prove tricky]] to even classify such a story as SF.
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:'''Stories in this class once again have Still multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, here the author aims to justify these creations with natural laws both [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:'''Authors of works in this class invent The author invents one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the Consider, for instance, ''Literature/CitiesInFlight''[='=]s "Dirac Equations" leading to the and "spindizzy motor" and leading to instantaneous communication. Most communication, or ''Franchise/MassEffect''[='=]s "Element Zero" being the basis for all of the series' futuristic technology. Other works in this class include most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra ''Ad Astra'' board games and games, Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'', and many of Creator/VernorVinge's books. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that is responsible for "mass effect", the basis for all of the futuristic technology.books.\\
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:'''
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:'''
Changed line(s) 49,50 (click to see context) from:
This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we call ''One Small Fib'', containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FasterThanLightTravel), but for which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Creator/HalClement novels (e.g. ''Literature/MissionOfGravity'', ''Close to Critical'') and ''Webcomic/{{Freefall}}'' fall within the subclass.
to:
This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we one might call ''One Small Fib'', containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FasterThanLightTravel), but for FasterThanLightTravel) which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Creator/HalClement novels (e.(''e.g. '' ''Literature/MissionOfGravity'', ''Close to Critical'') and ''Webcomic/{{Freefall}}'' fall within the subclass.
Changed line(s) 53,55 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology:'' stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries.) ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in this subclass.
# '''RealLife''' (aka Fiction in Genre Only): A SharedUniverse which spawned its own genre, known as "NonFiction". Despite the various problems noted at RealityIsUnrealistic, it is almost universally agreed that there is no other universe known so thoroughly worked out from established scientific principles. [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} The Apollo Program]], UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, {{a|rsonMurderAndJaywalking}}nd Film/{{Woodstock}} fall in this class.
# '''RealLife''' (aka Fiction in Genre Only): A SharedUniverse which spawned its own genre, known as "NonFiction". Despite the various problems noted at RealityIsUnrealistic, it is almost universally agreed that there is no other universe known so thoroughly worked out from established scientific principles. [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} The Apollo Program]], UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, {{a|rsonMurderAndJaywalking}}nd Film/{{Woodstock}} fall in this class.
to:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology:'' ''Futurology'' -- stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries.) entries. ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in this subclass.
# '''RealLife'''(aka (''a.k.a.'' Fiction in Genre Only): A SharedUniverse which spawned its own genre, known as "NonFiction". Despite the various problems noted at RealityIsUnrealistic, it is almost universally agreed that there is no other universe known so thoroughly worked out from established scientific principles. [[UsefulNotes/{{NASA}} The Apollo Program]], UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, {{a|rsonMurderAndJaywalking}}nd Film/{{Woodstock}} ''Film/{{Woodstock}}'' fall in this class.
# '''RealLife'''
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Notes]]
In using the Scale, please keep the following in mind:
* '''Note 1:''' All the works mentioned above are solely for illustrative purposes. Please don't add any new examples to this page; instead, add them to the subpages.
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness]], named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
* '''Note 3:''' Remember that Administrivia/TropesAreTools. A story being on any given end of the scale doesn't make it any "better" or "worse", especially because different people prefer different ends of the scale, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want any fights like that here]].
* '''Note 4:''' Also remember that Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples. Don't just put down the number and force the reader to visit this page to decipher what it means -- you're free to list the number on the scale, but ''please'' add an explanation.
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment]].
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Notes]]
In using the Scale, please keep the following in mind:
* '''Note 1:''' All the works mentioned above are solely for illustrative purposes. Please don't add any new examples to this page; instead, add them to the subpages.
* '''Note 2:''' Contrary to what one might expect, there is no apostrophe in "Mohs" -- the name is a reference to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness]], named for Friedrich Mohs. Grammatically speaking, you ''could'' put an apostrophe in the title in the sense that it's ''someone's'' scale, but if you did that, it would read "Mohs' Scale". And that's apparently not the way the original "Mohs scale" is named, so we're not going to do it here either. This also means that in dialogue, it should be referred to as "''[[SpellMyNameWithAThe the]]'' Mohs scale".
* '''Note 3:''' Remember that Administrivia/TropesAreTools. A story being on any given end of the scale doesn't make it any "better" or "worse", especially because different people prefer different ends of the scale, and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want any fights like that here]].
* '''Note 4:''' Also remember that Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples. Don't just put down the number and force the reader to visit this page to decipher what it means -- you're free to list the number on the scale, but ''please'' add an explanation.
* '''Note 5:''' Be careful in assessing the state of scientific advancement, even if it seems like it should move a work somewhere on the scale. It's not always easy to understand the relevance or importance of a scientific breakthrough, and it's often harder to explain it to the layman audience, which is [[ViewersAreMorons not known for understanding science very well]]. Consider the 2011 OPERA experiment, which appeared to [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html discover neutrinos that]] could [[FasterThanLightTravel travel faster than light]], only for the anomaly to be discovered to be [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results an erroneous result from faulty equipment]].
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,15 (click to see context) from:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accellerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
to:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accellerate accelerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour]]."
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 46,48 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that becomes the basis for all of the futuristic technology. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books.\\
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books.\\
to:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that becomes the basis for all of the futuristic technology. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that is responsible for "mass effect", the basis for all of the futuristic technology.\\
# '''Mohs/OneBigLie:''' Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. James Blish's ''Literature/CitiesInFlight'' stories fall squarely into this category, courtesy of the "Dirac Equations" leading to the "spindizzy motor" and instantaneous communication. Most works in Creator/AlanDeanFoster's ''Literature/HumanxCommonwealth'' series, the Ad Astra board games and Creator/RobertAHeinlein's ''Literature/FarnhamsFreehold'' fall in this category, as do many of Creator/VernorVinge's books. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that is responsible for "mass effect", the basis for all of the futuristic technology.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 46,47 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
to:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. ''Franchise/MassEffect'' revolves around the discovery of theoretical matter, Element Zero (eezo), that becomes the basis for all of the futuristic technology. Most {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) from:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accellerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour.]]"
to:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and [[Film/BackToTheFuture accellerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour.]]"
hour]]."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) from:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
to:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
[[Film/BackToTheFuture accellerate your DeLorean to exactly 88 miles per hour.]]"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed]] on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
Deleted line(s) 12,15 (click to see context) :
* '''In hard SF:''' "A good question with an interesting answer. [[{{Infodump}} Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed]] on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein [[SmallReferencePools and]] Creator/StephenHawking."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
funnier this way
Added DiffLines:
* '''In soft SF:''' "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
to:
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 39,41 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes,[[note]]although the individual comics of some heroes might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]] and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', ''Series/StarTrekTheOriginalSeries'', and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'', ''Series/StarTrekTheOriginalSeries'', and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
to:
# '''Mohs/ScienceInGenreOnly:''' The work is unambiguously set in the ''literary genre'' of ScienceFiction, but ''scientific'' it is not. AppliedPhlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the [[ItRunsOnNonsensoleum Nonsensoleum]] kind, GreenRocks gain NewPowersAsThePlotDemands, and both BellisariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra apply. Works like ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', ''Franchise/StarWars'', ''Anime/TengenToppaGurrenLagann'', The Creator/{{DC|Comics}} and Creator/{{Marvel|Comics}} universes,[[note]]although the individual comics of some heroes might fit elsewhere occasionally[[/note]] occasionally[[/note]], ''Series/DoctorWho'', and ''Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy'' fall in this class.
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'',''Series/StarTrekTheOriginalSeries'', the various ''Franchise/StarTrek'' series, and ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' fall in this category.\\
# '''Mohs/WorldOfPhlebotinum:''' The universe is full of AppliedPhlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a [[MagicAIsMagicA fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality]] and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like Creator/EEDocSmith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series, ''Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion'',
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
reverted unexplained deletion of pertinent text
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
to:
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 14,15 (click to see context) :
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) from:
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
to:
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreTools.Administrivia/TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27,30 (click to see context) from:
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FTLTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreNotGood and TropesAreNotBad. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreNotGood and TropesAreNotBad. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
to:
''Note 4:'' Sometimes a study hits the news that, if confirmed, would reassign many works on the scale. For example, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html the September 2011 OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light travel by neutrinos]] might have moved works whose Mohs/OneBigLie was FTLTravel FasterThanLightTravel into the Mohs/SpeculativeScience category. There are three reasons to be cautious about doing so: first, because mass media reporting of scientific results is often inaccurate due to the difficulty of presenting technical results to a non-technical audience; second, because revolutionary new results (and results in the ''news'' are generally new) are far more likely to be overturned than they appear (indeed, the OPERA anomaly was [[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-results caused by faulty equipment]]); and third, for purposes of the Scale, the yardstick of scientific plausibility is what the science said ''at the time the work was written'', not what [[ScienceMarchesOn scientists discovered later]]. If the story in question was based on a scientific model that, while now discredited, was widely accepted in its day, it still qualifies as "hard" science fiction because the author [[FairForItsDay did his best]] ''[[FairForItsDay with the information available at the time]]''.
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned,TropesAreNotGood and TropesAreNotBad. TropesAreTools. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't want to hear about it that way]].
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned,
Changed line(s) 46,47 (click to see context) from:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyParticle invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most RealRobot shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
to:
# '''Mohs/PhysicsPlus:''' Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of AppliedPhlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with [[ShownTheirWork real]] and [[MinovskyParticle [[MinovskyPhysics invented]] natural laws -- and these creations and others from the same laws will [[ChekhovsBoomerang turn up again and again in new contexts]]. Works like ''Webcomic/SchlockMercenary'', Creator/DavidWeber's ''Literature/HonorHarrington'' series, David Brin's ''Literature/{{Uplift}}'' series, and ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' fall in this class. Most RealRobot {{Real Robot|Genre}} shows fall somewhere between Classes 2 and 3.
Changed line(s) 50,51 (click to see context) from:
This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we call ''One Small Fib'', containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FTLTravel), but for which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Creator/HalClement novels (e.g. ''Literature/MissionOfGravity'', ''Close to Critical'') and ''Webcomic/{{Freefall}}'' fall within the subclass.
to:
This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we call ''One Small Fib'', containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FTLTravel), FasterThanLightTravel), but for which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Creator/HalClement novels (e.g. ''Literature/MissionOfGravity'', ''Close to Critical'') and ''Webcomic/{{Freefall}}'' fall within the subclass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54,55 (click to see context) from:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology:'' stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries.) ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more SpeculativeFiction works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in this subclass.
to:
A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is ''Futurology:'' stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, {{Zeerust}} is common in older entries.) ''Film/{{Gattaca}}'', ''Manga/{{Planetes}}'', ''TabletopGame/TranshumanSpace'' and the more SpeculativeFiction [[SpeculativeFiction speculative]] works of Creator/JulesVerne fall in this subclass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) from:
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreNotGood and TropesAreNotBad. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other. We don't hold to that here.
to:
''Note 5:'' As far as this wiki is concerned, TropesAreNotGood and TropesAreNotBad. "Hard" and "soft" may be considered as denotations of the quality of the story by those who prefer one over the other. We other, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement we don't hold want to hear about it that here.
way]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25,26 (click to see context) from:
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
to:
''Note 3:'' While the term "soft science fiction" is used above as the antonym of "hard science fiction", another common use of the term is to describe ''soft science'' ''soft-science'' fiction: [[AsimovsThreeKindsOfScienceFiction sociological and psychological]] science fiction. This can, in some cases, make it appropriate to talk about "hard soft science fiction", but doing so is likely to confuse people. By and large, though, science-fiction "hardness" doesn't correlate well with realism in areas such as characterization, views of human nature, or views of human societies. In such areas, some works that barely qualify as SF might be unsparingly realistic… and some of the hardest SF imaginable might deal in out-and-out fantasy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Restored something that was clearly a six on the scale.
Added DiffLines:
* '''In really hard SF:''' "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."
