The difference between Science-Fiction and Fantasy

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I'm trying to get back in the hard SF game - starting anew with Greg Bear, some indie authors and ... surprise surprise ... our very own Starrigger (specifically - The Chaos Chronicles, which I picked up recently).

....

[gmw]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

... *Sigh* thank you for that blast from the past . Been a while since I read those books. Minor correction though - we did see the planet Solaria for the first time in The Naked Sun, but they didn't develop transducer lobes until much much later (probably sometime long after the establishment of the First Empire). We get reintroduced to the (transducer-lobed) Solarians only at the very end of Asimov's career - in Foundation and Earth . (I nitpick, therefore I'm an SF geek ).

One of the hazards of always reading the series in one hit is mis-remembering which book which bits appeared in. Happy to be corrected.

[Freeshadow]

Since it shows that differing between SF and Fantasy is wery near to differing between mythical and hard sciences I'm curious what the crowd here 'll make out of following statement:

• Alchemy is early chemistry and physics wrapped into mythology as calculative and material aid (specific chants serve as time measure; ritual clothing/tools as seldom used are cleaner than common, thus analogous helpful as "lab equipment") whereby the subjects assumes the wrong aspects i.e. religious or mythical as helpful in succeeding.
  
• Real magic (as opposed to stage tricks) is psionics wrapped in mythology as aid for visualisation and energy channeling. Mythology is just a toolbox for the brain in this case.

This isn't meant as a joke I'd be honestly interested in opinions.

[bthrowsnaill]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I'd say that science fiction tends to have its roots in a scientific world-view, while fantasy has its roots in myth.

Fantasy often emphasizes humanity's connection to nature, to the earth, to the elements--and tends to regard humanity as just one power in a world of many powers. Science fiction is more likely to emphasize humanity's mastery over nature through technology. (I mean humanity is the broadest possible sense, including other sentient races.)

Fantasy looks to the past, SF to the future. (With many exceptions, obviously.)

I'm not so sure that we can say that Science Fiction isn't also associated with myth. After all, it has been called by some a myth for the industrial age. It has been asserted that this (at the time) new myth was needed after urban man lost his connection to the wilderness and the myths associated with it.

[Penforhire]

Freeshadow, successful alchemy, say making phosphorus, is "real" regardless of the rituals or trappings so I'd call it drama or similar, neither SF or fantasy.

Psionics, aside from technology-induced would seem to fall squarely into fantasy to me. That is, something with no basis in the sciences (Uri Geller agrees, lol).