Leave it to me to find an article about Sci Fi at Tech Republic, but this weekend’s Geekend asks that age old question, “Does the science in science fiction have to be accurate?”

One great example brought up is Starship Troopers’ gigantic alien bugs. Of course bugs can never be that big. It’s physically impossible for them to be giant-sized. But we still loved the movie anyway, right? OK, we didn’t love the movie, but it wasn’t the gigantic bugs that ruined it for us.

My opinion is, it doesn’t matter so much to me if the science is perfectly accurate—as long as you make your Sci Fi interesting to watch (or read, but when you’re talking to me, “reading” is essentially foreign).

I used to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation because the stories had fascinated me. And also, I’m a sucker for Time Travel—a gimmick on which many science fiction shows fall back, simultaneously rewriting their own rules on the topic—but it never bothered me that this stuff isn’t physically possible. I just liked to watch Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise be British and t3h awesomer than James T. Kirk. That, of course, was before I learned that Kirk was très awesomer than Picard and special effects technology (and the 60′s) was what made the show so hokey.

So, how accurate do you think science needs to be in science fiction?

One last thing to consider, for your two cents. Rod Sterling said something like, “science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible.” Where would you draw the line between implausible and impossible?