Hard and soft science

[TheDS]

In Sci-fi, there is the common demarcation of "hard" and "soft".

Originally, "hard" science was grounded in the physical sciences. Physics, you could say. Lasers and steel and technology. "Soft" science pertained in the biological or mental sense. Life Science, you could say, but also including sociology and anthropology. Hard science was materials and things, and soft science was organic and thinking.

Over time, the meanings have shifted a bit, so that "hard" tends to refer to "realistic" (frex, the "hardness" of a setting refers to how closely its reality is modeled on our own) and "soft" tends to refer to the opposite of that - lots of fantastic elements like the Force and Rubber physics and so forth.

Even today, without sufficient context, it can be hard to know what meaning a writer uses when they say a setting is hard or soft.

It occurs to me that perhaps a better term for how closely a setting is modeled on known reality is its "pliancy". A low pliancy setting might be said to be well-grounded or firm, and a high-pliancy setting would be less-grounded or loose. This frees up hard and soft to do their original jobs: describe the kind of science rather than be a judgment of its merits. Note that a setting can be BOTH hard AND soft without conflict - they're not supposed to be opposites.

Just more random rambling as it pops in my head.

 

[Dragoner]

Hard science is backed up by empirical evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence Hard SF, as defined by Asimov, or in the collection Ascent of Wonder, is where technology plays a central role in the story. RPG's in that way is occupied by the PC's, much like Space Opera, so one could have it be hardish, or gritty; still that is what it is going to be. To be clear, by pure science, we are likely never to walk on Mars, just not feasible. In science-fiction, the difference is between some Japanese cats in cool boots with rayguns vs Drummer doing shots at the bar on Tycho Station is one of genre, style; and while I personally like the more gritty style of Drummer, I also see that is is only modern sci-fi.

 

[mike wightman]

The FATE Space toolkit has an interesting idea - plausibility.

"High-plausibility games emphasize creating a coherent, internally consistent game universe in line with contemporary scientific knowledge and speculation.
Part of the fun of such games is getting the math right, even if only figuratively — the aim is to speculate rigorously about the ramifications of scientific developments and cultural conditions.
Set the dial to high plausibility when you want a game that is grounded as much as possible in real-world science, both social and natural."

This speculation could include fusion power plants, fusion rockets, wormholes, warp drives, vacuum energy, artificial general intelligence, cloning, gene engineering - things that science postulates but requires engineering breakthroughs

"In low-plausibility games, the players have a higher threshold for the willing suspension of disbelief, meaning that they’re not terribly concerned about the internal coherence of the game universe, so long as it’s dramatic or exciting. At its core, Star Wars — with its dogfighting space fighters, psychic space samurai, and giant space monsters — is the benchmark for low-plausibility games."

Traveller almost falls into this category, thankfully I think the attempts to keep the tech consistent means it usually falling into the third category. Also Travller isn't a single scientific breakthrough game - gravitics, jump, damper, meson tech. Play at TL9 without a gravitics breakthrough but have jump drive... or how about never inventing jump drive but instead using gravitics to send relativistic STL ships out to colonise. High plausibility.

"Between these two styles falls most science fiction. In medium-plausibility games, the emphasis frequently falls on exploring the consequences of some “What if?” concept. They often blend and bend genre, introducing one or two big, blackboxed implausibilities in order to drive the questions in which the fiction is interested.
Star Trek is a good benchmark for medium-plausibility games. There’s a lot of technobabble double-talk, but the focus of any given episode is usually on dealing with the consequences of a particular science-fictional MacGuffin, whether that’s a society of quasi-Romans, godlike aliens, or a lonesome space whale."

Traveller as a ruleset can be used for any of the plausibility ratings above; settings wise I would rate T2300 as higher than the Third Imperium

 

[whulorigan]

In Sci-fi, there is the common demarcation of "hard" and "soft".

Originally, "hard" science was grounded in the physical sciences. Physics, you could say. Lasers and steel and technology. "Soft" science pertained in the biological or mental sense. Life Science, you could say, but also including sociology and anthropology. Hard science was materials and things, and soft science was organic and thinking.

I think I would be careful here, as Life Science (i.e. Biology) should properly be under Hard Science. Social Science (Sociology, Anthropology, et al) fall under Soft Science.

The distinction is more as to whether the Scientific Method of experimentation can reasonably be applied to the field with a confident Control Group vs Experimental Group. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc can generally test under such control conditions with a reasonably decent degree of confidence (i.e. you are certain you have isolated all other factors so that the only variable between the two groups is what is being tested for). This is what makes it "hard".

The Social Sciences, while they make the effort to set up controlled experiments, generally have far too many unknown or subjective variables impinging upon the results. Hence the latter is still an attempt at a Scientific analysis, but it gets the "soft" moniker.

 

[TheDS]

Thank you for the clarification. I've always had it in my mind that it was "robots vs psionic monsters", but that's not correct.

 

[Condottiere]

Plausibility can be linked to propaganda and the big lie.

The more you hear about something, the more the chances that you think it might be possible.

Essentially, in our terms, jumping by moving through interdimensional transition is plausible, because a lot of science fiction stories have adopted the concept.

Mutants and aliens living amongst us, with extraordinary, if not supernatural abilities?

Almost a century of exposure in comics, and movies, have acculturated us to that.

 

[mike wightman]

Plausibility can be linked to propaganda and the big lie.

The more you hear about something, the more the chances that you think it might be possible.

True, but for this scale it has to be a plausible extension of the science we know, even if it is way beyond what we can engineer or we are lacking some pieces of the puzzle.

Essentially, in our terms, jumping by moving through interdimensional transition is plausible, because a lot of science fiction stories have adopted the concept.

There is no known science that allows it, or potential engineering, or missing pieces that may allow for it according to the mainstream.

There are, however, theories that are completely dismissed by mainstream science that could allow for it. Geometric unity, constructor theory, Wolfram physics theory, Lisi's E₈ etc do all provide a possibility of multi-dimensional/extra-dimensional transition.

Hence it goes in the high category, providing it is consistently applied

Mutants and aliens living amongst us, with extraordinary, if not supernatural abilities?

Super powers, no. Remote viewing... if the CIA is to be believed. Aliens, Anunnaki, Lizid people - plausible if consistently integrated.

Almost a century of exposure in comics, and movies, have acculturated us to that.

Fairy tales gave us fairies, witches, unicorns and dragons - not plausible though are they

Unless they can be ties into aliens, extradimensional creatures, Anunnaki, Lizis people.

I think the key word is consistency.

Third Imperium psionics could be plausible if given a sufficiently consistent and pseudo-scientific explanation. I still await such handwavium for gravitics, we actually have a much more consistent and detailed description of the jump drive and nuclear damper. meson technology requires a better explanation.

Could the TL15 Third Imperium be a high plausibility hard science setting? Yes, but there are lots of gaps to fill first.

 

[Condottiere]

I think there's been cross contamination.

 

[mike wightman]

The science fiction in Expedition to the Barrier Peeks was harder than that in Gamma World...

 

[bookwyrm]

I feel like I'm being a wet blanket, but I like Sci-Fi, and I understand it's difference from Fantasy. Within Sci-Fi, I can see the difference between Star Wars & Star Trek, for example (I love Star Wars but I only like Star Trek as a friend). But for me, if it's fun and I like it, great. If I don't like it, well life isn't perfect.

And then there is the Sci-Fi that makes me wonder, and maybe I'll do some research and learn something new or learn the difference between what is real/possible and what was in the movie/book, which is another way of learning something new.

 

[Dragoner]

I love space and science stuff, read a lot of papers like the one on small dysons, was invited to be on spacey space for my contributions. Traveller has been great fun and stuff I have done is an homage to all those years, I thank Marc for helping me dream. I love science fiction too, and like I said I like the hard sf, gritty feel, though in the back of my head I know it is all fantasy: protomolecule, midichlorians it's all the same, a lot is only aesthetics.

 

[infojunky]

In Sci-fi, there is the common demarcation of "hard" and "soft".

Originally, "hard" science was grounded in the physical sciences. Physics, you could say. Lasers and steel and technology. "Soft" science pertained in the biological or mental sense. Life Science, you could say, but also including sociology and anthropology. Hard science was materials and things, and soft science was organic and thinking.

That works as good as any... In fiction.

In real life the divisions basically depend on what the entry level of courses are.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Fairy tales gave us fairies, witches, unicorns and dragons - not plausible though are they

How many limbs do the dragons have? That's a SF "hardness" differentiator. Earth's evolutuonary processes do not result in vertebrates with more than 2 pairs of limbs (legs, legs+arms, legs+wings). Pterodactyls are plausible. So are bats, and flying squirrels. Pegasi, and dragons with 4 legs and a set of wings are far less so.

 

[coliver988]

How many limbs do the dragons have? That's a SF "hardness" differentiator. Earth's evolutuonary processes do not result in vertebrates with more than 2 pairs of limbs (legs, legs+arms, legs+wings). Pterodactyls are plausible. So are bats, and flying squirrels. Pegasi, and dragons with 4 legs and a set of wings are far less so.

well, we've had 3-eyed critters, and we've also only known Earth's animals. A single data point is kinda small to make a "this is the way things are".

An illustration depicts what Mosura fentoni may have looked like swimming in the ocean.
Danielle Dufault/ROM

 

[Badenov]

In Sci-fi, there is the common demarcation of "hard" and "soft".

Originally, "hard" science was grounded in the physical sciences. Physics, you could say. Lasers and steel and technology. "Soft" science pertained in the biological or mental sense. Life Science, you could say, but also including sociology and anthropology. Hard science was materials and things, and soft science was organic and thinking.

Over time, the meanings have shifted a bit, so that "hard" tends to refer to "realistic" (frex, the "hardness" of a setting refers to how closely its reality is modeled on our own) and "soft" tends to refer to the opposite of that - lots of fantastic elements like the Force and Rubber physics and so forth.

Even today, without sufficient context, it can be hard to know what meaning a writer uses when they say a setting is hard or soft.

It occurs to me that perhaps a better term for how closely a setting is modeled on known reality is its "pliancy". A low pliancy setting might be said to be well-grounded or firm, and a high-pliancy setting would be less-grounded or loose. This frees up hard and soft to do their original jobs: describe the kind of science rather than be a judgment of its merits. Note that a setting can be BOTH hard AND soft without conflict - they're not supposed to be opposites.

Just more random rambling as it pops in my head.

It seems like you are crossing up 'hard' and 'soft' as modifiers for sciences and 'hard' and 'soft' as modifiers for science fiction styles. They're not really related. As long as you don't think of one in relation to the other, there's no real need to coin a new term, but if it's hard to separate for you, by all means use a distinct term.