Star Trek is NOT Hard Sci Fi

Star Trek has often been called, "Hard Sci-Fi" by a lot of Trekkies. This is not only inaccurate, but also a bad way to get potential new fans into the franchise. Here's why.

Special thanks to all of my Patrons and Members :)

[JasonArmond]

I clicked on this title thinking, "somebody thinks Star Trek is hard sci-fi? wow"

[TimNutting]

My favorite with "gravity plating" is that every time a ship has "no power" the f'ing gravity still works.

[Cybonator]

The other major miracle exemption being "inertial dampers". The Expanse does an excellent job of demonstrating the dangers of rapid acceleration (or deceleration)

[kirk]

I thought the most famous quote in Star Trek was "Live Long and Prosper." When I think Hard Sci Fi, I think "The Martian" with Matt Damon. I don't know if other people liked that movie, but I enjoyed it. I think the consequence of Hard Sci Fi--of sticking as closely to known science as possible, is that it limits the storyteller's ability to go into allegory. For example, you can't have an alien culture as a stand in for some form of humanity if the tech in your story has no way of travelling to another star system.

[coreymicallef]

There was a phrase I thought of a other day when I was contemplating Halo that might be applicable. Crème brûlèe sci-fi. A very thin seemingly hard layer on top of a lot of soft gooey material.

[charleshamilton]

As for “miracle exemptions” in Star Trek, two glaring examples you didn’t mention: inertia dampeners and the ever-so-convenient universal translator.

[AndrewDRed]

"Inertial Dampeners" my arse. May as well call it the physics switcher-offer.
Oh wait, they already have one of them don't they? The Heisenberg Compensator?

[DefaultProphet]

I think you forgot the universal translator as a miracle exception

[adams]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that all too often hard sci fi is seen as inherently better than soft sci fi. It seems plenty of people railing against their work as softer, think that softness is a bad thing, an unfair label they have to rip off. I've seen similar stuff with fantasy, where, supposedly mature, realistic works are talked to the moon and back as inherently better. But if realistic is better, why write fantasy, or indeed soft sci fi at all? After all that'd just be lowering the quality of your work. Even hard sci fi by its very nature as imagining a future could get things wrong, like if an accepted theory is overturned after the work is published. Saying realism is better, is essentially saying all spec fic is inherently lesser quality than stories set in our current world, and the more different they are the crappier they are. Way to stand up for the genre.
That and why are so many supposedly "realistic" fantasy works, filled with sex and violence? Sure these sorts of things *could* happen in real life, but considering the massive infant mortality of the premodern era and crude food growing techniques, it's probably lead to the ultra violent society in question getting wiped out. 80%+ of the medieval population was dedicated just to growing food, (1) yet apparently society is strong enough to survive bloodthirsty kings and nobles and giant ravenous hellbeasts killing said peasants? And how come we se what amounts to a very special episode on 80% of the population, then back to the scheming gilded nobles. It's almost like medieval farming is boring or something...
In short I agree that realism is all too often used as term of approval, in fantasy as well as sci fi, when it should be neutral.
Having watched most of BSG re season 1, I'd like to say that the whole thing really came off as pretentious compared to Star Trek. While BSG has a harder setting when it comes to physics and natural science the plot came off as a silly Hollywood soap opera with the Cylons not so cryptically implying they were going to ally with the humans... after their genocidal unprovoked invasion. I suppose that's possible according to scientific laws- but it's incredibly stupid. That and the tired prophecy stuff to tell us this isn't a massive unprecedented time- it's Tuesday. Every Tuesday the humans get kicked out of their planets and have to go on a big voyage to find Earth. You'd think they'd keep a map of where the damn planet is.
I think you somewhat overstepped the scienciness of Star Wars. Sure, the droids (presumably) work via electricity and such, but I wouldn't call it scientific at all, what with the mystical telekinesis granting Force being central- and that's okay. The entire point of fiction is making things up and I actually like Star Wars more than Star Trek. It doesn't have to be scientific to be good.

[BoisegangGaming]

The way I like to think of "Hard" SF vs "Soft" SF is the relation of the technology in the setting versus our known science. If a technology is created for narrative reasons and then justified using science, even if it's not "real" science, it's likely softer, but if the technology is created by extrapolating known science, it's likely harder. These approaches are equally valuable and have their place in storytelling, which I think is often glossed over in discussions about hard vs soft Sci-Fi. There's always this attempt to justify hard Sci-Fi as being more mature or more adult-oriented, but at the same time sometimes you need soft Sci-Fi to explore certain concepts that can't be done with known science. The most important part about Science Fiction is the Fiction; the Science is just the vessel in which it is told. Some people prefer freighters, others like their single-person starfighters.

[paspax]

Q: How many miracle exemptions are there in Star Trek?
A: Yes.

[SampoPaalanen]

From my personal experience often then when I hear people saying Star Trek is Hard Scifi is to imply it's therefore better then Star Wars, Babylon 5, BSG (either version), ect. Anyone who I know whose ego isn't bound to Star Trek being the absolute best thing ever, consider Star Trek little harder then Star Wars aka very Soft Scifi.

That's not a bad thing though, after all the quality of the story isn't dependent on the "hardness" of the universe.

[Seanginty]

Star Trek has done quite a bit to inspire it’s “soft” science to become today’s reality-cell phones, tablets, medical equipment. Who knows, Trek fans may eventually create a warp drive. What is the point of hard science fiction if it lacks the fiction element and operates according to what we believe is possible today? Hard science fiction of a few decades ago would seem terribly dated now. I care less for scientific accuracy than for the stories they tell.

[campbria]

I've heard the argument that existence of humanoid aliens, or even just intelligent life within the ballpark of modern human society (give or take a few ten of thousands of years) is a miracle conceit.

[jeffburrell]

I have been reading SF for 55 years and I think classifying SF is somewhat ridiculous, especially if people try to argue that their favorite SF series is more "realistic" (hard) and therefore better than another. SF is a vehicle for the story and if the story is good and the science is self consistent it will work. In their time, fantasy stories told tales in the terms we used to understand the world - magic, gods, and supernatural events. SF re-clothes those stories using our current understanding of how the world works to speak to us in a voice we are more receptive to hear. Neither fantasy or SF is better or is a universal language. Fantasy is still a vibrant genre and can tell stories in ways standard SF cannot and so thrives as a story telling medium. It is important to place SF in its place and not get too invested in it. These are just stories, for pity's sake. Enjoy them, learn from them and then go about the rest of your life thankful for the creativity and hard work that gave you such gifts.

[torchwoodcanaria]

Most Sci-Fi can't even adhere to internal logic, let alone hard scientific principals - the enjoyment is in the storytelling, and I really enjoy "Star Trek"!

[grproteus]

Very well said. Comparing it to the Star Wars OT and Prequels, Star Trek has more "magic dressed as science" moments and concepts. It's definitely soft scifi

[grahamturner]

For a show that began in the mid 60s, Trek was streets ahead of the competition in terms of scientific detail. 🖖

[amehak]

I've never heard star trek called hard sci fi. It's been said to have some scientific realism but never hard.

[sarahscott]

This is such a great video!!!
I kind of can't believe you did this! It'll sound odd but I actually did my 2nd year dissertation analysing the scientific inaccuracies of Star Trek, Star Wars and some others. I thought it'd be a fun idea but as always, maths and physics and 30, 000 words can make any topic boring 😂