Quote Originally Posted by Amaril View Post
But that's not necessarily what science is in a story; it might be any number of other things. Maybe it's the danger of humanity overstepping its natural boundaries, and playing with forces it doesn't understand. Maybe it's an imbalance of power between social classes. Maybe it's our salvation, something we should all praise and seek to advance. What's important is what it represents. Things in fiction don't have static, singular definitions the way they do in real life--they can change according to what the writer wants to communicate about the real world. Science doesn't have to be all-encompassing in a story if the writer doesn't want it to be, and there can be room for things beyond its scope.
Er... no. None of those are "science." Somebody calling those things "science" is like somebody calling them "hat." It's taking a word that has nothing to do with them and redefining it.

Now, you can use technology as a metaphor for those things. Or as a vehicle to illustrate them. But technology is a consequence of science.


I do understand the urge to assert this, however. "Science" in today's world is often an abused term, being used to refer to political and religious beliefs in hopes of shielding them from the scrutiny they deserve by cloaking them in an aura that declares anybody who questions them "anti-science," which is distorted to mean either "stupid" or "intellectually dishonest" or "corrupt," depending on context.