Science Fiction - Definition
"Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions... [It is] that branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings."
- Isaac Asimov

Is this necessarily true? I always feel wary about absolute statements like this. Arguments against it would normally involve specific examples of "non-science fiction" writings that meet the above critieria. But then Asimov [the-god-of-atheists rest his soul] would then promptly claim that those writings were also science fiction.

Dean has argued (check me on my accuracy here, Dean) that there are no Science Fiction or Fantasy stories about the "human condition" that could not be told in... er... normal literature. Given the above definition, he is correct, assuming that the "human condition" tackled in normal literature is the "human condition" of the present, the NOW.

Asimov's Science Fiction tackles the "human condition" of the future, based on the impact of major and minor scientific advancements. It betrays Asimov's belief that the "human condition" can change substantially, for better or worse, due to science.

It reminds me of an off-hand comment about Science and Science Fiction: "Where science predicts traffic lights, science fiction predicts traffic jams."

Science Fiction & Fantasy - Definitions
"The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is 'The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!' The basic rule of science fiction is 'Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences.' "
- John W. Campbell, Jr.

Several people have spoken to me about how Science Fiction is more 'rigid' than Fantasy. As John W. Campell, Jr. clearly believed, they were right. While I do enjoy both 'genres', it seems Science Fiction is most often maligned for "having its cake and eating it too." I suppose that the main argument to write Fantasy over Science Fiction is "if you're going to change one rule, why not change them all?"

But the point of good science fiction is to make you think about a variety of issues (societal, moral, whatever) not too far divorced from the reality that we know. It is the branch of fiction that explores and often tackles in cautionary overtones the moral implications of scientific advancement. Genetic Engineering. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Supercomputers and an interconnected sea information. Satellites and Cellphones. The list goes on and on.

Sometimes the authors were horribly wrong about the implications. Other times, they were chillingly prescient. On reflection, one wonders whether H.G. Wells really did have a Time Machine of sorts...