Abstract
Science fiction and the ‘technofantasies’ of the future that it provides may attract some students to study physics. The details and assumptions informing these ‘imaginaries’ may, on the other hand, be unattractive to other students, or imply that there is not a place for them. This forum discussion complements Cathrine Hasse’s paper discussing the ways in which gender and other interests interact in the ‘entanglement’ of physics and science fiction. The conversation interrogates some of the issues in Cathrine’s paper, and brings in complementary literatures and perspectives. It discusses the possibility of a ‘successor science’ and new, more inclusive ways of imagining and constructing our possible futures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gomel, E. (1998). Hard and wet: Luce irigaray and the fascist body. Textual Practice, 12(2), 199–223. doi:10.1080/09502369808582306.
Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2013). Representational re-description as a catalyst for conceptual change. In B. Brizuela & B. Gravel (Eds.), Show me what you know: Exploring student representations across STEM disciplines (pp. 244–250). NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Lemke, J. (2008). Identity, develoment and desire. Critical questions. In C. Caldas-Coultard & R. Iedema (Eds.), Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contestations of identification (pp. 17–42). London: Macmillan Palgrave.
Mellor, F. (2003). Between fact and fiction: demarcating science from non-science in popular physics books. Social Studies in Science, 33(4), 509–538. doi:10.1177/0306312703334002.
Newitz, A. (2012). Dear science fiction writers: Stop being so pessimistic! Smithsonian Magazine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Dear-Science-Fiction-Writers-Stop-Being-So-Pessimistic.html.
Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Sokal, A. D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Intellectual impostures: Postmodern philosophers’ abuse of science (pp. xiii–xiii). London: Profile Books.
Whitten, B. (1996). What physics is fundamental physics? Feminist implications of physicists’ debate over the superconducting supercollider. NWSA Journal, 8(2), 1–16. doi:10.2979/NWS.1996.8.2.1.
Whitten, B. L., Foster, S. R., Duncombe, M. L., Allen, P. E., Heron, P., McCullough, L., Shaw, K. A., Taylor, B. A. P., & Zorn, H. M. (2004). ‘Like a family’: What works to create friendly and respectful student-faculty interactions. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10(3), 229–242. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v10.i3.30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editor: Stephen M. Ritchie.
Forum response to issues raised in Cathrine Hasse’s (2015) paper entitled: The material co-construction of hard science fiction and physics. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9547-y.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Geelan, D., Prain, V. & Hasse, C. A dialogue regarding "The material co-construction of hard science fiction and physics". Cult Stud of Sci Educ 10, 941–949 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9717-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9717-1