
“Science fiction is, after all, the art of extrapolation.”
Introduction to the Everyman's Library edition of The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, p. viii.
Daniel Martin (1977)
“Science fiction is, after all, the art of extrapolation.”
Introduction to the Everyman's Library edition of The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, p. viii.
“Science is not science. It's an art, like… art, in a way.”
October 18, 2007
The Areas of My Expertise (2005), Appearances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
“Art is the queen of all sciences communicating knowledge to all the generations of the world.”
(15 June 2007)
Unfit for Mass Consumption (blog entries), 2007
Context: Art is not science. Even when art is about science, it is still art. There cannot be consensus, in the sense that science strives for meaningful consensus. And unlike science, art is not progressive. Personally, I have my doubts that science can be said to be genuinely progressive, but I'm pretty dammed certain that art is not. Which is not to say that it is not accumulative or accretionary. But the belief that sf writers are out there forecasting the future, that they have some social responsibility to do so, that's malarky, if you ask me. Writers of sf can only, at best, make educated guesses, and usually those guesses are wrong, and clumping together to form a consensus does not in any way insure against history unfolding in one of those other, unpredicted directions. People love to pick out the occasional instances where Jules Verne and William Gibson got it right; they rarely ever point fingers at their miscalls.
Style https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lK0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41 (1897), p. 41
Uncommon Genius: How Great Ideas are Born (Penguin, 1990), pp. 176
“Much of good science — and perhaps all of great science — has its roots in fantasy.”
Source: Letters to a Young Scientist (2013), chapter 5, "The Creative Process", page 69.
Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. IV (1928)