Foundations of Science

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 705–725 | Cite as

What Science Fiction Can Demonstrate About Novelty in the Context of Discovery and Scientific Creativity

  • Clarissa Ai Ling LeeEmail author


Four instances of how science fiction contributes to the elucidation of novelty in the context of discovery are considered by extending existing discussions on temporal and use-novelty. In the first instance, science fiction takes an already well-known theory and produces its own re-interpretation; in the second instance, the scientific account is usually straightforward and whatever novelty that may occur would be more along the lines of how the science is deployed to extra-scientific matters; in the third instance, science fiction takes an idea that appears impossible within the delimitations of reality and produces a universe where such a possibility becomes feasible; and in the fourth instance, science fiction extends from an idea already known at the time of the work’s production to simulate a possibility that could emerge should the extension be experimentally viable. However, the article will not end with a mere evaluation of these instances, but also proposes instances on how science fiction could contribute to new ways of experiencing, discerning, and working with scientific knowledge.


Science fiction Future Novelty Kuhn Reichenbach Theories of science 



  1. Alai, M. (2014). Novel predictions and the no miracle argument. Erkenntnis,79(2), 297–326. Scholar
  2. Arabatzis, T. (2006). On the inextricability of the context of discovery and the context of justification. In J. Schickore & F. Steinle (Eds.), Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (Vol. 14, pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arsene, I., Bearden, I. G., Beavis, D., Besliu, C., Budick, B., Bøggild, H., et al. (2005). Quark–gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment. First Three Years of Operation of RHIC,757(1), 1–27. Scholar
  4. Bainbridge, W. S. (1986). Dimensions of science fiction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benford, G. (1986). Is there a technological fix for the human condition? In G. E. Slusser & E. S. Rabkin (Eds.), Hard science fiction (pp. 82–98). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benford, G. (1995). Matter’s end. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  7. Benford, G. (1998). COSM. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1995). The undivided universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Carrigan, N., & Carrigan, R. (1976). Minotaur in a mushroom maze. Analog, 96(May-July), 12–58, 104–154, 48–107. Physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Currie, A., & Sterelny, K. (2017). In defence of story-telling. SI: Narrative in Science,62, 14–21. Scholar
  11. Debbe, R., Gushue, S., Moskowitz, B., Olness, J., & Videbaek, F. (1995). The ring imaging Cerenkov detector for the BRAHMS experiment at RHIC. In Proceedings of the international workshop on ring imaging detectors (RICH’ 95) (pp. 1–5). Uppsala, Sweden: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Retrieved from Accessed 28 June 2017.
  12. Farhi, E., Guth, A. H., & Guven, J. (1990). Is it possible to create a universe in the laboratory by quantum tunneling? Nuclear Physics B,339(2), 417–490. Scholar
  13. Fine, A. (2009). Science fictions: Comment on Godfrey-Smith. Philosophical Studies,143, 117–125. Scholar
  14. Fischer, W. (2017). RHIC run overview. Retrieved June 25, 2017, from Accessed 25 June 2017.
  15. Forward, R. L. (1986). When science writes fiction. In G. E. Slusser & E. S. Rabkin (Eds.), Hard science fiction. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Francis, M. R. (2016). A GUT feeling about physics. Symmetry magazine. Retrieved from Accessed 3 May 2017.
  17. Gelis, F., Iancu, E., Jalilian-Marian, J., & Venugopalan, R. (2010). The color glass condensate. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science,60(1), 463–489. Scholar
  18. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies,143, 101–116. Scholar
  19. Hacking, I. (2016). Paradigms. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions at fifty: Reflections on a science classic (pp. 12–30). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hanson, N. R. (1965). Patterns of discovery: Inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. London: Syndics of the Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Howard, D. (2006). Lost wanderers in the forest of knowledge. In J. Schickore & F. Steinle (Eds.), Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (Vol. 14, pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kier Praëm, S., & Steglich-Petersen, A. (2015). Philosophical thought experiments as heuristics for theory discovery. Synthese,192, 2827–2842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein, G. (2000). From images of science to science fiction. In P. Parrinder (Ed.), Learning from other worlds: Estrangement, cognition, and the politics of science fiction and utopia (pp. 119–126). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: With an introductory essay by Ian Hacking (50th Anniversary ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunszt, Z. (2012). Unstable particles in quantum mechanics, analytic S-matrix theory and quantum field theory. CERN. Retrieved from Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
  26. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lavenda, B. (2015). The unobservable universe. In Where physics went wrong (pp. 15–72). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Lem, S. (1984). Microworlds: Writings on science fiction and fantasy. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  29. Lenoir, T. (1997). Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, J. (2016). Gravitational blue waves. AEON magazine. Retrieved from Accessed 31 Mar 2018.
  31. Levine, J. L. (2004). Early gravity-wave detection experiments, 1960–1975. Physics in Perspective,6, 42–75. Scholar
  32. Li, B.-A., & Tilley, M. (2001). Uranium–uranium collisions at relativistic energies. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 55, 165–167.Google Scholar
  33. Lyons, T. D. (2006). Scientific realism and the stratagema de divide et impera. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,57(3), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFadden, J., & Al-Khalili, J. (2018). The origins of quantum biology. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,474(2220), 20180674. Scholar
  35. Mitchell, S. D. (2017). The ill-logic of alternative facts (sic). Union of Concerned Scientists. Blog. Retrieved June 10, 2017, from Accessed 10 June 2017.
  36. Mody, C. C. M. (2015). What do scientists and engineers do all day? On the structure of scientific normalcy. In W. J. Devlin & A. Bokulich (Eds.), Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions: 50 years on (pp. 91–104). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, M. S., & Wise, M. N. (2017). Narrative science and narrative knowing: Introduction to special issue on narrative science. SI: Narrative in Science,62, 1–5. Scholar
  38. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations an the structure of knowledge. Illinois, Chicago: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reisch, G. A. (2016). Aristotle in the cold war: On the origins of Thomas Kuhn’s the structure of scientific revolutions. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions at fifty: Reflections on a science classic (pp. 12–30). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Roeck, A. (2016). The probability of discovery. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,112, 13–19. Accessed 28 Apr 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schiemann, G. (2006). Inductive justification and discovery: On Hans Reichenbach’s foundation of the autonomy of the philosophy of science. In J. Schickore & F. Steinle (Eds.), Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction (pp. 23–39). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schukraft, J., & Stock, R. (2015). Towards the limits of matter: Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions at CERN. In H. Schopper & L. Di Lella (Eds.), 60 years of CERN experiments and discoveries (pp. 61–87). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schweber, S. S. (2003). Quantum field theory. In M. J. Nye (Ed.), The modern physical and mathematical sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 375–393). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Solomon, M. (2009). Standpoint and creativity. Hypatia,24(4), 226–237. Scholar
  45. Sormani, C., Hill, C. D., Nurowski, P., Bieri, L., Garfinkle, D., & Yunes, N. (2017). The mathematics of gravitational waves. Notices of the American Mathematical Society,64(7), 685–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suárez, M. (2008). Scientific fictions as rules of inference. In M. Suárez (Ed.), Fictions in science: Philosophical essays on modeling and idealization. New York: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. The Safety of the LHC. (2004). CERN. Retrieved from Accessed 10 June 2017.
  48. Toon, A. (2012). Models as make-believe: Imagination, fiction and scientific representation. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Votsis, I. (2014). Objectivity in confirmation: Post hoc monsters and novel predictions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A,45, 70–78. Scholar
  50. Walton, K. L. (2015). In other shoes: Music, metaphor, empathy, existence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wüthrich, A. (2017). The Higgs discovery as a diagnostic causal inference. Synthese,194(Evidence for the Higgs Particle), 461–476. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable DevelopmentSunway UniversitySubang JayaMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Malaysian and International StudiesUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations