I don't care that much if Science Fiction is not consistent with what we know about our universe. What is far more important is that it is internally consistent. The author should decide on the rules of their fictional universe, and think through all the ramifications of the set of rules they have decided upon.
The world should be emergent, it should be the logical conclusion of the premises. Too often are worlds created backwards, with the author thinking of a cool thing they just have to use, and justifying it with some technobabble about quantum physics.
Overall, I would settle for authors respecting science a bit more than they do. (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php)
As has been said, Science Fiction and Fantasy are similar, particularly in that many writers have little idea of the science or history related to what they are writing about. If you plan to include knights and men at arms, please, at least research how this sort of thing went down in the real world. If you had two battle lines, they would never charge screaming at one another across and open field in a discordant mass. Generally, the first few hours of a battle are spent with the men in the line getting drunk and working up the courage to join the lines. This sort of thing sticks out as it has people acting outside of behavioural norms.
the jellyman said:
Well, we can't accurately predict the future, so real life could throw an SF-writer a curveball any time.
Also no matter how smart or imaginative you are, nobody can think all the way outside the box. Nobody knows everything that's possible.
We do know that it may well make more sense than current Doctor Who, though
There are however limits to what can change about our knowledge of the world:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle
