Should science fiction literature be plausible?

I’m uncomfortable with the word “should” being applied to any sub genre of fiction, except maybe it “should be engaging.” That said, I personally appreciate a degree of verisimilitude to my science fiction, but that excludes implausible universes I enjoy like Star Wars (which is arguably more fantasy than science fiction).

I certainly prefer realistically possible, but I’ll enjoy it anyway. Sometimes books or movies make plot turns that are such nonsense I have trouble getting past it.
On the other hand, sometimes writers fail to imagine the future in silly ways. I read a Philip K. Dick story, set in the far off future, where a character gets so angry he decides to send a complaint, so he sits at his typewriter and pulls out the carbon paper so he’ll have a copy.

To answer the Q as presented: not necessarily. Over the last 50 years the genre has expanded so much to include a mass of different styles, philosophies, points of view. If your preference is hard science, there are a number of outstanding authors that cover that, and by the tenor of your question, I am guessing that you know who they are.
If one’s preference is for the more philosophical, again many choices.
Fluffy? Then borderline fantasy is well represented.

Remember, in the beginning, science fiction was called speculative fiction and it took off from there.

I like that there is so much diversity under the basic umbrella called science fiction.

Remember some of the great classics of SF are way more allegorical than science, like Dune, but Herbert also wrote The White Plague, which is much more of a scientific “what if” kind of exploration.

Nope. One of the things about Science Fiction is that it is Fiction. It is bouncing ideas around. To say it has to be scientifically plausible is silly. At one point H.G. Wells wrote a book called First Men In The Moon…a story about a trip to the moon. This was written around 1900. The Wright Bros wouldn’t do their first flight (which lasted 12 seconds) until 1904. Yet we (humans) did go to the moon and out into space. Stories about robots happened long ago…long before the first robot was ever considered to be something that would be plausible. I still remember the Dick Tracy having his 2-way wrist watch…a precursor for what ended up being smart watches. Sci-fi is ideas. Some are totally unbelievable and highly impractical and improbable, but others make someone down the line think “How could that be done?”

There is a big place for plausible and implausible.

I think the word fiction answers the question? If it has techobabble bullshit and it is fiction then….. no, I do not believe it needs to be plausible in order to be sci-fi.

But I hear about “soft” science fiction and “hard” science fiction, and they are two different things.

So “hard” science fiction is probably more plausible than, say, Star Trek, which tries to be way more sci-fi than it really is. (soft sci-fi?)

But you could argue Star Trek is still sci-fi, because even though it is all made up, it tries to offer scientific explainations- some of which is based in reality and is plausible

Of course. It’s called “suspension of reality.” This allows people to imagine it all realistically, and still relate.
It’s an art.

It depends on the reader, and/or what the writer is trying to do.

Plausibility comes in a wide range of levels, and can involve many different mixes of topics.

For example, many people reject much sci fi because they find the characters unbelievable.

Each reader has their own set of sensitivities to the plausibility of different topics. Though, some readers have near-zero concern for plausibility, or, they say they do.

But in sci fi in particular, for many readers such as myself, the appeal is about exploring a fictional situation in a plausible way. So for example I’m interested in a story set in a reality where some technologies that don’t currently exist, do exist, or there are aliens, or magic, or whatever . . . but then I want the rest of it to make sense and follow logic and reality. When authors decide nothing needs to be plausible, I lose interest very quickly.

No, of course not. Most science fiction is not plausible (for example any science fiction that depects faster than light travel is bullshit). It just needs to work in its internal story lines.

It depends.
On SOOOO many variables.

I guess, mainly, I want to be entertained. If something is entertaining, I will allow myself to overlook a LOT.
Other times, the inaccuracies can become a distraction.

I LOVED “The Expanse.” One of the things I loved about it, was that it tried really hard to make everything plausible.

A lot if science fiction, becomes fact. Jules Verne’s books would be an excellent literary example too.

Ask MythBusters to review each book for plausibility or if they consider it Busted..

What is “plausible”?
Warp drive is allowed by relativity. As are wormholes.
The multiverse is allowed by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
higher dimensions are allowed by string theory.
teleportation has been done in the lab on an atomic scale.

If humanity decides to exist in virtual worlds matrix style, it’s all plausible

@Caravanfan…of course it’s implausible, and that is where a gifted writer shines. They make it SEEM plausible. They suspend reality for the reader.

It has to be internally consistent with the physical laws described therein.

^You mean, like in the movie “Gravity,” where gravity was inconsistent? ;)

All the Physics in that movie were inconsistent.

Yeah. That movie sucked. And it had 2 of my favorite actors in it.

Gravity was a big ol’ metaphor, set in the mind of a person crippled by grief. As such, it was very well done.

^Really?..
I only watched it once, I think I lost interest quickly, and I was around a lot of distraction.
I couldn’t get past the fact Sandra’s hair wasn’t effected by zero G. Since it was a lot of her talking, it was a constant distraction for me.

I’ve not heard, it was a dream or something…I’m not disagreeing.

That would certainly change my opinion of the film.

We should have paid more attention @MrGrimm888, cause I missed that too.