BTW. You mentioned Star Trek, actually that (IMO) pretty ridiculous episode with holographic messages hidden in DNA was on my mind when I wrote the original comment...
There was also a species that had a galaxy-wide empire and used portals instead of starships to get around that only got mentioned once or twice, despite apparently being able to move stars around. And the Dyson sphere could (should) have been it's own series.
The demise of Iconians always felt far-fetched to me. They had a portal network spanning a galaxy that could even be used to stage invasions at unexpecting opponents, and yet the whole empire collapsed down after a single supernova?
A TNG spin-off about the Dyson sphere would be uber-cool. I'd love that.
Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)
I've read a lot of SF and can assure that science is not required for the genre.
"A Scanner Darkly" comes to mind, where SF elements were added to the story to make it SF, but play little role in the story.
Silverber's Majipoor series has technology, but it's so ancient and unused it might as well be fantasy. Things like the ability to send dreams are nominally done by machine, as are many of the things in Babylon 5.
Farmer's Tiers series is another SF example where the super advanced science - the ability to create artificially-constructed universes, for example - are explained as science, but the science element do little to advance the story.
And i don't consider A Scanner Darkly to be pure scifi, just like most of Dick's other works, it's fiction for sure but not necessarily scientific.
For example, "Star Wars" won the Hugo for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' in 1978 so right there it's obvious that a lot of people - and those who are more identifiable and influential than your bland 'many people' - classify it as science fiction.
(Bear in mind that "The Force" or an equivalent has long been a thread in SF. Think of the mental powers of the Lensmen, or precognition in 'Dune', or telekinesis in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. You cannot handwave it way as "fantasy" without throwing out a lot of other SF.)
I also gave two other examples of mainstream science fiction which are no less fantastical than Babylon V. To that list I'll add Pellucidar.
What is the science driving "Tunnel in the Sky"? A magic device that can slow time and allows space warp. What of the rest qualifies as 'scientific' which makes it notably "science fiction" instead of simply "fiction"?
What is the science behind "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
Or "The Dispossessed"? The main characters live on a moon, the primary is also inhabited, there is occasional radio and rocket connection between the two, and there's a computer that helps with resource planning. None of those details drive the plot.
For that matter, is there any TV series you think should be called "science fiction"? What actual SF do you think deserves being called SF? I gave names. Now it's your turn.
Science Fiction's classical definition is a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas.
I don't want to be a gatekeeper to anything, mainly because it's just as presumptuous of me to do that as the opinions you've presented.
There are quite allot of categories in speculative fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction including Science Fantasy ,and Comic Science Fiction which is where i would put Douglas Adam's work in there.
The more finite definition of a work is really dependent on the setting, story telling device used and interpretation.
A tunnel in the sky is a very good example of works that can be classified as Science Fantasy a genre that it's author Robert Heinlein was quite instrumental in it's creation.
I don't disagree that others have that opinion about Star Wars. That's besides the point. You claim is that Babylon 5 is not part of science fiction. You think that the allusion to what other people think about Star Wars is relevant to your claim. But as you must well know, that question of "is Star Wars really science fiction" is old and well-worn (eg. http://pop-verse.com/2014/12/10/is-star-wars-science-fiction... ).
It is therefore a poor tool to use to answer the question of 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'. My objection was to this use, not that others believe it to be fantasy.
This concept of "speculative fiction" as an encompassing term is a perfectly reasonable one to have. However, it does not address the question 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'.
You can place Hitchhiker's Guide into "Comic Science Fiction", but note that "Science Fiction" is in the name. Granted, astronomers say that a dwarf planet isn't a planet, but a dwarf star is a star, so it's not always possible to infer an is-a relationship in a name, but so far it looks like Hitchhiker's Guide is part of science fiction.
You give what you say is the "classical definition" of 'a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas'.
As you must surely know, there is no such classical definition, and "its exact definition remains a contested question among both scholars and devotees." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction and reflective of my understanding.) Furthermore, there's an entire section in Wikipedia on just that topic, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction , many of which are not limited to your 'science as a story' definition.
I can assume your definition for argument's sake, but you still haven't answered the question of which TV series you think is actually science fiction under your definition, nor have you given any books.
This unwillingness to state examples is why I'm getting gatekeeper vibes from you. (A gatekeeper who is used to shutting people down for using the wrong terms is often one who does not want to stick a neck out for worry that it will in turn be cut down.)
Do note that the "science fantasy" link you give says the term "has never been clearly defined". The Heinlein example of 'Magic, Inc.' has many of the tropes of outright fantasy. I would consider "Glory Road" a better example for this category, with mixed fantasy and science elements. Indeed, if you look in the talk you'll see a raging discussion on just that point. In any case, 'Tunnel in the Sky' has no fantasy elements, so cannot fit into this category.
The first season was OK given it's budget but when the studio kicked out Wolfe it turned into utter garbage.
Like most syndicated show it pretty much was run into the ground by the networks, less story, more self confined episodes that can be picked up by the average Joe Dumb while flipping channels, and constant budget cuts.
They've spent like 75% of their CGI budget for the 1st season on the Andromeda model for the pilot episode which resulted in pretty much every space battle after it being a scene for scene recut of the 3rd episode from different angles.
I would not recommend that show to anyone.