Not only did Isaac Asimov have a degree, but there is a reason why he was called Dr Asimov.
ThomasP wrote:You disagree that the concept of "space fighters" is at the very least a massively over-used cliche, and one that has little basis in reality?
I agree with you but with a couple of caveats. Firstly, since we are talking about unknown to us reality, it can be difficult to be certain of how realistic some things are - after all, many of the things that are depicted in the settings where fighters are used are outside our reality scope as well [however, even so, the fighters as shown in BSG, for instance, are too small to be able to do what they are depicted as achieving, so I am basically agreeing with you].
As a secondary point, and basically wandering off topic here [as we shouldn't get too obsessed with the specific example of fighters, as many other implausible things in the fanfiction you refer to (plus also often bad writing and poor spelling)], but those who justifiably criticize fighters talk of using missiles instead, and unless those missiles have some beyond our science space drive, they won't be too effective either, quite often.
As Ford Prefect stated, consistency is a more important aspect; along with logic and plausibility (incidentally, many of the writers of TV SF seem to not even have a strong grasp of basic arithmetic, let alone science). Again going slightly off OP, but these aspects are why I am so critical of the (professional) author Jack McDevitt - he can write well and his science is treated in an average manner, but he threw logic and plausibility out the window with his two main series, in which he basically transfers "actual" 1950s hundreds or thousands of years into future.
As another example from another sphere - Gary Gygax with his D&D basically created a system in which if you can continuously find a lot of treasure then you will then be able to survive falling off a cliff. This is because he didn't realise (or care) that because something is labelled fantasy doesn't give one a licence to totally ignore the laws of physics and biology, unless you are a great author who can provide a plausible rationale for doing so.
Some minor points of clarification. Although we call this thing we love 'science fiction', it doesn't necessarily need to have much science in it (as everyone reading this already knows).
When earlier I mentioned "knowledge and respect of science", in reference to the authors that I named, I was speaking of a philosophy or attitude towards science that is conveyed by these authors. One can have imaginative superscience, and yet still reveal a basic pro-science vibe. This is in contrast to the attitude conveyed by the writers of Star Trek: Voyager.
