I have heard Science Fiction and Fantasy referred to as the fiction of ideas and I like that definition but it's the mainstream public that chooses my books for the most part.

I have been a reader of Science Fiction and Fantasy for a long time since I was 11 or 12 I think so I understand it and I'm not at all surprised that readers of the genre might enjoy my books.

Cosmologists have attempted to account for the day-to-day laws you find in textbooks in terms of fundamental 'superlaws ' but the superlaws themselves must still be accepted as brute facts. So maybe the ultimate laws of nature will always be off-limits to science.

I'm writing a review of three books on feminism and science and it's about social constructionism. So I would say I'm a social constructionist whatever that means.

I'm a geophysicist and all my earth science books when I was a student I had to give the wrong answer to get an A. We used to ridicule continental drift. It was something we laughed at. We learned of Marshall Kay's geosynclinal cycle which is a bunch of crap.

I was raised on comic books and I love science fiction.

I've loved science fiction ever since I was a little kid mainly from looking at the covers of science-fiction magazines and books and I've read quite extensively as an adult.

People and especially theologians should try to familiarize themselves with scientific ideas. Of course science is technical in many respects but there are some very good books that try to set out some of the conceptual structure of science.

It cannot be said often enough that science fiction as a genre is incredibly educational - and I'm speaking the written science fiction not 'Star Trek.' Science fiction writers tend to fill their books if they're clever with little bits of interesting stuff and real stuff.

The flesh alas is sad and I have read all the books.