I'm doing a book, 'Chasing Science,' about the pleasures of science as a spectator sport.

I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.

I don't think the scientific method and the science fictional method are really analogous. The thing about them is that neither is really practiced very much, at least not consciously. But the fact that they are methodical does relate them.

You can't trust reason. We threw it out of the ad profession long ago and have never missed it.

Science fiction is the very literature of change.

In terms of stories I would buy for a science fiction magazine, if they take place in the future, that might do it.

The future depicted in a good SF story ought to be in fact possible, or at least plausible. That means that the writer should be able to convince the reader (and himself) that the wonders he is describing really can come true... and that gets tricky when you take a good, hard look at the world around you.