Science fantasy vs science fiction. Do we have it wrong? At out science Meet Up group we were talking about Interstellar travel. As usual, the properties of matter, energy brought up. Regardless of how described in scientific jargon, FTL is all silly gobbledygook in science fiction books and movies. A magician waving a magic wand to get the Enterprise around the galaxy is no less silly than evoking Warp Speed or whatever. Scotty could put on a magician's hat and it would all be the same. We were rambling on and someone pointed out that it may be within the laws of physics to one day develop a real life flying dragon-like animal. It is within the law of physics that a sword yielding princess could ride on its back and slay the enemies of her father, the king. The scenario might be 'fiction' but the theoretical science is not fantasy. In contrast, as soon as any property of matter or energy is ignored, then something becomes 'fantasy' regardless of the plot. Anything contrary to the property of a subatomic particle, quantum mechanics...etc....etc. is 'fantasy'. Liberties taken for convenience sake to push a plot along are actually magic wands being waved. Technology that we say we may develop 'one day' will actually not be developed unless it conforms to properties of physics. Anyways, it is a contrarian position. I've always been a science fiction reader with little interest in what's called science fantasy. Perhaps there is more fantasy in a lot of science fiction than in a lot science fantasy.