Oh, yeah. Got into a debate over whether Star Wars was Science Fiction or not over on this thread (Warning: takes you to a different site.) I love arguments such as these, and I took the position that Star Wars is not science fiction by the dictionary definition of the phrase.
One of the posters (Zkribbler) defined the categories as such on page 2:
[q]"Let’s get some terms down…
SF (Speculative Fiction) is generally considered to have two subgenres: science fiction and fantasy.
Science ficition is fiction based upon the extrapolation of the laws of science.
Fantasy is fiction which ignores the laws of science.
Sci-Fi (at least until the introduction of the Sci-Fi Channel) was considered to be a perjoritive phrase directed at pulp works of science fiction…stories which focused more on ray guns and space ships than on their effects upon the human condition. Under this definition Star Wars is sci-fi–indeed it is classic sci-fi. However, as a literary work, Star Wars falls far below the high standards set out in Frankenstein, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and “Flowers for Algernon” – made into the movie Charlie, in which Cliff Robertson won an academy award for best actor.
For the record, their was a short-lived attempt to create a hybrid subgenre called science fantasy, in which the laws of magic are explained by the laws of science. It’s best example is Fred Saberhagen’s “Empire of the East.” I know of no example of this subgenre written in the last few decades."[/q]
I don’t get upset about this, I just like to parse out the terms. I also enjoy getting into debates about the difference viz a sport and a game.