In particular about the quality of writing of the canon. Then flipping back on the purpose of the genre from different perspectives. Site for engineers I frequent did this list of SF writers who were actually trained in science:

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&dfpLayout=blog&cid=nl%2Edn14%2E20141208&itc=dn_analysis_element&dfpPParams=ind_182%2Cindustry_aero%2Ckw_robotics%2Caid_275846&doc_id=275846&image_number=1

Funny thing is that while Clarke and Asimov are definitely on my list, they aren't at the top. I think Clarke dealt more with the social despite being heavy into the science, and Asmiov as well. But yeah other than those two (maybe even with them) I'm not sure there are great writers on that list.

But SF is often read by the science community and judged on that grounds and so from that perspective the literary strong but scientifically lax pieces are probably not on their top lists.

Is there a middle ground. Is either perspective right? Of course not on the latter. But then again what is the purpose of SF? The projection of science into the fictional realm which allows for exploration beyond the realms of here and now, or the use of science a s cultural backdrop fro understanding the cultural and social aspects of our humanity?

There is no right answer, right?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."