The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Building off an idea from last week's question (do sci fi books need to have accurate science?): What's something new you learned from reading a book? Maybe it spurred you to research the concept more or had you thinking after you put the book down!

"It Wasn't Syzygy" (1948) by Theodore Sturgeon taught me the definition of a new word. :)

Just today I was reading a story from this year's Locus reading list, “Freediver“, Isabel J. Kim (Reactor 9/24/25) and checked Wiki to see what the vagus nerve... So, yes, regularly I learn something new from SF

Thomas wrote: ""It Wasn't Syzygy" (1948) by Theodore Sturgeon taught me the definition of a new word. :)"

I learned that same word from Syzygy by Michael G. Coney (1975). I probably read it in 1977 or so.

Turkish Bees go way back from The Butcher of Nazareth.

I learned the word from the X-Files back in the 90s, an episode by that name. I have a copy of Syzygy by Frederik Pohl at home, unread.

Many new words from authors such as Wolfe & Aldiss that I've looked up while reading the book.

I agree, some authors offer interesting facts and concepts in their works.
One that I remember well is the concept of a manufactured place to live, in Ringworld. I looked up commentary on it and the article I found explained that often scientists and college students evaluate sci fi for accuracy and plausibility.
The original Ringworld was stationary and seemingly easily constructed. Critics pointed out something that large would have to be in motion. Also, the building materials needed for something that large would be very difficult to obtain. (The article said Niven rewrote a few flawed points in the first book and added accurate details in later books in the series).
I found it interesting that large objects in space need to be in motion and that scientists evaluate fictional works!