That's kind of the point of this list, though. So-called "hard" SF tends to only be "realistic" within the narrow confines of the author's specialty (which usually means the physics equations work out). It handwaves or outright ignores other areas, let alone tries to realistically consider them. This is most especially true for the "soft" sciences that the hard SF engineering types so often sneer at.
Which is fine for fiction stories generally, they're just fiction after all, but hard SF likes to pretend it's somehow purer or more rational than other kinds of stories.
Well, yeah, realism takes a lot of work, so you'll only ever see it happen in one or two areas, if you see it at all.
> This is most especially true for the "soft" sciences that the hard SF engineering types so often sneer at.
Sneering is always inappropriate, whether it is being done by hard scifi fans looking down at soft sciences or by literary types who don't see the point of ever engaging with realism. These feed each other, of course.
To the hard scifi fan, the entire point of tangling with realism -- which is guaranteed to be difficult, involve sacrifices, and have limited scope -- is because it helps us understand humanity. Specifically, in the context of hypothetical technology. It's always frustrating when literary types stomp in and act like they have a monopoly on this type of thing, when really we ought to be on the same team. Ah well.
I agree. Sometimes the 'hard' Sci-Fi novels are written by scientists who have interesting scientifc ideas but aren't necessary good writers or storytellers. The enthusiasm for their intriguing scientific scenarios come through in their writing - while plot, character or drama are all lacking.
Which is fine for fiction stories generally, they're just fiction after all, but hard SF likes to pretend it's somehow purer or more rational than other kinds of stories.