Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I agree that though what you're talking about is often seen as a dividing line between hard and soft SF, it's more a matter of following the implications of a change (or, in non-SF, the implications of any other story element) down to the bedrock, as far as you know it.
What I've noticed is that some readers do not recognize this kind of rigor if some other element they think frivolous or fluffy is also in the book. (Note, I'm not imputing that view to you.) I ran into it years ago when an ANALOG reader objected to the serial of one of Lois McMaster Bujold's books because a) it was by a woman writer and b) it "had no science" in it. Actually, it was chock full of interesting science ideas--but they were largely (not completely) based in biology, and although the implications very thoroughly worked out, that reader could not see the biology (including human genetics and reproductive technology) were in fact part of science. It was by a woman; it dealt with reproduction; therefore it wasn't science--to that reader. Since my science background is primarily biology, I was seeing the science in the story easily (as well as the socio-political fallout from it.)
Some years after that, I was given a book described on the cover as hard SF, and blurbed by those whose names are familiar as a worthy successor to Heinlein. It was so full of nonsensical rule-breaking that I kept bouncing it off the wall. (A small, rocky, waterless satellite of a gas giant--small enough to walk around in four hours--has Earth-normal gravity and atmosphere--not under a dome. The inhabitants walk around in shirtsleeves outside. Though there's no water on the surface, and no water in the caves our heroes explore, there's plenty of water coming out of faucets and shower heads. And fresh fruit on the table, though there's no sign of a greenhouse. After that, the way our heroes' spacecraft dealt with the realities of spaceflight wasn't a surprise...but also wasn't convincing.) Why would anyone consider it hard SF? Because the author was male? Because it lacked any obvious girl cooties? (Whatever, in the minds of readers, passes for girl cooties in SF.) Dunno. Still annoys me.
But I digressed...my question now would be whether you (or anyone interested in this topic) find plot elements that, for you, obscure the science. I'm not talking about too much infodump (which definitely does it for me--if I want data as data, I read journals...) but about things in the plot that by their nature make the science seem less valid, or less rigorous.
Re: I hope this clarifies
What I've noticed is that some readers do not recognize this kind of rigor if some other element they think frivolous or fluffy is also in the book. (Note, I'm not imputing that view to you.) I ran into it years ago when an ANALOG reader objected to the serial of one of Lois McMaster Bujold's books because a) it was by a woman writer and b) it "had no science" in it. Actually, it was chock full of interesting science ideas--but they were largely (not completely) based in biology, and although the implications very thoroughly worked out, that reader could not see the biology (including human genetics and reproductive technology) were in fact part of science. It was by a woman; it dealt with reproduction; therefore it wasn't science--to that reader. Since my science background is primarily biology, I was seeing the science in the story easily (as well as the socio-political fallout from it.)
Some years after that, I was given a book described on the cover as hard SF, and blurbed by those whose names are familiar as a worthy successor to Heinlein. It was so full of nonsensical rule-breaking that I kept bouncing it off the wall. (A small, rocky, waterless satellite of a gas giant--small enough to walk around in four hours--has Earth-normal gravity and atmosphere--not under a dome. The inhabitants walk around in shirtsleeves outside. Though there's no water on the surface, and no water in the caves our heroes explore, there's plenty of water coming out of faucets and shower heads. And fresh fruit on the table, though there's no sign of a greenhouse. After that, the way our heroes' spacecraft dealt with the realities of spaceflight wasn't a surprise...but also wasn't convincing.) Why would anyone consider it hard SF? Because the author was male? Because it lacked any obvious girl cooties? (Whatever, in the minds of readers, passes for girl cooties in SF.) Dunno. Still annoys me.
But I digressed...my question now would be whether you (or anyone interested in this topic) find plot elements that, for you, obscure the science. I'm not talking about too much infodump (which definitely does it for me--if I want data as data, I read journals...) but about things in the plot that by their nature make the science seem less valid, or less rigorous.