Scientific accuracy is not a requirement of a science fiction story, only that the mechanics of the fantastic elements are attempted to be explained away via science instead of accepting that it is some mystical event (like the result of breaking a religious artifact or something).
Bullshit. Maybe that's what you consider science fiction, but I certainly don't! Hell, by that reasoning Lord of the Rings would be science fiction if they simply called the ring a "personality back-up device". No, I'm sorry, you do not know what you're talking about.
A lot science is very unsound when a SF writer puts in a throw-away sentence or paragraph to explain floating cities, faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleportation, etc. Those things might be possible and sometimes the writer uses scientific journals to justify their tech, but sometimes they just throw in techno-babble.
If the explanation is based on science or scientific hypotheses that have yet to be proven, it's acceptable. It really depends on the execution.
Heck, in Star Trek TNG sometimes they just made up techno babble to explain away the plot device of the week and/or its solution.
Star Trek, while obviously being science fiction, had a problems; they hired writers with absolutely no science back ground at all, but most science fiction television series has this problem. Ignore the episodes that bring down the franchise and you'll enjoy it a lot more (I'm looking at you, Voyager episode "Threshold").
And Star Wars is full of scientific issues, yet they're considered science fiction.
Star Wars IS NOT science fiction. It has never claimed to be science fiction, and never will be.
2012's main plot device was caused by a fantastic event, which the writers tried to explain away.
You keep using this word "fantastic" and yet are seemingly unable to connect it to it's root word "FANTASY". I wonder why that is...
It wasn't like the goal of the film was trying to "fix" the earth via "heavy neutrinos" or some other such nonsense, so it's not even a big deal.
Right. The main reason the sun is destroying the Earth doesn't matter, as long as they don't use some technobabble excuse to fix it.
It was just an explanation of the story's catalyst and antagonist.
The story of 2012 was in "the world is ending in catastrophe, how far would you go to save your estranged family."
I'm not saying I loved the film, but I'm willing to look the other way for scientific flaws.
2012 was a disaster movie. The science they used to explain the disaster was 100% horseshit. I think that's where some people get confused. Since they tried to explain it away with fictional science, it must be science fiction, right? Uh, no.