I'll take the bait and rant . . .
So at what point does science become a stumbling block in a book/movie/TV show for you?
If, for the sake of the story, light is a particle and they never mention that it also has properties of a wave, I'm fine with that.
I guess it depends on how integral it is to the plot.
Also, unless the POV character is the scientist you can always explain it away as a confused or ignorant POV character.
Perhaps my hero needs to learn a little more about technology -- "The woman raised her delicate arm and pointed the small plastic object at the TV. I wasn't sure if the TV was mesmerized by her beauty or if the small plastic object was some sort of destructive weapon. In any case I realize that the TV had acquired sentience because it hastened to do her bidding and immediately changed channels."
At one point are things that not everyone knows, but are definitely true.
I'm a doubter. The non-fiction science book I recently listened to bugged me each time the author said, "scientists
thought [some out-dated notion] but they now
know [current fashionable notion]."
It's like Lord Kelvin a hundred years ago pronouncing that scientific knowledge was nearly complete, just a few loose ends to tie up. Smugness bothers me more than "error."
You say "definitely true" and I say "really?" You say "mostly true like Newton's Law of Gravity" and I'm a little more comfortable with your declaration.
Then there is the other end where the science is completely out there and may as well be magic. Once you accept the transporter beams and faster-than-light travel, everything else is easy. Where in the middle does it get irritating, and does it matter how much you know about a given topic? For example, does Jurassic Park really irritate biochemists or someone who knows how much work it would take to replicate a dinosaur while those of us who have no idea can pass it by?
Seems like the point of SciFi is to extrapolate advances, i.e. things that now seem difficult or impossible are suddenly easy or at least doable, and what are the ramifications of such advances. If you're talking about Space Opera, that's a different matter.
If I wrote a story that included faster-than-light travel I hope I won't have to accurately explain in detail how to actually build a faster-than-light ship. If I was that smart I'd stop writing and start building the ship. However cool my story might be it would be a lot cooler to be zipping through the galaxy.
I think that what does bug me (which is probably what you are saying and I was just misunderstanding because of my unconscious need to be disagreeable) is a bunch of hand waving, vague explanations that are supposed to be scientific and are meant to add credibility to the story when it appears that the writer didn't bother to learn anything about the subject. If they had even looked up the subject on wikipedia they'd have realized how inane their "scientific explanation" was.