#5) It may be true that sometimes there may be a good reason to bend scientific accuracy. Often scientific accuracy is not needed. But then again, there is a huge range of degree between just being somewhat inaccurate, and being blatantly incorrect, and even further down that path are stories that are not self-consistent or that are almost impossible to make sense of. And sadly, it seems like many people tend to leap straight to the end of that range, sometimes intentionally as if their brain just heard “fantasy isn’t reality” and went straight to “so it’s good if it makes no sense” or “there’s no reason to have anything be at all realistic”.
As for “If you have to sacrifice scientific accuracy for a story, you suck at writing”, that’s also not logically correct, though of course both things could be true, and I may tend to not like what you write if you lean farther than I like down the range I mentioned before. There is however a more moderate thing like this that I do agree with, which is that if you choose to have something be inaccurate, inconsistent, or not make sense in a story, it’d be best to do so for a reason other than “because fantasy”, and if that is the answer, then I’d rather the author owned it and made it blatantly surreal fantasy, rather than having it seem semi-realistic, but just get stuff wrong. So if there is a simple way to get the same desired result in a way that makes sense, and the author chooses instead to just have it not make sense, then I find that to be highly annoying and strikes my as lazy, apathetic, and/or poor quality.
The middle-ground sci fi does tend to really annoy me, where it’s presented as being semi-realistic, but really they don’t care and have many things not make sense when easy changes could make it make much more sense.
Same for non-sci-fi, too, such as action films that pretend to be serious and semi-realistic, but then just have ridiculous things that would never happen happen. Totally undermines my interest in the film and annoys me.