Just a friendly disagreement,
I absolutely love SciFi, but when the points that Trip Technician has called up gets in the way of the meaning, I also have a hard time enjoying it. However, on to my defense of Science Fiction, of as some authors call it, "speculative fiction".
The point of any genre of book or short story is to tell the story. Too many authors in any genre forget this. My favorite SciFi of all time was written with little emphasis on technology, and huge emphasis on the character's development. Examples of such are much of Philip K. Dick's work, "For a breath I tarry" by Roger Zelazny, and of course, Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. All have some degree of technology, mostly advanced. However, the focus is on what happens to the characters. Actually, every character in For a breath I tarry is a robot.
This is directly related to two of TT's comments, about two-dementional characters and the lack of dicipline in the genre. Static characters make any story suck, unless there is something else to redeem it, such as a moral. You remember those fables? As to lack of dicipline, just look at another fiction genre, the romance books. When anything goes, the themes tend to run together. You have to bring it back to reality for it to be of worth to the reader. I mean, even Shakespeare wrote fluff. There have been crappy biographies. There will always be pulp SciFi.
Sometimes the best way to convey a truth is through a lie. Let's admit it, fiction is lying. (sorry, Sarcasmo). Some are elaberate lies (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?) some are simple ("The cold equations" by Tom Godwin). Besides, sometimes we need to lose ourselves in a few good lies.
Most importantly, read something you enjoy. I know I was really turned off by the required reading in school, only to return to the book years later and love it. Try not to write off a whole genre just because of a few (or even a lot) of bad apples. Listen to your friends and dabble around a bit. Hisenna!