You should watch Big Bang Theory, Crash, as it has many debates over the accuracy of science fiction and which superhero would win battles in certain circumstances!
I think you've answered your own question though. There are different types of science fiction and respecting scientific accuracy isn't crucial in many of them.
Star Trek has been credited with respecting scientific principles and even foreshadowing many scientific developments. The communicator in the original version is basically a mobile phone. Before the iPad, DS9 had Personal Access Display Devices, PADDs that pretended to do what iPads ended up doing for real. Voice recognition software was also a thing way back in the 60s as was having a translator that was even better than Google Translate. But much of this was driven by narrative and cost considerations. The transporter wasn't so much a prediction of how we'd get around in centuries to come: it was driven by the desire to avoid the costs of filming scenes of a spaceship landing on a planet. Not only would filming realistic landing and take-off scenes be expensive but also filming actors entering and leaving the parked spaceship would require fairly large sets. So the creatives devised a cheap special effect which also became a plot driver.
But although Star Trek has enough science to entrance geeks, it was more about people and moral dilemmas. The original Star Trek was 3 mates in space (and some think Kirk, Spock & Bones were actually just 3 aspects of 1 person: the bold adventurer, the intellectual and the humanist). As a science fiction show, it got away with morality tales about racism, the Cold War, eugenics & the like. It was always a lot more cerebral and personality-driven.
Then you have the more action-packed science-fiction like the Netflix reincarnation of Lost in Space or Star Wars. In particular, the Lost in Space storylines were so crammed with plot twists and gadgets that it's a bit like a cross between listening to a comic machine-gunning one-liners and a Bond film: there's never much time to think about how ridiculous most of it is. Star Wars ends up with nonsense like guys dressed as if they escaped from a Nativity play while wielding light sabres rather than guns or phasers. And all of "the Force" stuff just introduces a religious or mystical angle that probably plays well to spiritual Americans.
Hostile alien/monster stories like Alien and The War of the Worlds end up being "realistic" genres as they're pretty much gaming out the sorts of challenges that might play out in such unlikely scenarios. Creating attackers which are much more advanced or powerful than us while leaving them with credible Achilles' heels helps keep the plots a bit more anchored to reality. Android/AI plots also have a lot of scope for creating storylines which explore issues with AI that have real resonance: Ex Machina is a fine example.
Perhaps the genre which most clearly respects scientific accuracy is fictional space travel and exploration of other worlds. The Martian is a good example of that, but there are countless TV series which deal with sending astronauts to Mars to establish colonies.
I think you've answered your own question though. There are different types of science fiction and respecting scientific accuracy isn't crucial in many of them.
Star Trek has been credited with respecting scientific principles and even foreshadowing many scientific developments. The communicator in the original version is basically a mobile phone. Before the iPad, DS9 had Personal Access Display Devices, PADDs that pretended to do what iPads ended up doing for real. Voice recognition software was also a thing way back in the 60s as was having a translator that was even better than Google Translate. But much of this was driven by narrative and cost considerations. The transporter wasn't so much a prediction of how we'd get around in centuries to come: it was driven by the desire to avoid the costs of filming scenes of a spaceship landing on a planet. Not only would filming realistic landing and take-off scenes be expensive but also filming actors entering and leaving the parked spaceship would require fairly large sets. So the creatives devised a cheap special effect which also became a plot driver.
But although Star Trek has enough science to entrance geeks, it was more about people and moral dilemmas. The original Star Trek was 3 mates in space (and some think Kirk, Spock & Bones were actually just 3 aspects of 1 person: the bold adventurer, the intellectual and the humanist). As a science fiction show, it got away with morality tales about racism, the Cold War, eugenics & the like. It was always a lot more cerebral and personality-driven.
Then you have the more action-packed science-fiction like the Netflix reincarnation of Lost in Space or Star Wars. In particular, the Lost in Space storylines were so crammed with plot twists and gadgets that it's a bit like a cross between listening to a comic machine-gunning one-liners and a Bond film: there's never much time to think about how ridiculous most of it is. Star Wars ends up with nonsense like guys dressed as if they escaped from a Nativity play while wielding light sabres rather than guns or phasers. And all of "the Force" stuff just introduces a religious or mystical angle that probably plays well to spiritual Americans.
Hostile alien/monster stories like Alien and The War of the Worlds end up being "realistic" genres as they're pretty much gaming out the sorts of challenges that might play out in such unlikely scenarios. Creating attackers which are much more advanced or powerful than us while leaving them with credible Achilles' heels helps keep the plots a bit more anchored to reality. Android/AI plots also have a lot of scope for creating storylines which explore issues with AI that have real resonance: Ex Machina is a fine example.
Perhaps the genre which most clearly respects scientific accuracy is fictional space travel and exploration of other worlds. The Martian is a good example of that, but there are countless TV series which deal with sending astronauts to Mars to establish colonies.