ITT: Scientists not a good representation of human moral codes.

[Kai]

There are some fine moments in the remade The Day the Earth Stood Still--Keanu telling Jennifer that his true form would "only frighten you"--and a wagon-load of howlers from John Cleese's Nobel for "biological altruism" on down to the giant Play-doh robot (my buddy D. sez, "Gumby, it coulda been you!"). I know that hashing out the spectacular science-and-technology fuck-ups in blockbusters is what the internet was originally designed for, but instead I'm going to talk about our hilariously backward pop-cultural ideas about science as demonstrated in this movie.

All right. One mathematical malapropism, just to wet your whistle. Dear Hollywood, exponential does not mean what you think it means. If fetus-Keanu was really growing exponentially, then he would not have fit into that 42 Long, kay? That said.

The central conceit of the film is that the leaders of Earth are not it's machinating politicians and generals, but the scientists, in their noble, apolitical, altruistic quest for the core truths that give meaning to life and . . . Now this, emphatically, is not what science is. There is very little narrative romance in a system of inquiry, experimentation, and verification through which we can discover and describe natural phenomena. And even if scientists were, each and ever' one of 'em, a little metaphysician, it's still a stretch to say that they represent the leadership of the human race: moral, political, spiritual, or otherwise. Robert Oppenheimer was a cosmopolitan and Renaissance man, as concerned as any scientists with questions of philosophy and morality, but he still built the damn bomb when the generals told him to, and when he later expressed reservations about its use, Harry Truman did not give a flying fuck. We could also engage in a digression here about how the military drives technological innovation.

So there's that. The saintly scientist in his cardigan writing equations on the chalkboard of his lovely home is no more a representative of the human race than the flagellant beating himself bloody with repentance while cloistered in some monastery.

These sorts of misconceptions and miscues aside, the more glaring error, one that is relentlessly perpetuated, is that science is an equivalent religion, that it represents not a regularized system of inquiry but a moral philosophy. Scientists in film are always believing in things. John Cleese tells Jennifer Connelly that she must convince Klaatu to spare the earth "not with your science, but with yourself." I mean, why? Cause that pussy is tight, yo? You can't convince aliens to save the earth because of its brilliant minds struggling to understand the nature of their universe. What convinces them is the love of a white chick for her black stepson and her repeated, teary avowals that we can change--because, apparently, of science, which is a sort of new-agey, pacifistic, high-tech, mutualistic Quakerism. This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine. That sort of junk. The important thing about Jennifer Connelly is not that she knows what sort of bacteria grow on Europa, or whatever, but that she drives a Prius and loves her little black son. The important thing about John Cleese is that he's hospitable, and plays Bach. But if we've been under observation since we started blowing up the Earth circa the Industrial Revolution, wouldn't the aliens have known about Bach already? Couldn't they have just assassinated Thomas Newcomen and and James Watt? Or just popped down back when the whole destroying the Earth thing was getting underway and said, whoa, like, hold up guys. Or do they have a policy of non-interference except when they opt for total destruction?

I said I wouldn't do this. Look, I am a big fan of science, but the perception of a lack of spirito-cultural unity in the West today cannot be remedied by proposing that sexy-chick scientists and ol' perfessers with Brit accents represent the moral core of humanity as priests once did, or whomever. If narrative exigency required that mankind be saved by a weeping woman, they could've kept her a housewife.

I agree with all the above. The whole quote is chock full of one liners.

[LMNO]

I want Jennifer Connelly to "convince" me not to blow up the earth.

[Iason Ouabache]

Meh.  I'm not surprised by this.  Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct. 

[LMNO]

"Bio Dome"

[Cramulus]

"Bio Do---"



TEACHER, LMNO STOLE MY ANSWER

[Vene]

Meh.  I'm not surprised by this.  Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct. 

Expelled

[LMNO]

"Bio Do---"



TEACHER, LMNO STOLE MY ANSWER

Those learn-telepethy-by-mail courses are really coming in handy!

[Reginald Ret]

be your own moral core you lazy buggers.

[Iason Ouabache]

Meh.  I'm not surprised by this.  Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct. 

Expelled

[Vene]

Damn, I thought that would have gave you a heart attack.

[Kai]

 

[Iason Ouabache]

Ya know, I wrote out a nice long rant relevent to the OP but my work computer decided to eat it.    Instead of trying recreate it word for word, I'll hit the highlights:

1) Scientists have replaced the wizards/shaman archetype in modern story-telling.  Deal with it!
2) Complaining about realism in movies is stupid and pointless.  The point of movies (especially sci-fi) is to be unrealistic.  No one wants to watch a movie about real life, because real life sucks.
3) The remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still probably sucks major balls and I refuse to watch it. If it starred someone other than Keanu then I might have been tempted to rent it.

[Cain]

I wondered if you had read this or not.

I think the desire to read some sort of ethical meaning into science or scientists is unhealthy.  I can understand why, and the impulse is strong, but when you read about, say, the scientists working for Unit 731 in Japan, or those doing experiments in Nazi Germany, it quickly becomes clear that systematic inquiry into the rules of the Universe do not necessarily preclude one from being a monster, nor do they necessarily even reduce the chances of that when compared with other groupings.  Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

[Vene]

I wondered if you had read this or not.

I think the desire to read some sort of ethical meaning into science or scientists is unhealthy.  I can understand why, and the impulse is strong, but when you read about, say, the scientists working for Unit 731 in Japan, or those doing experiments in Nazi Germany, it quickly becomes clear that systematic inquiry into the rules of the Universe do not necessarily preclude one from being a monster, nor do they necessarily even reduce the chances of that when compared with other groupings.  Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

This.

[Cramulus]

I wondered if you had read this or not.

I think the desire to read some sort of ethical meaning into science or scientists is unhealthy.  I can understand why, and the impulse is strong, but when you read about, say, the scientists working for Unit 731 in Japan, or those doing experiments in Nazi Germany, it quickly becomes clear that systematic inquiry into the rules of the Universe do not necessarily preclude one from being a monster, nor do they necessarily even reduce the chances of that when compared with other groupings.  Suggestions, even cultural ones, that scientists are somehow more moral and more humane than most people seems to play into some sort of naive secularism which replaces the priesthood as a model of conduct with the scientific community, and perhaps encourages more faith in the decency of scientists (as a group) than they deserve.

especially the last sentence

I lurve taking the Fight Against Fanaticism to the hard-line materialists
they're such unsuspecting revolutionaries
This needs to be on a web page or blog somewhere