Quote from: IOZThere 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.
I want Jennifer Connelly to "convince" me not to blow up the earth.
Meh. I'm not surprised by this. Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct.
"Bio Dome"
"Bio Do---"
TEACHER, LMNO STOLE MY ANSWER
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 17, 2008, 07:50:35 PM
Meh. I'm not surprised by this. Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct.
Expelled
Quote from: Cramulus on December 17, 2008, 08:21:09 PM
"Bio Do---"
TEACHER, LMNO STOLE MY ANSWER
Those learn-telepethy-by-mail courses are really coming in handy!
be your own moral core you lazy buggers.
Quote from: Vene on December 17, 2008, 08:22:06 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 17, 2008, 07:50:35 PM
Meh. I'm not surprised by this. Name me one goddamn movie where Hollywood got the science correct.
Expelled
:mad:
Damn, I thought that would have gave you a heart attack.
:lulz:
Ya know, I wrote out a nice long rant relevent to the OP but my work computer decided to eat it. :argh!: 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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
:mittens:
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
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
And running from there straight into Hedges' argument in I Don't Believe In Atheists.
People fall for those who give them a utopian vision. Priesthood indeed.
Although... Kai! We should start a cult!
Quote from: Vene on December 18, 2008, 06:37:22 PM
Although... Kai! We should start a cult!
What, and just imitate Dawkins and his Brights?
I think not.
I've got my own religion that rectifies science with spirituality. Doesn't have any sort of ritual associated with it though.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
Quote from: Regret on December 19, 2008, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
Its been done.
Quote from: Regret on December 19, 2008, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
:lulz: No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American. Scientists aren't worshipped here. They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus. We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.
And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea. We can all agree on that one.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 19, 2008, 01:59:05 AM
Quote from: Regret on December 19, 2008, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
:lulz: No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American. Scientists aren't worshipped here. They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus. We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.
And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea. We can all agree on that one.
I disagree, if you give ME complete infallibility.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 19, 2008, 01:59:05 AM
Quote from: Regret on December 19, 2008, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
:lulz: No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American. Scientists aren't worshipped here. They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus. We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.
And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea. We can all agree on that one.
So the obvious solution is to deem everyone infallible. Easy.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
Of scientists as rulers? If you think that economics is a science, there is the Soviet Union and assosciated Marxist-Leninist regimes, with their focus on dialectical materialism and the like. But that is a weak example, IMO, since social sciences are barely sciences in the commonly understood sense of the word.
However, scientists and in particular doctors have often been in the brutal employ of totalitarian regimes, and that was more what I had in mind. Unit 731, the Japanse biological warfare group in WWII, was the most infamous example, though there are many others. Because there is an ethical standard associated with doctors (Hippocratic Oath), people often expect that standard or similar from them, whereas as numerous examples show, from the "psychiatric" prisons of the USSR to the death camps of Nazi Germany, there is really little difference whatsoever. That was more what I was worried about.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 19, 2008, 01:59:05 AM
:lulz: No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American. Scientists aren't worshipped here. They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus. We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.
And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea. We can all agree on that one.
I've been working on a rant that runs along similar lines to this. I'll start putting it all together soon. Probably after the holidays.
Quote from: Regret on December 17, 2008, 11:31:03 PM
be your own moral core you lazy buggers.
This.
Quote from: Cainad on December 19, 2008, 03:11:29 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 19, 2008, 01:59:05 AM
Quote from: Regret on December 19, 2008, 01:23:39 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 18, 2008, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
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.
Can you give me an example of any time this has happened outside of really bad science fiction? I keep hearing stories about scientists acting like gods and wanting to be worshipped but I've never seen it happen in real life. Sure, I've seen several philosophers of science put forth moral systems but they are conscious of the Is-Ought Problem and don't tell people "Convert or die!" unlike some certain groups.
It's not the scientists that want to be worshipped, its the general populace that choose the scientists to worship. And if you have worshippers all it takes to cause trouble is one asshole priest/scientist. (that would be an interesting dualclass)
:lulz: No offense, but I can tell that you're not an American. Scientists aren't worshipped here. They are liberal elitist/socialist pigs that live in an ivory tower and hate Baby Jebus. We worship mediocrity here instead. Intelligence is a liability.
And of course deeming one person (whether it be priest, scientist, or plumber) with complete infalliability is a horrible idea. We can all agree on that one.
So the obvious solution is to deem everyone infallible. Easy.
Say "hello" again to Project Pan-Pontification.
Science is Science. It is a method of working.
People are People. They are subjective machines.
One can hope that, in the ideal situation, the objective and subjective aspects of scientists balance out. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Should Science be used for moral choices? No. Should moral choices be used for Science? No. They are co-dependant. They need to inform each other.
But then, once again, you realise that humans are part of the equation and it all fucks up, because there are some idiots who confuse the singular with the whole ("This science guy wants to cut up my dead gran to study! All of science is terrible!"). And, perhaps more tragically, confuse 'Scientists' with Science. People who practise the Scientific method of enquiry are Scientists. When they stop using Scientific methods and begin to add their own human means of deciding theories, then they are no longer Scientists. This can be both positive and negative. But it's something that needs to be accounted for, which it quite clearly is not in most media.
Quote from: Harlequin on January 10, 2009, 12:40:00 PM
Science is Science. It is a method of working.
People are People. They are subjective machines.
One can hope that, in the ideal situation, the objective and subjective aspects of scientists balance out. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Should Science be used for moral choices? No. Should moral choices be used for Science? No. They are co-dependant. They need to inform each other.
But then, once again, you realise that humans are part of the equation and it all fucks up, because there are some idiots who confuse the singular with the whole ("This science guy wants to cut up my dead gran to study! All of science is terrible!"). And, perhaps more tragically, confuse 'Scientists' with Science. People who practise the Scientific method of enquiry are Scientists. When they stop using Scientific methods and begin to add their own human means of deciding theories, then they are no longer Scientists. This can be both positive and negative. But it's something that needs to be accounted for, which it quite clearly is not in most media.
Theres also something to be said that the Scientific Method (and all of the stuff that goes along with it, like verification and falsifiabilty) are all part of the
philosophy of science, and some parts are still not widely agreed upon. Most of what we consider modern scientific philosophy was written out by Karl Popper in his stuff about critical rationalism in the 20th century, its not that old. The scientific method isn't just something that happens, you have to think about it actively and know how it works and know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and what a hypothesis is and a theory and a law, and you have to know how to use falsifiability in practice and how experimental design works etc etc etc. Its not the simplest thing on the planet. Unless you are in biology, people seldom go into the details of this stuff. I don't know why they don't do it in physics or chemistry or whathaveyou (in my past experience) but in biology you are taught the scientific method, falsifiability and experimental design from day one.
Its not easy, is I guess what I'm saying. I'm in a masters program and I'm just now learning about this stuff from the root, from Darwin and Popper, from the original literature that spawned the notions that many people take as law now. Its not easy and you have to work at it, and most people are not as scientifically read as I.
Quote from: Kai on January 10, 2009, 05:43:38 PMI don't know why they don't do it in physics or chemistry or whathaveyou (in my past experience) but in biology you are taught the scientific method, falsifiability and experimental design from day one.
I have a fair bit of chemistry experience (although I'm still working on a bachelors) and the chemistry courses do teach about methodology, falsifiability, and experimental design. There's also an emphasis on data collection and figuring out what is and isn't relevant (often using statistics).
Okay, good, so it seems that Popperian philosophy is taught in all the non social sciences, that pleases me.
Learnt it in philosophy.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2009, 06:41:33 PM
Learnt it in philosophy.
I wonder if anthropologists and such get the same stuff though.