Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Angels & Demons, Culture wars, Politicized Science, Salon, Science, Science fiction, Star Trek, Unscientific America
Here and elsewhere, progressive commentators have noted the downfall of America’s respect for science — all the more troubling because of the central role scientific leadership played in establishing and maintaining American hegemony throughout the twentieth century.
In blaming popular culture in general, however, rather than a few bad apples, Salon, and the authors of Unscientific America, go too far. Their thesis:
[Science] is simultaneously admired and yet viewed as dangerously powerful and slightly malevolent — an uneasiness that comes across repeatedly in Hollywood depictions. As science-fiction film director James Cameron (“Aliens,” “Terminator,” “Titanic”) has observed, the movies tend to depict scientists “as idiosyncratic nerds or actively the villains.” That’s not only unfair to scientists: It’s unhealthy for the place of science in our culture.
As examples of Hollywood’s distortions of the scientific record, Salon gives us “Angels & Demons” (for misstating the actual potentcy of antimatter); Michael Crichton (for casting environmentalists as villains, and global warming denialists as heroes, in several of his books); and Jim Carrey/Jenna McCarthy (for lending their credibility to the autism/vaccine lie).
I won’t deny the virulence of the last two. Crichton mortgaged his fame to, essentially, become an anti-science polemicist, while people like Carrey and McCarthy openly deceive & exploit concerned parents. They’re embarrassments, all of them, and don’t get me started on creation “scientists.”
But it’s wrong to lump willful shills like these in with movies (or shows) whose only failing is stating science inaccurately. Yes, “Angels & Demons” explains particle physics poorly, and even goes so far as to twist it, deliberately, to fit the storyline. For that matter, so does “Star Trek” (what the Hell is subspace?!). In each, however, twisting science works to serve a beneficial purpose. In “Angels & Demons,” Dan Brown (per Tom Hanks) builds up science as a dangerous, malevolent presence — for the first half of the movie — before exposing the true villains as those who, for nakedly ideological purposes, twist it to evil ends. In the world of “Angels & Demons,” science is an innocent bystander, and fundamentalism is the true evil. Similarly, perhaps “Star Trek” could be criticized for raising an entire generation to that think faster-than-light travel is just around the corner, but the same generation grew up convinced that science and reason are forces for profound good, capable of bringing humanity together and eliminating the barriers of prejudice that divide us. A few extra minutes in science class is probably worth that lesson.
In the alternative, then, to Salon‘s theory, here’s a general rule of thumb. A show ought not be exposed to criticism for getting the science wrong, even deliberately, so long as misstating science is neither (1) the goal of the show, nor (2) in the service of some other pernicious purpose (think Ben Stein), especially if the show’s message is on the whole profoundly positive. In the war to rebuild science’s shattered image, we should pick our battles, or at least avoid shooting our allies.
