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.
As a first (and minor) point, it would be pretty cool to see a more “accurate” space-age sci-fi–where traveling from one star to another is a major voyage, where planets have more than 3 or 4 settlements, and where alien ecosystems are completely and utterly alien. (I’m up for any good suggestions on that front).
Second, I don’t think Chris and Sheril are that concerned about bad science–to quote them in Unscientific America “…films like The Core or Volcano probably don’t help students or the public understand science–but then, neither are they intended to. So how worried should we really be if an inaccuracy or implausibility slips into a film to serve the plot or to satisfy audience expectations–if, say, Star Wars shows fiery explosions in space? Probably not very.” (pg 84)
But I would say the “mad scientist” problem is a big one, especially as they mention “They might say the person was too ‘normal’ or too good-looking to be a scientist. The most heart-breaking thing is when they say, ‘I didn’t think he was real because he seemed to care about us.’” And I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be more positive/neutral role models.
Posted by Anzezzle | July 13, 2009, 1:04 amThat quote from UsA (tee hee) is surprising, given that the Salon piece was mostly against A&D, and only secondarily the real bad guys. As someone who’s worked with editors, though, it’s quite possible that Salon took the parts they thought would be the most sensational, which turned out to be the parts that were the least compelling. D’oh.
Should I read that book, Anz? It sounds goodish but is getting a lot of flak from Pharyngula and such.
Posted by ACG | July 13, 2009, 1:29 amIn fact, later on they say that scientists who keep on harping on small inaccuracies do more bad than good (blatantly bad science can and should be called out, of course, but sometimes people need to realize certain liberties need to be taken for the benefit of the art).
It was a good book, but not great. It does a reasonable job of explaining the history of science in the public sphere from post-WWII to the present day and have some reasonable suggestions about what the scientific community should do the address the issues. It is fairly similar to much of their blog content (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/) so you can go through that to get a general idea of the book’s tenor.
Unfortunately, they pretty much neglect spelling out WHY public scientific illiteracy is such a major problem–and through I believe that is indeed the case this only makes the omission more glaring.
UsA are fairly critical of PZ and the New Atheist crowd (for some fairly good reasons IMO) and if you go through the ScienceBlogs pages you can see a fairly stark division of reviews and reactions between the New Atheist crowd (PZ, ERV, PhysioProf) and the more moderate crowd (Chad Orzel, James Hrynyshyn, Dr. Isis). To be honest, the New Atheist reaction strikes me as defensive posturing instead of addressing the concerns raised. All that really seems to be getting proven by some of this debate is http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
Probably the best review I’ve seen (though it’s take is a bit more critical than I am) is by the cool aunt of ScienceBlogs, Dr. Free-Ride http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/07/book_review_unscientific_ameri.php
Posted by Anzezzle | July 13, 2009, 5:20 pm> As a first (and minor) point, it would be pretty cool to see a more “accurate” space-age sci-fi–where traveling from one star to another is a major voyage
Alien comes to mind. Depicting these distances realistically is good for giving a feeling of isolation, despair, etc., perfect for horror or dystopian future scenarios, but apart from that, it would usually make for incredibly dull storytelling. What many people expect from SF, it seems, is a story that could also be told in the 18th century but with lasers instead of cannons.
> where planets have more than 3 or 4 settlements,
Good one that; but then, if you have a space odyssey you might not want to spend more than 10 min on a certain planet, and then how much can you show in terms of climatic or cultural diversity? However, this is a good plea for stories focusing on one alien planet throughout.
> and where alien ecosystems are completely and utterly alien
Ah, here the question is whether that is realistic and scientific. Now we do only have one data point (earth), so we do not know how alien life on other planets is, but I have a feeling that natural selection and the supposed universality of physical laws put tight constraints on evolution. Walking trees might just be energetically unfeasible; 200 m high animals might just be physically untenable; you get the idea.
From my perspective, that would not even make for good storytelling, as I would find suspension of disbelief much harder for an ecology that completely defies physiology, physics and common sense than for an admittedly unimaginative wrinkled-nosed humanoid.
Posted by Mintman | July 13, 2009, 4:05 amThanks for the suggestion. I also realize Solaris (more the book than either movie) also addresses an alien that is much more “alien”, as was “Dune”.
And speaking of which, I agree that walking trees are more in the realm of magical thinking (hey LoTR!) than practical, but too many ecosystems are near mirrors of Earth’s.
Posted by Anzezzle | July 13, 2009, 5:33 pmHuh. I imagine that the problem with A&D isn’t that it got science wrong in general, but that it got science wrong in such a way as to exacerbate existing fears that the LHC would destroy the world or somesuch. Consider a movie that centered around a plot to use some new evil vaccine to give children autism.
I find it odd that someone would be complaining about science role models in popular culture -now-. I can think of a bunch of newer shows and movies that make significant efforts to portray scientists as normal people and normal protagonists. It used to be that there were only two types of scientists – eccentric supporting characters (Q and Emmett Brown, for example) that existed primarily to produce useful gadgets for the main characters and evil villains plotting to destroy or take over the world.
The CSI series is probably the best example of people doing something that could be considered science taking center stage. The various medical shows (from ER to Scrubs) are similar, and some periodically make very clear the importance of careful analysis, expertise, and experimentation. Hell, I think I’ve seen Scrubs do a faith vs science thing that didn’t end with science being driven from the field – there are even indications that most of the major characters aren’t at all religious. I’ve heard good things about the Big Bang Theory, but I’ve never watched it.
Movies have similarly gotten much better. Iron Man is an obvious example. Star Trek did a decent job of making highly technical tasks major focuses of the plot. Spock wasn’t nearly as much of a punching bag for “logical” thinking as he was in the original series.
Posted by Gotchaye | July 13, 2009, 2:40 amIs your argument that the generation who grew up with Star Trek (e.g. our parents) accept scientific fact as more important that religious fundamentalism?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
I don’t think that’s a statement you can back up. I don’t think the majority of Americans are “convinced that science and reason are forces for profound good.” I don’t think the majority of Americans have any idea what science and reason mean.
Posted by Jack | July 13, 2009, 5:10 pmI’m sorry for posting this off-topic and undeniably vicious comment, but I just really, really needed someone to hear my pain.
Per Wikipedia, Michael Crichton died on November 4, 2008.
Good riddance.
*Lets out breath*
Sorry, just really needed to get that off my chest. What a piece of shit he was.
Posted by Dylan | July 15, 2009, 4:47 pm