[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Michael Crichton dies

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michiel Pillet" <blackalpha195@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 4:46 AM

Crichton clearly engaged in this less-useful, more divisive criticism of science, and was rather ham-handed in how he went about it. While that isn't a slight against his excellent story-telling ability, it does indicate interesting personal complexity in the author, as well as shortcomings in the public understanding and consumption of pop-science. 

However, I do not see how Crichton engaged in this kind of criticism
at all. In Jurassic Park Crichton criticizes the use of biotechnology.

Not in the least. He only criticizes what he lets Jeff Goldblum put into words: "You only ever asked whether you _could_ do it. Whether you _should_ do it -- that question was never asked." It's an ordinary "beware the mad scientists" story: enough scientists are careless and/or evil that if you don't constantly watch what they're doing, they'll end up killing us all, even if they don't want to rule the world like a Bond villain -- so better watch them and restrict what they can do. Biotechnology was just the latest newsworthy discipline that Crichton could have used.

(And on top of that, it's a painfully obvious Greek tragedy: every single person in the book who burdens guilt upon their shoulders is killed by the dinosaurs.)

In State of Fear Crichton criticizes a blind belief in anthropogenic
global warming (NOT climate change). In Congo he criticizes scientific
accuracy as a tool for predicting future events. Let's take State of
Fear as an example. Unlike a vast majority of the public, he engages
in constructive criticism, including his sources. Of course, this does
not make him a climatologist, but it certainly does not make his
arguments less valuable and he definitely put more thought into it
than most people.

It is _unethical_ to believe, and act as if, you understand a subject when you don't have the slightest idea how much knowledge on it exists. It is _unethical_ to believe, and act as if, everyone is just as ignorant as you. And that's _exactly_ what Crichton did. His list of references is completely selective -- I don't think that's deliberate; I think that's because he simply didn't know any better. He confused ignorance with knowledge. He made arguments from ignorance. He brought up points that had been disproven years before. And that you call "constructive criticism"???

Crichton's attitude has recently got a name. Google for "egnorance" (that's the correct spelling).

I am convinced that one could indicate both anthropogenic global
warming and anthropogenic global warming denial as being popular
science. Definitely both ideas are worth looking into. However, I
regret that people get angry about the idea that humans play only a
secondary role in global warming, while not being informed and
bringing forward the argument "well, most scientists think that we are
causing global warming".

Oh no. What people get angry about is what I've explained above. You might like to spend a few hours at http://realclimate.org for a start -- and so should have Crichton. Or maybe you'd like to start here http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html (that's about cosmic rays and their lack of influence on the climate).