Like the recent movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton’s scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other ‘good guys’) and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.
This blurb is from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/. The writer makes an argument about Crichton’s book comparing it to a movie. Many people are familiar with the story line of The Day After Tomorrow, and know that it is pretty unrealistic. Comparing the book to this movie delegitimizes Crichton’s work, declaring that it is “selective and occasionally mistaken about the basic science.” The writer claims that the characters do not know much about the science indicating that it is all false. Throughout the article, the writer takes Crichton’s science claims and explains why they are wrong or misleading, presenting “correct” information to back him up. This is the work of the public. They react to the work, legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Without people to back up or refute other’s work, people would never know what to believe or learn or study etc. This is a reference made to Latour’s diagram that shows no matter what, all parts of the society affect science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that your point, that the author delegitimizes Crichton is a very good one. I think that its important to point out that not only does he delegitimate his science, but he down plays the significance of both books.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, no one really believe that the events in Day After Tomorrow could happen. I'd argue the for the specific events in state of fear. What both do, however, it tell you a story to interest you in the issue and to pull you towards one side of the argument. The difference is that one just may encourage you to start recycling and the other to start believing the scientific community is lying to you.