Comments on: The Crichton Effect http://scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: TLewis http://scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-3675 TLewis Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:30:02 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/#comment-3675 Chris your smarmy liberal bias smacks of "Not wise enough to evaluate science with out mommy looking over your shoulder." I can only give you credit for filling a space where there probably was none before. You speak of science as if consensus has been the rule down through the ages, as I have watched other speeches that you've given. Consistency will mark your career, and so far you are consistently a consensus scientific writer, unlike Michael Crichton who could test more scientific theories than you can in you over simplistic radio carbon half life. Your not a Michael Crichton you haven’t got it in you. Chris your smarmy liberal bias smacks of “Not wise enough to evaluate science with out mommy looking over your shoulder.” I can only give you credit for filling a space where there probably was none before. You speak of science as if consensus has been the rule down through the ages, as I have watched other speeches that you’ve given. Consistency will mark your career, and so far you are consistently a consensus scientific writer, unlike Michael Crichton who could test more scientific theories than you can in you over simplistic radio carbon half life. Your not a Michael Crichton you haven’t got it in you.

]]> By: patrick mccray http://scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-3477 patrick mccray Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:30:59 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/#comment-3477 Interesting...a useful piece to consider is: Spencer R. Weart, “The Physicist as Mad Scientist,” Physics Today, 1988 41, 6: 28-37. Interesting…a useful piece to consider is:
Spencer R. Weart, “The Physicist as Mad Scientist,” Physics Today, 1988 41, 6: 28-37.

]]> By: Geoff B http://scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-3364 Geoff B Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:49:09 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/#comment-3364 Chris, as an avid reader of your blogs and articles, I appreciate your fair-minded remembrance of Michael Crichton, especially considering the harsh criticisms you leveled at him over State of Fear in the past. Many scientists, science writers, and environmentalists seem not to be able to forgive him, even posthumously, for State of Fear. Crichton, for all his faults, has turned on many a non-scientist (or not yet a scientist) to science, the scientific process, and intellectual curiousity (not to mention healthy skepticism). He made science and learning fun, made heroes out of scientists and thinkers, and showed us the strange and wonderful natural world we inhabit. One of the central themes of most, if not all, of Crichton's works is that there are good and bad aspects to everything, and everyone. This seems to me to be a very rational way to approach the world. It seems to me that his detractors (to put it politely) forget that. The sum of a man's achievements should not be negated by the fact that he may have wrongly interpreted some data. We do not dismiss Newton because he was wrong about absolute space, nor Einstein because he was wrong about quantum mechanics. Through his love of science, which came through in his books, Crichton probably created more scientists (kids read his books, study science in school...) than any other fiction author of the 20th Century. For that alone, he is to be commended. Chris, as an avid reader of your blogs and articles, I appreciate your fair-minded remembrance of Michael Crichton, especially considering the harsh criticisms you leveled at him over State of Fear in the past. Many scientists, science writers, and environmentalists seem not to be able to forgive him, even posthumously, for State of Fear. Crichton, for all his faults, has turned on many a non-scientist (or not yet a scientist) to science, the scientific process, and intellectual curiousity (not to mention healthy skepticism). He made science and learning fun, made heroes out of scientists and thinkers, and showed us the strange and wonderful natural world we inhabit. One of the central themes of most, if not all, of Crichton’s works is that there are good and bad aspects to everything, and everyone. This seems to me to be a very rational way to approach the world. It seems to me that his detractors (to put it politely) forget that. The sum of a man’s achievements should not be negated by the fact that he may have wrongly interpreted some data. We do not dismiss Newton because he was wrong about absolute space, nor Einstein because he was wrong about quantum mechanics. Through his love of science, which came through in his books, Crichton probably created more scientists (kids read his books, study science in school…) than any other fiction author of the 20th Century. For that alone, he is to be commended.

]]> By: Don Monroe http://scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/comment-page-1/#comment-3363 Don Monroe Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:53 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/11/the-crichton-effect/#comment-3363 Nice summary, Chris. Although I've enjoyed Crichton's books, going back to <i>Andromeda Strain</i>, I was taken aback by <i>State of Fear</i>. This book came as a surprise, since Crichton's trademark cautions about techno-hubris would seem to dovetail with the consensus view about the dangers of continuing our current trajectory. I think you're right that he (along with other highly intelligent climate skeptics I've encountered) considered himself qualified to judge for himself, no matter what the "experts" think. More importantly, though, Crichton and the skeptics think of our current path as the default, so that trying to reduce carbon dioxide is the dangerous meddling that he loves to warn against. For others of us, current emissions are already dangerous meddling in climate, and assuming things will work out or will be swamped by natural variation is pure hubris. This difference in perspective about what constitutes "leaving things alone" is central to our failures to communicate with each other about climate change. Nice summary, Chris.

Although I’ve enjoyed Crichton’s books, going back to Andromeda Strain, I was taken aback by State of Fear. This book came as a surprise, since Crichton’s trademark cautions about techno-hubris would seem to dovetail with the consensus view about the dangers of continuing our current trajectory. I think you’re right that he (along with other highly intelligent climate skeptics I’ve encountered) considered himself qualified to judge for himself, no matter what the “experts” think.

More importantly, though, Crichton and the skeptics think of our current path as the default, so that trying to reduce carbon dioxide is the dangerous meddling that he loves to warn against. For others of us, current emissions are already dangerous meddling in climate, and assuming things will work out or will be swamped by natural variation is pure hubris. This difference in perspective about what constitutes “leaving things alone” is central to our failures to communicate with each other about climate change.

]]>