catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Will film and media kill science?

Default

Anonymous
Jan 13 2003
09:38 am

Is science being mistreated in pop culture? Films and media paint science to be an invincible machine that can do anything we want. Papers run stories about rich oil owners in Texas who hire scientists to give them the chance at another 100 years of life (Vancouver Sun), and numerous film makers create futuristic worlds which are supposed to be evidently based on scientific principles (The Matrix, Terminator, Contact). The issue is not with the article author or film makers, but with the perception of science as a ?wish fulfiller? by the film industry and the media. If science is being relied on to fulfill these ideals, our society will be up for disappointment and science will loose credibility. Part of science is imagining possibilities based on present theories, but a healthy perception of science needs to be rooted in the process of the scientific method.

Default

grant
Jan 13 2003
09:52 am

I just saw Tarkovsky’s “Solaris”, a film taken from a novel by Slanislaw Lem. It is a great response to Kubrick’s “2001”. Both films raise questions as to the wonders of scientific progress and the dangers involved. Kubrick focuses on mankind’s relationship to the unknown and Tarkovsky dwells on the fact that though human beings discover other worlds, we still don’t know much about our own psyche. But both of them call scientific progress into question.

I think artists often have an antagonistic relationship with scientists because they don’t trust the scientific method. The scientific method of objectivity appears to be inhuman. Artists would rather start with human subjectivity and imagination. I think you’re right to see this antagonism within movies; I would attribute part of it to this fundamental difference between the way scientists and artists see the world (though I think these worlds ought to be much closer than they are).

Default

Norbert
Jan 13 2003
10:22 am

There has been an antipathy between science and art for a very long time. Film is just one example of an art that often but not always targets science as either too good or too bad.
I’m working with my sophomores on understanding literary Romanticism, specifically the anti-industry/science roots of it during the 19th century. Whether the arts rail on it, more often than not, or idealize it (also visible in film, art and lit), I think they will always address it. Its too easy to fill that logic/aesthetic conflict. Ultimately, I think it comes down to that, not one specific medium or another.
Not that you were intending to lead in that direction; I just felt like throwing that into the mix as I’m teaching about it now.

Default

Anonymous
Jan 14 2003
04:19 pm

The words I began with were not meant to raise the age old tension between art and science.

I am addressing society?s perception of science, which is reflected in the media and films of today. In the films I mentioned, themes may raise questions about the products of science and technology, but it does not question whether these products are even possible.

Imagination has its place when it comes to science, but I wonder if society realizes how far out these ideas actually are. The idea of suddenly knowing piles of information by a simple download, as represented in ?The Matrix? when Neo learned the martial arts, has been a wish of society to science for years. A focus on the wish rather then the process of science may lead to an eventual response of disgust with science similar to a 5 year old who wanted a real puppy for his birthday but was given a mechanical dog.

The Texas oil man who hired a scientist, because he wanted to live another 100 years, also highlights the ?wish fulfiller? idea that our society has of science. ?Claim too much for science and an unacceptable reaction is invited. Claim what can be delivered and scientific expertise will be valued or distrusted, utilized or ignored, not in an unstable way but just as with any other social institution? (?The Golem? by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch).

Default

grant
Jan 15 2003
03:28 pm

I suppose we ought to stay as specific as we can when talking about film’s depiction of science. I don’t believe all films take the same stance when it comes to science. I don’t even think the ones you mentioned take the same stance when it comes to science.

The reason I mentioned the “future” films of Kubrick and Tarkovsky was because these films raise many of the same questions you’re asking. 2001 and Solaris both ask about the limitations of technology, especially when it comes to film itself. Both films raise questions about the implications of using film as a time machine, i.e. as a way of looking into the future or the past. Kubrick seems to suggest that looking into the future of technological possibilities can be just as impossible as grasping the meaning of the monolith. Tarkovsky suggests that this fantastical future depicted in literature and the movies is already here and it’s not nearly as fantastic as we had hoped.

When it comes to the films you mentioned, The Matrix, Terminator and Contact, I see three completely different stories. The Matrix seems to say nothing about technology, using its futuristic world only as a context for its mystical messianic message. The Terminator, perhaps closest to what you are criticizing, definitely warns us of the dangers of technological “progress” by exaggerating a technologically advanced hell of the future. Contact seems to be saying that aliens are just figments of our own psychological hang-ups.

When it comes to the science vs. art distinction, I think this division is found in your own posts. You seem to have a preference for science as opposed to the fantasy worlds created by art. This is evident in your apparent desire to make movies boring by making them more scientifically accurate. I say this to provoke you, of course. Why would we want our movies to be more realistic? That’s not what movies are supposed to do. They’re great at creating new worlds and characters so we can experience these fantasy lives without leaving our seats!

I don’t know if we can so easily leave the science vs. art distinction behind in this discussion, but maybe we could steer away from it for awhile by focussing on that quote by Collins and Pinch. I agree that technology and wish fulfillment often go hand in hand, but what are some alternative ways science can be perceived by artists and the media?

Default

grant
Jan 15 2003
03:52 pm

I know this is alot to add, but I thought I should mention Heidegger’s essay “The Question Concerning Technology”. I haven’t read it in a while, but I think Heidegger says something to the effect that technology is not just things we make, but is a way of thinking, an instrumentalistic and pragmatic way of thinking that is in the very nature of the scientific method. This method is characterized by the will to master our environment. Heidegger emphasizes that the relationship between art and science is a necessary relationship to consider when questioning the essence of technology and science. If technology is a human will to mastery in the nature of the scientific method itself, then we would do well to question how we ought to perceive (an aesthetic activity) science according to God’s will, which is what you’re asking, right?

Default

Anonymous
Jan 16 2003
09:31 am

So you think the realistic activities of science are boring, a philosopher with a bent on language and art no doubt. If by boring you mean monotonous and unemotional you should read Watson?s ?The Double Helix.?

When using film as an example of how our society perceives science I was not considering any motivation behind the films, although you rightly suggest that they may take a variety of viewpoints on science. Consider this idea; before the scientific revolution, (if you agree with Khun, then imagine before the time of Galileo) how many writings revolved around futuristic ideas of the world as related to science and technology? Maybe some exist, but the main focus seems to be on myth, religion, mathematics, and biology because those were significant aspect in the culture of the day.

Today, film and media are very wrapped up in science, because science is a major theme of our culture. It is possible for films to address this aspect of our society, but it also happens that they may reflect ideas of science that they are not conscious of. Solaris and 2001 do seem to pick up on science as a wish fulfiller, but I am afraid that films of pop culture are often not so perceptive. Not to knock on the directors because I know I am not always conscious of my culturally derived thoughts and actions. The cultural idea of science as a wish fulfiller may be seen more clearly in the news, (eg. Oilman) and in magazines such as ?popular mechanics,? but I do see it in film as well. And since film is such an influential force in our society, I fear that this mistreatment of science may do harm to this active and exciting institution. Science can be a tremendous tool in the global community, and a more realistic understanding of it will prevent a collapse of its relationship with society.

Films may still be futuristic and imaginative but science needs to be seen in connection with the scientist. It should not be divorce science from its humanness. Its humanness has limits, imagination, and connects more to the process than the result.

Default

grant
Jan 26 2003
04:06 pm

I’m saying that science was born out of a desire to control our environment, out of a desire to make for ourselves the future of our dreams. This fantasy of technological progress that you see evidenced in the media is not a new phenomenon, therefore. It is not just a recent cultural development, beginning with the scientific revolution.

Out of the will to determine our own future society, Greeks invented such things as philosophy, which was the beginning of science itself. Philosophers are not satisfied with enjoying the play of light and shadows inside the cave, they have to get to the causes for the shadows. That’s the spirit of philosophy, of science, which unfortunately often runs contrary to art. And this spirit, this way of thinking, has been claiming more and more of the world ever since. The cultural development of Western society is a story of the world becoming divied up into more and more “disciplines” and “fields of study” until all aspects of life come under the dominion of science (“The Challenge of Our Age”, Hendrik Hart).

The Scientific Revolution, therefore, is only an exaggerated outward manifestation of the very will of science, which was evident since its Greek birth. I stand up for the artists and their view of science because I think they’ve been silenced for too long in Western society. The artist’s way of thinking of the world is often undermined, silenced or enclosed within the tightening grip of science in such a way that art has itself become a science (aesthetics, art history, mere technical proficiency etc.) Many of the greatest scientists themselves have admitted the necessity for thinking outside the traditional scientific box. Good science requires an imaginative sense of discovery, perhaps even a blindness, at times, to what seems “natural” or obvious or objective.

After WWII, artists have definitely gained some ground in their argument against mere scientific thinking. Their claim that science has overstepped its bounds and should be reigned in has more credence after Hiroshima and NAZI Germany. Artists who have been saying that science ought to back off now can point to tangible evidence for the dangers of founding societies on mere scientific thinking. I think that you’d agree with such artists. But I hope you would lay the blame for scientific expansionism (which is expressed in its own offspring: film, television, radio, print etc.) where it belongs, with science itself. Science ought to be very clear about its own limitations, ought to know itself (this was the aim of Hegel’s “Science of Logic” and Husserl’s “Logical Investigations”) if it is to be what it’s meant to be. If science is not clear about its own role in society, someone else will define science for it.

Having said all this, do you really think we ought to view science as a “tool”? This seems to connote the “control over our environment” idea, which started with philosophy and which Scripture (Paul and Luke, especially in Romans and Acts) seems to reject time and time again.

Default

Norbert
Jan 26 2003
04:48 pm

Grant, as a Philosphy student, I’m surprised to hear you say that Science was born out of a desire to control our environment. What’s your evidence for that. It seems more insidious than I’ve ever envisioned it. The greeks were more concerned with understanding the question why, than in controlling how (that was more of a Roman idea I believe.)
As far as science permeating everything, so does everything else. Of course life is divied into more and more disciplines. The more we know the better we can differentiate and learn, not control. This is not only a scientific approach, but also an aesthetic one. As far as film goes, I’m not sure what the perceptions are. 2001 seems more like a lesson in direction than in focused manipulation to me.

Default

grant
Jan 26 2003
05:15 pm

Certainly the Romans contributed to the development of philosophy into a science of how. That’s a good point. I didn’t mean to say that science was born in its complete form with the Greeks. It grew and developed into what we know as science today.

But science is definitely the most all-encompassing force in our world today. Even the birth of culture seems to start with science for us. Everything that falls outside of the realm of science, outside the realm of evidence, beyond the reach of history, we call myth or fantasy or nonsense. Western society definitely puts more value on science, if you’re willing to define it as I’m defining it. I’m thinking of philosophy in terms of control because of Plato’s stress on mastery (i.e. Socrates, Plato’s hero, leaves all the parties sober while everyone else has passed out) and Aristotle’s “first cause” mentality. But I’d be glad to hear other people’s explanations for the origins of science, because I’m still working through all these ideas myself.

As for the reasons for my own definitions, they come from an inner struggle that started when I began studying philosophy. I have been interested in the conflict (and synthesis) between Christianity and philosophy ever since I started at Dordt. There have been days where I’ve thought, “You know, maybe Socrates was a Christian”; but then reading Paul’s letter to the Corinthians reminds me that Greek wisdom is foolishness compared to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So then I wonder what I’m even doing in philosophy.

But what is called post-modern philosophy gives me hope. Such thinkers as Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida say that philosophy and the age of science has come to a close, but that it is still possible to think after philosophy, even after history. Have I put you to sleep yet? Well, you asked for it.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 26 2003
06:01 pm

Zzzzzz ….. huh? Wha? Oh, sorry.

Actually, I have a quick question: I always thought postmodern thinking was kind of anti-Christian in that it’s relativistic, each thing to everyone kind of thing. Will someone please broaden and enlighten my definition of postmodernism and clarify how Christians can be okay with it?