Science in the Movies and Real Life
In the current smash hit, The Martian, Matt Damon plays aNASA botanist who is stranded and has to find a way to survive on Mars usinghis scientific skills, aided by the inventiveness of earth-bound rocketscientists and other experts. In addition to its engaging story andcinematography, The Martian pays homage to the power of science to conceive ofgrand visions and solve seeming insurmountable problems.
Science and scientists in real life often get muchless respect. In the world outside the multiplex, they are often subjected tocriticism or outright disbelief. While science skeptics are rarely a majorityof Americans, they attract attention and wield cultural and political influencewell beyond their numbers. On climate change, only fifty percent of the publicbelieves it is caused by human activity (compared to 87 percent of scientists).Combined with the nine percent who believe it does not exist, they have helpedstymie accepting responsibility to address the problem. On evolution, only 65percent believe that humans have evolved over time (compared to 98 percent ofscientists), and the 33 percent who believe humans have always existed in theirpresent form claim that evolution is "just one theory," a profoundmisinterpretation of what a theory means in science. In regard to vaccinations,24 percent of Americans believe they are a likely cause of autism. Their impactresults in only 68 percent of the public saying that vaccinations should berequired (compared to 86 percent of scientists), threatening not only thehealth of their children but of others as well. On some issues, scientists areeven barred from applying their methods, such as the long-standingCongressional opposition to funding for research on the causes of gun violence.
How can we explain this disconnect between life on thescreen and on the street? This is not a trivial question. The techniques ofscience have been instrumental in raising the standard of living of billions,which includes relieving the world of diseases, hunger, and poverty. They haveameliorated many social problems, and they hold the promise of untold futurebenefits. Yet disdain for science and scientists, especially when incorporatedinto political movements, threatens scientific funding, progress, and arational approach to decision making on critical issues.
One source of the distrust in science has roots in thedisconnect between comforting ideologies and the discomfort inherent in thescientific process. The role of science is to subject beliefs the heart andsoul of ideology to questions about assumptions, data, and conclusions.Another source of distrust in the anti-intellectualism that lurks in thebackground of American culture. For some, scientists are ivory-tower elitistswho don't understand real life. "Joe the Plumber," not "Joe theChemist" was chosen to represent this view, which, when unchecked, entailsa willful ignorance of facts, a kind of contemporary "book burning."(It also ignored the contributions of science to modern plumbing.)
For still others, science is viewed as inherently flawed andunreliable because new results contradict earlier findings. That scientistschange their conclusions based on further research is viewed as a reason todistrust science rather than as the natural result of applying the scientificmethod. Science's driving force is to criticize itself, an uncomfortable,unwelcome intrusion into the lives of those who seek certainty.
Trust in science is also impacted by those who misuse it towin arguments, or who stay silent when others do, solely for politicaladvantage. In the second Republican Presidential Candidate debate, Donald Trumpcharged that vaccines cause autism in some children. Despite massive evidenceto the contrary, the assertion went mostly unchallenged by two physicians, BenCarson and Rand Paul, standing just feet away on the stage.
Admittedly, science itself can play a part in its owncredibility gap. Some scientists have weakened the public's trust when theyhave manipulated data in service to fame, career advancement, or their ownhypotheses. Yet, in a wholly unscientific conclusion, these exceptions aretreated by many as typical of scientific practice rather than as outliers in anotherwise carefully self-monitored profession. Scientists also have too oftenfailed to communicate adequately with the public at large, as if making theirwork and methods accessible to a general audience is someone else'sresponsibility.
One doubts that The Martian would have thrilled audiences ifMatt Damon had belittled NASA, if those trying to rescue him had ignored thescientific facts of the situation they faced, if the public had turned into awitch-hunting crowd instead of cheering for science to save him, or if thedirector had made the science so complex and hard to understand that theaudience would have been unable to follow the story. There just might be alesson here from the movies that could be useful in real life.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-newell/science-in-the-movies-a_b_8302332.html
Image: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC9USLQVjuSITGQrX6hz7ZoJArxsetyaWKHQo1vUnXkAahrCWj
VOCABULARY:
1. amelioration - the act of making something betterimprovement.
2. inherently - essentially
3. outliers - a person or thing differing from all othermembers of a particular group or set.
4. disdain - the feeling that someone or something isunworthy of one's consideration or respect contempt.
5. ideology - the science of ideas the study of theirorigin and nature
DISCUSSION:
1. Do you like watching sci- fi movies? Why?
2. When you watch movies with scientific concepts do youbank on the information on the movie or do you prefer to do follow-up research?
3. In your opinion, what makes solid science such a snob?
4. That people get more interested in science because it'slaced with entertaiment does this have a positive implication or a negativeone?
