Re: Michael Crichton dies

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

> > > Then how does one gain knowledge of the scientific method? Certainly 
not through only pure research or publishing. Medicine, too, is about 
applying the scientific method.<<<

I would not be so pretentious as to say that only those who do pure 
research understand the scientific method (there are many opportunities 
for such exposure in formal education as well as books and journals 
that deal with science as a method, albeit some of varying degrees of 
quality).  That said, the applied sciences make very little direct use 
of it.  The scientific method is used to discriminate between competing 
explanations of nature (so pure research and publishing are the bulk 
application of the scientific method) while applied sciences use 
knowledge garnered _already_ and use it to solve technological, health, 
and economic problems.

This is not a slight on the applied sciences; doctors, engineers, etc 
are extremely valuble to society (especially if you happen to be sick 
or need a bridge built!) but they don't have to understand the 
scientific method to do their day to day jobs.  They instead must be 
skilled at taking what is known and applying it to solve a specific 
problem.

Of course there is overlap; medical researchers at university hospitals 
frequently combine their healthcare practice with their ongoing 
research knowledge to come up with a better understanding of a disease 
in an attempt to find innovative cures.  Computer engineers on the 
cutting edge are at times butting up against and testing the current 
understanding of quantum mechanics.  But the average doctor that does 
diagnoses the flu, or learns to do open-heart surgery, is not using the 
scientific method to do these things.

That's also not to say that medical doctors can't become highly 
appraised of the scientific method on their own (I'm met a truck driver 
who was as well), just that getting a degree in an applied science is 
no guarantee that you have been exposed to or understand the scientific 
method.

> > > He was a good writer that liked to do a lot of research for his 
books (about 2 or 3 years of research for State of Fear), and promoted 
being critical towards science.<<<

He was a good writer, but the last part (which you mentioned in your 
previous post as well) is where I think many depart from your view.  
Being critical towards scientific _findings_ is indeed always good 
(more than that, it's necessary for science to work).  That's very 
different from criticizing science itself, which is rarely, if ever, 
productive.  To be sure, there are some important epistemic debates 
that go on about science and realism, issues related to perception, and 
whether favored hypotheses are more random-walk than "true", but these 
are mostly relugated to philosophers of science.  Public criticism of 
science as a methodology is almost universally related to individuals' 
objecting to a conclusion that conflicts with their personal world 
view, or else a more general fear that science is a "loose canon" with 
no reverence for our emotional interests (which is both true and 
necessary).

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.


Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(800) 455-3466 ext. 230
Cell: (307) 921-8333

www.skeletaldrawing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Michiel Pillet <blackalpha195@gmail.com>
To: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: Michael Crichton dies



On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:15 AM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> Oh no. The worst is State of Fear, where he made clear he seriously 
believed
that almost all climatologists worldwide, thousands of people, were 
part of a
conspiracy to keep the whole world population in a, well, state of 
fear! And
there are people out there who _eat this up_!

He does state at the end of the book, as he does in almost every book,
that his work is supposed to be fiction. In State of Fear he views
climate change as being a topic of popular science, being
misrepresented by scientists for economical and political reasons.
Crichton even includes an extensive (though indeed selective)
bibliography at the end of his book.

> That does, unfortunately, not mean that he had any idea about the 
scientific
method, let alone any knowledge about matters outside of medicine. 
Indeed, his
knowledge of dinosaurs had large holes, his knowledge of climatology 
was more
like a net, his knowledge of chaos theory seems to have consisted 
almost only of
misunderstandings -- and yet he wrote about all those topics as if he 
had
understood them. That's simply not defensible from a scientific point 
of view.

Then how does one gain knowledge of the scientific method? Certainly
not through only pure research or publishing. Medicine, too, is about
applying the scientific method.

> Now _this_ is an unscientific attitude. Why should we stop 
criticizing
someone's ideas just because that someone happens to have recently 
died? Is
there any defensible reason for that? Isn't it an ad hominem argument, 
sort of?

Indeed, that's an unscientific attitude, it's more of a moral thing.

> It's not as if we suddenly started criticizing _now_ and hadn't said 
anything
during Crichton's lifetime.

Definitely true. That said, I agree that Spielberg had more of an
influence than Crichton on the field on paleontology. If Crichton
would ever have pretended to be a climatologist or a paleontologist or
a chaotician, he would just make a fool out of himself. But he didn't,
and that's my point. He was a good writer that liked to do a lot of
research for his books (about 2 or 3 years of research for State of
Fear), and promoted being critical towards science.

I am very sorry however if I made the impression of accusing you or
someone else.