Fwd: Michael Crichton dies

[Michiel Pillet <blackalpha195@gmail.com>]

> 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).

Okay, I should have specified criticism towards science more. Of
course I agree with what you are saying here.

> 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.

However, I do not see how Crichton engaged in this kind of criticism
at all. In Jurassic Park Crichton criticizes the use of biotechnology.
In State of Fear Crichton criticizes a blind belief in anthropogenic
global warming (NOT climate change). In Congo he criticizes scientific
accuracy as a tool for predicting future events. Let's take State of
Fear as an example. Unlike a vast majority of the public, he engages
in constructive criticism, including his sources. Of course, this does
not make him a climatologist, but it certainly does not make his
arguments less valuable and he definitely put more thought into it
than most people.

I am convinced that one could indicate both anthropogenic global
warming and anthropogenic global warming denial as being popular
science. Definitely both ideas are worth looking into. However, I
regret that people get angry about the idea that humans play only a
secondary role in global warming, while not being informed and
bringing forward the argument "well, most scientists think that we are
causing global warming". In extreme cases, I have heard people
comparing it to Holocaust denial, while human-caused global warming
clearly has a scientific foundation.