"I don't mean to disparage hard science fiction, because done well it's one of the most glorious things in the world. But done badly it becomes a mess of awful, badly-written data dumps that wind up having about as much scientific validity as a spy ray."

So, because it's difficult to do it right, let's not even try and let's just do the easy thing and bullshit science left and right. Fine, let's settle for mediocrity.

"Somehow Walter and Peter's mad science manages to capture a truth about real science that "hard SF" rarely does: The sheer, awesome plunging-into-the-unknown of it."

The first sentence, that Fringe's bad science somehow captures some truth about real science, couldn't be farther from the truth. I think that is the perception that most people have because most people don't know squat about real science. I once attended a lecture by Carl Sagan at Cornell where he described how much more interesting and amazing Star Trek could be if the Enterprise did NOT travel at faster-than-light speeds. People think the trail of stars when the Enterprise goes into warp is cool, but the true and correct relativistic effects of near-lightspeed travel are much much cooler than that. There are color and geometric distortions that put the warp trail to shame.

And speaking of Carl Sagan, his mid-80's TV show Cosmos is still going strong in many countries in the world, proof that science can be done right on TV and still be both entertaining and successful.

One of the problems is that people who understand real science are too busy doing it to create TV shows and movies. As a result, what passes as science on these shows and movies is the imagination of people who barely know any science at all. And since audiences typically know very little science as well (especially in the US, where the education system is so lacking in science), they buy into the bullshit. As a result, the terrible science that shows like Fringe portray is perpetuated and even exalted as a substitute for real science in entertainment.

A good example is House. Not to pick on you, Annalee, but you just referred to House's science as an example of correct science. Well, it is NOT. Most of the time, the medicine in House is almost as faulty as the science in Fringe. There is a blog that reviews House, run by an actual medical doctor, and frequented by actual doctors and the consensus is that House is consistently bad in the real-science department.

House and your opinion about its science are a good example of something I'm very concerned about, namely, that people are slowly being brainwashed, so-to-speak, into accepting bullshit science as the real thing. And since these people vote on - or otherwise make decisions about - issues such as stem-cell research, the direction of the space program, whether or not to teach creationism in school, and other such issues, you see why I'm concerned. Moreover, indirectly, the bad science in entertainment is also responsible for the commercial success of all kinds of new-age bullshit enterprises and, of course, the exploitation by psychics and astrologers.

I don't think people at large realize the impact that entertainment has on audiences. Well, except for people in the advertisement industry, who have long ago discovered how they can manipulate audiences into believing almost anything and, therefore, buying almost anything. To pretend that the portrayal of science on TV and movies doesn't have an equally large impact is naive at best, especially considering that we live in a very scientifically-oriented time. And since most of the science portrayed in entertainment is so bad, the bottom line is that ignorance is being perpetuated and rebranded as knowledge.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that TV shows and movies should go in the other extreme and turn into science lectures. What I am suggesting is that people wake up to the effects that bad science in entertainment can and does have on audiences, and demand better.

And I'm perfectly fine with shows such as Fringe, provided that it's made absolutely crystal-clear undeniably obvious to the audience that the science being portrayed is bullshit, because there are lots of people out there who do think that what appears on Fringe is possible, if not already true. Of course, I'm dreaming now, because no TV show would ever present such a disclaimer.

 Reply

Can't he just slip over to Earth-1 and buy some?

Huh?

Double You Tee Eff.

I want some answers!

 Reply

But why does it have to be a snorefest like Fringe? Walter's hollywood-style craziness (which is essentially just a series of wacky non sequiturs) is offensively cheesy and the only thing remotely interesting about the show - Pacey is practically superfluous, and the main character lady is Ambien in a pantsuit.

I just don't see what people like about this show.

 Reply

It's not trying to be Important and Serious and Truthful, it's trying to regularly amuse several million people for an hour on a weeknight, and sell enough cars and soda pop to pay for itself.

 Reply

You got your mad scientist (good) vs. mad scientist (evil) who were buddies, your beautiful heroine, your wisecracking hero, some sidekicks, internally-consistent "science", gosh-wow inventions, parallel worlds.

Pure pulp entertainment, like the original pulp magazines, or later radio shows.

Doc Smith lives on (with added sex and violence for today's audiences).

It's halfway between science fiction and fantasy, and it is fun. Sensawunda abounds.

 Reply

Yes, one of the points is that science can go bad. But I'm not positive Fringe ever showed a scientific advance that was used for good.

 Reply