This is the second (actually, technically third) cheesy action novel I've read for school in the past few weeks and I'm afraid I'm beginning to develop a strange sort of affection for them, with their over-dramatic covers and the looming letters of the author's name spilling across the front.
Michael Crichton's name certainly covers a good part of the front of the book and, as we were discussing in another one of my classes, it's like the author's name sells as a brand and that the author's name is more important than the title. Michael Crichton is a sort of brand, with his pseudo-science novels and and familiar feeling plots. I haven't read any of his books before but I have seen the movie Jurassic Park about ten thousand times so every event and plot turn brings up this feeling of deja vu. However, Jurassic Park never made me doubt the world quite as much as State of Fear has.
A blurb from the Wall Street Journal in the front of the book sets things up nicely, in my opinion. "The Da Vinci Code with real facts, violent storms, and a different kind of faith altogether... Every bit as informative as it is entertaining. And it is very entertaining." So Dan Brown writes total fiction while Michael Crichton has "real facts?" What exactly are "real facts?" What are fake facts? Clearly, I don't know. I'm just like Peter Evans, pissed off that everything he knows about global warming appears to be wrong.
Crichton's use of rhetoric about facts is really interesting. Anytime someone opposes the information proving global warming is not happening, that character lacks "real" scientific data. Evans, for instance, is only a lawyer. Crichton and his perpetual love for bad-mouthing lawyers gives Evans no background knowledge to support his believe in global warming. Kenner adds to this on page 218 in my edition (2004 Avon paperback) stating, '"Now you know how legitimate scientists feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy characterizations like the one you just made. Sanjong and I gave you careful, peer-reviewed interpretations of data. Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries. And your response was first to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence. You just smeared with innuendo."' Ouch. If Evans were able to come back with savvy example which could be presented in the way Kenner presents his information, this would be a much complex debate. Instead, Evans just says, "Fuck you," and is meant to look like an asshole lawyer once again.
But of course Evans is going to reply with a "Fuck you." I probably would to. Latour has a nice little bit about this in Science in Action: "Faced with the thing itself that the technical paper was alluding to, the dessenters now have a choice between either accepting the fact or doubting their own sanity - the latter is much more painful" (page 70). I couldn't agree more. Kenner's little dialogue sends me spiraling back to my discomfort in my high school sciences classes, when I was supposed to measure out vaguely dangerous liquids and add strange chemicals to them, experiments I was convinced were always on the brink of exploding in my face. My skills in science labs are pretty poor but I'd like to think my knowledge of science "facts" are a lot stronger. However, reading Crichton and having him tell me that no, actually all that data you saw in high school about global warming is a hoax makes me feel a little unhinged. It's mind-boggling when he throws those footnotes at you and is says, "THESE ARE REAL." How the heck am I supposed to combat that with a very weak background in this stuff? It's a constant uphill battle and the not-so enjoyable part, reading his book and fighting to keep from being convinced. Crichton is just so seductive with his writing that it's eerie the way he throws anti-global warming "facts" into the action. I wonder if it would even matter if I had facts, when it's so easy to say, "No, those weren't collected properly" or "No, those aren't peer reviewed" or "No, you're not a legitimate scientist." What counts as legitimate? What's properly collected? Who even knows?
Crichton thinks he does. And that's the troubling part...
As I read this post I too thought that this was the DaVInci Code of global warming. We are presented with what seems to be more in depth knowledge by an expert who is able to seemingly counter every aspect of global warming then this side of the story must be considered as just or more legitimate, right? When you question the legitimacy of what is being presented as truth via scientific peer reviewed articles, I think of it as more of not of "what is really true" but more of how trusted information can be skewed into generating an argument that proves a biased point. This book plays to both extremes of what seems to me to be a political battle. Both sides are using some of the same material but are generating vast extremes of "truth." I think your Latour quote is spot on as well as your honesty that you, and me too, would reply to Mr. Cocky Know-it-all scientist with an up yours when being directly challenged on thing we have previously know to be truth. Specifically, in the tone that he must correct all of us duped individuals that have fallen hook, line and sinker for what appears to be a cooperate scam. Your post also had me thinking of how most Americans truly believed that there were weapons of mass destruction based on the limited knowledge that was presented as truth to the general public. This book does seem to make the pitch that individuals must seek out all the information on a issue before falling for 'expert' opinions. As I read under this assumption I think of how Al Gore (even if he invented the internet ;) has the credentials as a global warming specialist? We trust that he has the best interest in mind and willingly grant him public access to be a spokesperson for global warming, but he isn't a scientist. I can’t help to think of the political undertones of how both sides of the story represented only give us the option to pick one or the other as a truth. Great post!
ReplyDeleteBig league science is somewhat of an old boy's club, so interactions not unlike the one between Kenner and Evans that you cite probably happen more frequently than they ought. It seems to me that many of the scientists that I'm acquainted with personally are very protective of their "wizard" status. To these folks, a challenge to your theory is tantamount to a challenge of you as a scientist and as a person, so they’ll take it pretty far to protect their egos and ideas. This is especially true when challenged by someone from outside the scientist’s area of expertise. By keeping the science mysterious and inaccessible, these guys (and it’s mostly guys) get to hold on to the belief that they and their data are somehow superior. Sort of like saying, “If you don’t get this stuff or you don’t already know, they you are clearly too stupid to know.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s also worth mentioning that scientists can, to a certain degree, tweak experimental design or data collection methods to obtain a more desirable result for whoever is funding the experiment. So, one can always find a way to pay scientists to up with contradictory findings. It’s not always as cut and dried as just coming up with contradictory data, but it can be done.