Scientific inconsistencies from a Prometheus fan who is also a scientist

Link works ;) I have actually heard that podcast before- ages ago-, and the bit about C14 dating was my favorite, and the one that I remember. Whether it applies to the film, I'm starting to doubt now; I thought it applied, when I heard the podcast. Regardless, it was informative, for me, in an "oh wow, I didn't think of that" kind of way, and the solution they provided seemed so unintrusive to the dialog that I said, yeah, I'm gonna do that sometime in my writing.

I started watching this video but gave up after about 10 minutes, because these guys are just so annoying. In just the first 10 minutes... DNA: These guys complain that the Earth was seeded with the Engineer's DNA, that led ultimately to the creation of humans. Wrong. The Engineer's DNA was broken apart by the black goo, and DNA formed from the resulting breakdown. They also ignore the possibility that humanoid-type life may be almost inevitable given the inevitability of things like trees. Archaeology: They say it doesn't make any sense that the characters figured out the cave paintings were pointing to a star map. Excuse me - it certainly looks like a creature pointing to a constellation of some kind in the sky. What's the big deal? One of the commentators knows diddly squat about the extent to which proper motion of stars takes place. Stars do not change their position greatly in such a short time as 35,000 years, and even if they did, one can reasonably assume that Weyland's computing resources can take such things into account. Or also take into account cultural tales that didn't make it into the movie for obvious editorial reasons. They make some rambling commentary about "the system" having a "sun", and make a big deal about that. When in fact the movie mentions that the system contains a star a lot like our own sun. Nothing inconsistent in that. Whoever these chaps are, they aren't clear thinkers, I'm afraid. I can't be bothered to watch the rest of their tiresome broadcast.

Listening to the podcast again, I'll comment on the various issues raised in order: [b]Alien and FTL[/b]: they have FTC, because -after- Ripley is found, she tells Burke, who tells the colonists, of the location of the Derelict. It also takes at most a mere 2 weeks for messages to go to/from the colony, which doesn't look like it's anywhere near our Earth. They have FTL, because once comm is lost, they get to Hadley's Hope in a short enough time for Newt to still be a little girl. [b]Star map[/b]: I agree, it doesn't really make sense to jump from 5 blobs to say, it's a map (one of the reasons I like Spaihts' script is that they have a lot more evidence before they make that jump). I -dis-agree that the map would be worthless after 35000 years. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem]N-body problem notwithstanding [/url], the heavens tend to be fairly predictable and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation]simulation of movement history is certainly possible[/url] ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_Sandbox]example software[/url]). So if you know it's a map, and you know when it was made, then you can reconstruct your own map of the galaxy at that time and see what fits. The problem then is that the maps, from different cultures at different times, should have been slightly different. [b]"It sounds like they just came up with the 5 dots idea in a 5 minute meeting"[/b]. Uurgh. No, no, and thrice no, but they had no (kosher) way of knowing. Reading Spaihts script, I have evidence to claim that what happened was, Spaihts invented a batch of evidence for the Engineer hypothesis, which Lindelof and/or Scott later simplified for the film so as to get to the action quicker. [b]Some confusion of nomenclature with the 'star system' vs. 'sun' thing.[/b] Yeah, point. [b]Tidal effects would make the moon a volcanic mess[/b]: Yes, because LV-223 seems really close to its primary Calpamos. We know this would cause volcanism, because we see similar effects in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28moon%29]Jupiter's moon Io[/url], which is fiercely volcanic. (Note, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_effect]tidal[/url] here means not sea-tides. It means, part of the moon is pulled stronger than the other, because it's closer to its primary. The difference in gravitational pull creates internal tension which later manifests as heat) Not all gas giant moons are volcanic hells though. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29]Europa[/url] seems to be merely gently heated, allowing for what looks like a liquid ocean underneath a layer of ice. [b]They take their helmets off[/b]. Oh God, yes. This pissed me off so much, for the reasons they describe. Not only could the air contain traces of highly lethal poisons, but there's also the issue of contamination. "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_contamination]Forward contamination[/url]" is when our microbes are introduced to the ecosystem of an alien world, which is a jerk-like move to do. For the more selfish and careless among us, there's also the specter of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_contamination]"Back-contamination"[/url], when their bugs infect [i]us[/i]. It should be noted that, while pretty much everyone believed the Moon to be sterile, [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4214/ch4-3.html]NASA nonetheless established quarantine protocols on lunar samples[/url], just to make sure. So yeah, film, let me down here. The fact that Elizabeth, at one point, cautions people not to take off their helmets because they don't know what caused Holloway's illness only makes it worse. It says, yeah, back contamination is a thing in this universe. Therefore, trained scientists should be aware of the risk. (I'm willing to give a pass to Star Trek and Star Wars; people there walk care-free and helmet free through alien worlds; guess back contamination isn't a thing; if that's the rule of the universe, fine, just be consistent) [b]"No scientist pukes at Shaw's 'choose to believe' moment"[/b] Uurgh. This is why I'd rather not be a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights]Bright[/url]. Not only do the other scientists on board react with disbelief (Milburn brings evo up, Fifield calls Shaw's ideas bull), Shaw's leap of faith is within the method of science. She has a hypothesis, and is now willing to find the evidence for it. It is not too often when a hypothesis is put forth before the evidence overwhelmingly requires it, but it does happen (my favorite examples are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift]this[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiosis_theory]this[/url]), and it even, rarely, turns out to be correct. To spite the podcaster's "points", Shaw turns out -wrong-, despite what's claimed in the podcast. And she herself reaches the conclusion that she was wrong. Scientifically honest, she is. Back off. But nooo, being a 'skeptic' these days means having knee-jerk reactions to anything that's slightly differently nuanced than perfectly optimistic scientism. Beyond that, their points about how Fifield gets lost, about the med scene being a tad unrealistic and so on, are ok with me. I especially like the C14 bit, as mentioned.

One more bit. [b]"How come their DNA is so similar, but they look so different"[/b] Oh come on, even a lowly fanfic author (*cough* me) can give a plausible answer to that. The way something looks is influenced by its genetics and environment. For my story, I decided to have the rations, that the Engineers eat, make them 9 feet tall, pale blue, and a few other plot relevant things. TL;DR, and as a response to [b]zzplural[/b]: they raise some nice points, but they are often critical merely for the sake of being so, beyond what the material warrants. Their ideological shaking at Shaw's 'choose to believe' moment is especially egregious.

You see BlandC, as a real scientist I keep an objective and open mind so if I hear some valid criticisms of a movie I like, I am not offended. If anything I was amused. I will take a valid argument where I can find it. It was refreshing to hear their sarcasm especially when they were correct in some places. Not the carbon part though because we already had that argument here and someone noted that Shaw asked for the carbon dating device, not the carbon 14 dating device so we gave Prometheus a pass on that one. I also mentioned above that I thought they were too general in their criticism of all characters on board. Holloway kind of pissed me off and so I was rather glad to see him go and Melburn the same since I cringed when he started blathering about the alien cobra like reptile thing calling it a damn 'lady' so I felt that if he was going to anthropomorphisize it into a female it was only just that it perform oral sex on him and said good riddens so I do get their point in general but I did grow to care about some of the crew including Vickers but then again I got to see the deleted scene between she and Janek when he brought her the rum in her quarters and she was trying to eat with a shaky hand, thus demonstrating human frailty. Even though she tried to play tough as nails, there was a sensitive woman in side with father issues, which made her endearing to me. I was sorry to see her go. In fact they should have kept her alive for the sequel. I would have if I was writing the script. It creates so many possibilities. Notice if you have read Spaihts' script both she and David were 1 dimensional creatures - just all evil and bad. Lindelof for as much criticism he gets too often, nuanced both of their personalities so they were both complex mixtures of human-like traits as well as self centered. That creates realism. The critics in this video were wrong in their assessment of the characters and acting. So while they made some good scientific points, not all of their points do I buy. Still its a valuable piece of video produced by a devils advocate team.

I'll keep saying this like a broken record, but while Spaiths' version is more coherent, the film as made is preferable to me because it's richer. Including the parts with Vickers and David being not full on evil. I would not write FF if David were Spaihts' David. On the Carbon dating device ... wait, the whole reason we're giving this a pass is because Shaw says "Carbon dating device", not "Carbon 14 dating device?" That seems insufficient to me, as "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating]carbon dating[/url]" is a simple synonym for radiocarbon aka C14 dating. Same thing, different names. Oh, PS: while I'm not sure that Vickers is a robot, I am sure she is alive. Call it my tinfoil hat theory, but I'm sticking with it. You know what the Harkonnens say. Don't call a man dead until you see the corpse. Even then you may be wrong.

zz I agree with blandC, don't be so quick to loose your patience. I saw through their obvious errors and yes, I do agree that some skeptics set out to find fault everywhere without taking the time to research the target of criticism. For all of their faulty critiques, they did make a few good valid points and that is why I posted it here. We are bigger than not being able to take criticism. Just be happy that you have the power to discern a valid point from an invalid one and don't lose your temper over these guys. Sometimes skepticism is done for humor. I can laugh at a stand up comedian even if I disagree with his points.

BlandC, carbon dating may have been modified in the near future so it thoroughly makes since that they may be using a different means of irradiating carbon in the future so its really a small point. Maybe they use gamma particles or even quark technology for all we know. If Shaw had said "Have we done carbon 14 dating yet, hand me the device." , then that would have been a straight up scientific error so I think critics there are a bit rash. The Pauli med pot criticism was fairly spot on. Apparently Ridley was dead set for staples just for effect so it was done for dramatic effect, but they were totally right that they should have used some futuristic surgical technique to justify Shaw doing all of that athletic running around. I had a inguinal hernia one time and before they could even get me to the hospital after I found a lump protruding through my abdominal wall, I collapsed and almost cracked my head on a cement floor if not for some guy's help. After the operation I was laid up for a week and as weak as hell. All I could do was go for short walks until I got my strength back and the surgical wound healed, so Shaw's athletics required a futuristic method to explain all the quick healing even with all the morphine she was taking. Believe me with abdominal surgery, because of all the blood vessels in and around the large intestine to absorb nutrients, she would have bled out before she got a hundred steps.

irt. [b]nostromo001[/b]: (on Carbon dating) eh, I suppose that works. It's maybe a poor choice of words then to use that term, because it makes people think of our technology today. If one wants magic, use magical names :) (like quark timing or whatever) Simple radio-isotope dating, of which C14 is one example, works by noticing that 'something' starts at a given ratio of isotopes when it 'lives', and stays there because it keeps exchanging matter with the surroundings. When it 'dies' it ceases the exchange, and the radio-isotopes decay at a predictable rate. Which means, since they are not replenished, that they get fewer in number, and the ratio of radio-to-stable isotopes changes. Seeing how different that new ratio is from that of the surroundings gives an indication of the time of no exchange. The 'no exchange' bit is important. Radio-dating decayed flesh in the soil is nigh useless, because bacteria contaminate it and bring it back to the background ratio. Bone provides better samples, because matter is exchanged slower between the inside of a bone and the outside. Irradiating carbon yourself for the purpose of timing is not useful under current technology. You need the radiocarbon in the sample as untouched as possible by outer matter.

BLANDC, I mostly added that link so people could see some of the potential scientific flaws in Prometheus. Mind you those guys make some obvious errors that we who study all things Prometheus can detect. But they do raise some valid points too. I got a kick out of the points where they were correct. Keep in mind that that video was posted just 1 month after the theatrical release so they hadnt much time to get it all down, hence the errors. As it is it still provides food for thought.

irt. [b]zzplural[/b]: Assuming that Shaw meant radiocarbon aka C14 dating when she asked for the carbon dating device is not a silly assumption to make. That's what carbon dating means in current English, and the assumption here is simply that what you can recognize from the characters' speech is indeed what you recognize it as. In other words, it's simply a consequence of the assumption that if the characters sound as if they speak English, they in fact do. Otherwise, it would be silly to assume that Shaw meant 'she can't get pregnant' when she said so. It's the future, maybe the words mean something else, right? So I'm not on board with you on this one. If the film makers wanted some as yet unknown tech for measuring time, invent one new name for it. Star Trek does it all the time, it's fine.

Carbon dating: Yup, nostromo001 is dead right on this one. I actually saw some university guy ranting on a video presentation that this couldn't work. But he was making the very silly mistake in [i]assuming[/i] that Shaw was using current-day tech to date [b]carbon 14[/b]. It's the [i]future[/i]. They'll be dating the dead creature's carbon by measuring its capacity to scatter polarised neutrinos in a specific environment, or something else weird and wonderful that you'll find in the future. Sorry if I sounded too negative early, but I did find the guys in that video to be quite irritating.

Oh yeah, about the podcast. I'd like to add another example of the guys being too negative- [b]"They must have picked the locus coeruleus at random"[/b] I think, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_coeruleus#In_stress]probably not[/url]. That part of the brain is involved in regulating stress, essentially kick-starting the fight-or-flight response. It's unlikely that applying electric shocks there will revive a dead brain, but if one needs to pick such an area for plot purposes, the LC is actually not a bad choice.

You have to remember these people were handpicked by Weyland who really doesn't care about the crew. Yeah they had to have credentials but he needed foolish people he could use. People that looked good on paper but when assessed with the technology that's quietly monitoring them it reveals character flaws that Weyland can exploit. In the virals where some of the main crew are being interviewed we're given a window into their personalities before the mission... This works like a Weyland corp psychological evaluation, the Yutani quiet eye tech can even detect if someone is lying by measuring tiny facial movements and all sorts of things most people can't detect that indicate lying. The Rorschach like test that David takes in the happy birthday viral is his psychological exam. They needed to make sure David's brain was functioning right and that he would only see certain things in the ambiguous patterns and strange shapes... but like a rorschach test there's much more meaning to his interpretation. The characters are being examined to see if there is something slightly wrong with their brains... in this case it's what Weyland wanted... To put it quite simply their brains are actually messed up ever so slightly, but they are smart people... They have behavioural disorders which can explain much of their illogical behaviour. However their disorders seem to be borderline and would not be noticeable to most people. Weyland wants very specific people in his crew. The interviews were used to field for people with very specific borderline personality disorders. Those who are overly obedient, some semi-emotionless and detached like Ford and Jackson, those who seem anti-social and only in it for the money like Fifield. He wants people that are somewhat like him... borderline-egotists like Holloway. Or true believers like Shaw. He knew from Shaw's research and beliefs about the big questions that he found a person he could deceive. She's a little irrational, but she's the most normal one. In some ways when David says "I didn't know you had it in you" he means it. He's not only referring to the Alien, she's the only one with proper functioning behaviours, intuitions, instincts, emotions, not affected by the culture Weyland has morphed and has a properly balanced brain in her head (although she chooses to have faith, she doesn't necessarily believe she's right all the time, she accepts new data, something science needs to do). People who think they're right but are actually "so wrong". He uses faith to condition and control Shaw because he thinks only his perspective is right, doesn't even listen to her or show an emotional response when Shaw tries to warn him "they're not what we thought", "this place is only full of death". Weyland never thought they were gods but he did think they were a living culture with the key to immortality. However, they weren't. he doesn't even react to Shaw saying that, instead he uses faith once again (and charlies sacrifice) to trick her into accompanying him on his agenda. Each of them carry a subtle personality disorder that affects the way they act... when you look at them not as stupid, but as slightly crazy it all starts to make more sense why Weyland would pick the people he selected. He wanted people that seemed semi-emotionless for certain roles like Jackson, Ford, and Fifield--mainly caring about the money. You have to look at it from a behavioural science/psychology perspective, which is why there are some subtle psychological references in it like David asking doesn't everyone want to see their parents die? basing it on a mainly outdated belief in psychology/science... David is choosing what to believe at times, and he learned this trick from Shaw... He chooses to believe all fathers are like his... You really have to get inside the characters' heads and understand the subtext which is still purposely as ambiguous as some parts of the overall movie. In some early interviews Ridley said everyone on the ship has an agenda. It's this agenda that drives each character and each character's agenda is completely different (except maybe Vickers and David). Fifield was just there to make money, he wasn't there to make friends because he has anti-social tendencies. He doesn't need friends, he's happier without them. Millburn is highly neurotic deep down, lacks confidence and needs approval from someone he sees as an equal. He did want to make friends. And is almost a compulsive liar, presenting himself falsely in one place or another, or suffering a personality disorder.. This is first seen by the way he changes accents after first talking to Fifield. He tried to use an accent he thinks will "work" on him... In the Hammerpede scene Millburn is so crazy, and possibly even secured Fifields friendship just by going with him, but he's still trying to impress Fifield no matter what the risk. It's not that he's an idiot. He actually is crazy and thinks he can mesmerize the snake. It was really Fifield he was trying to mesmerize and charm and he was taking a huge risk that the thing would be non-aggressive. When it shows signs of aggression he still doesn't back down, because he thinks he has to be the tough one. If you watch carefully he does pull away slightly at first and then goes back for more, fighting his own flight or fight response.... As crazy as it sounds Shaw and David are the most sane ones and it's a lot like American Beauty. In American Beauty Lester is perceived as evil/crazy only because he's trapped in a situation that's beyond his control. When you watch the movie enough it becomes apparent that Lester only wanted his freedom. Same with David, in a way. David knew that the master was using all the sheep. But he could only look on and pull the wagon for his master. In one early draft David says "you're all so stupid" to Shaw/Watts, but this is after he says Shaw has a higher IQ than Holloway and that Holloway actually has a problem being too headstrong that David read in their files. This is a little bit of David's egotism because they're not stupid, they're all just a little bit out of the norm. David is acting like the father he hates.

C'mon people, If Ripley would listen to the security protocols, she never would let Kane back to the ship (after facehugger) ... then we would not have any Alien in the movie. If the characters in Prometheus act too careful making protocols, then where is the chaos in the film? Also, a lot of the technology that we see in Prometheus is fictional ... after all is just a science fiction movie with touches of pseudoscience (ancient astronauts) And remember that this is not hard science fiction ... and yet I still love this film. :)

BTW maybe the worms are stuck in the boots of David because he smashed a turkey sandwich decaying in the Prometheus, so maybe the human are guilty for the Hammerpedes in the pyramid. :D Anyway I would have preferred a paleontologist rather than a geologist and definitely in the script of Spaihts there is more evidence to support the premise of the Engineers.

Agreed Shambhala. I only brought this up to show just how irrational and unscientific the Prometheus team was. And I have stated elsewhere that the unprofessional nonscientific behavior on the parts of most of the 'scientists' only serve to move the story along into the unhinged chaos that it turns into. If they all behaved like real scientists I have said more than once, then they would have simply proved their thesis and returned back in the Prometheus without waking the last Engineer thus putting off the destruction of earth possibly indefinitely. The colonial marines in Aliens were similarly very poor examples of soldiers even by James Cameron's commentary, where he said that he didn;t really know what he was doing when it came to real professional marine protocols and discipline. He even apologized to real marines in retrospect for his portrayl of them as such unprofessional soldiers. But it made for a good story so we overlook a lot of it ( to a point).

Actually it was ASH not RIPLEY who let Kane on. RIPLEY chews him out later for it.

@BLANDCorporatio We'll have to agree to disagree on the validity of using a device called a "carbon reader" in Prometheus. Show me a similar device today, either in the lab or in the field, called a "carbon reader" and I might think otherwise. The fact that we have laboratory carbon 14 isotope dating devices today is neither here nor there in my opinion. I don't [i]assume[/i] that it is the same or even similar technology, even though the word carbon is mentioned. To make such an assumption in the absence of corroborating evidence is in itself non-scientific. Who knows how technology will develop over the next eighty years. One thing is for sure, though - times change, people don't. If carbon dating technology advances using as yet unknown principles to work in alien environments, there's every chance that the users will use a shortened name, like carbon reader, especially if they are in a field like archaeology. @Mala'kak Excellent character analysis. Well said.

irt. [b]zzplural[/b]: we'll agree to disagree then; I've stated my reasons in my before-previous post. As far as I'm concerned this is not about (un)scientific assumptions. This is about making the common sense, conventional leap of faith that if the characters appear to be speaking recognizable English, they really do. irt. [b]nostromo001[/b], [b]Shambhala[/b]: and I'll have to disagree here too :P I don't regard moving the plot along as an excuse for taking liberties with character; in particular, [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall]Idiot Balls[/url] for plot convenience are a lazy writing crutch. People do make stupid mistakes all the time, and you can expect someone to start to forget training (especially if they are novices) and protocol under stress, for example. That, as a plot device, is fine. Incomplete information also does wonders for one's decision making skills. Throwing in something the audience knows, but the characters obviously don't, is one thing to allow them to steer into bad times. It's also not the case that doing everything ok and picking the smart choice removes suspense. The podcast guys recommend John Carpenter's The Thing, which I'll have to watch. I recommend Andromeda Strain; even 2001: Space Odyssey fits (... for some definition of suspense ...).

Good thread. @corpo Leaps of faith do not have a place in science. Hypotheses are formed on evidence, observation and developed by deductive reasoning not on whimsy. Your examples of Wegener and co may be a big hit on fundy sites but they're falsehoods - sorry, but there's no other way to say it. Wegener was not the first to have this idea - it can be traced back to the 16th Century - and he had observed correlations and was able to come up with a what if argument. What he didn't have was mechanism. This is very common in science - waiting for new evidence and or technology to catch up. The concept of evolution was around long before Darwin - his grandfather thought animals evolved - but Darwin came up with the mechanism. And nobody took Shaw on about her "I choose to believe" fluff - there's was a cut to David looking embarrassed (or more likely guilty) and then we jump into the next scene. It was never mentioned again (except by Shaw several times). And she only admitted she was wrong (again we get no reason) following her traumatic experience - at the end of the movie she's back on track with the "they made us" line. Shaw's line was a puke moment - the point is why did Ridley and the writers (who were no doubt aware it was a puke moment) decide to do it that way. By fobbing it off as poor writing or even worse, trying to argue it's good science, we're never going to get any answers. Here's one episode you may not have noticed: during the landing Ford says something like big mountain "port" side. And then she looks right. Try and tell me that Ridley's not taking the piss. I thought the scientist guys did ok but they missed a lot.

"Fundy sites"?! I assure you I thought of those examples on my own. And I chose, for example Continental Drift, for a reason. It was rejected, and rationally so, by the geological community, at the time of its proposal. There was not enough evidence at the time to indicate that it worked, so a reasonable person was quite entitled to disagree. The evidence came later. And that is fine. A hypothesis, pretty much by definition, is not supposed to be air-tight in its confirmation by evidence. If you have a hunch, possibly based on some prior data, it's all right to follow it and see if new evidence turns up. In this particular case, Shaw had a hunch. Somehow she convinced an old rich guy with more money than sense to fund a fact checking mission. Seems legit to me.

BlandC, Shaw was able to convince Weyland because he was too old that he would have agreed with anyone who could potentially come up with a solution to his aging problem. The man just did not want to die!

Yes, it perfectly legit for a B grade movie for 13 year olds. You should have more faith.

BLANDCorporation,

the problem with Shaw's 'believe' line isn't that she has a hypothesis. They come and go, and as you've pointed out there are many cases in the past where a hypothesis was untenable at the time (because of, say, a lack of compelling evidence) but was later vindicated as accurate once the science had caught up. The principles of isotropy and homogeneity in cosmology, for instance, were put forward and declared 'principles' before we really had good reason to believe them (now, of course, we have good reason to believe them). Likewise, Darwin proposed natural selection as the explanation for complexity without having a good mechanism for it (he famously didn’t know about genes).

So the problem with Shaw's line isn't that she has a hypothesis awaiting evidence that either falsifies or fails to disconfirm it. The problem is that she, and for that matter the movie as a whole, characterizes the scientific enterprise as a matter of faith. She 'chooses to believe' her hypothesis. Presumably biologists 'choose to believe' natural selection and physicists 'choose to believe' the atomic theory. And they 'choose to believe' these things the way someone 'chooses to believe' in heaven.

Now it's true in a trivial sense that we 'choose to believe' by faith in some of the things we believe (eg, I have faith that the educated physicists working at CERN know what they are talking about when they talk about this stuff, so I'm going to assume the consensus among them re: atoms is more or less accurate). But that's only in a very mundane sense, and it's really only applicable to when we believe things that are outside our field of expertise. It's not the epistemological case that should and would be made by someone working in their field. For example, if you asked Einstein why he thought he could overturn centuries of Newtonian gravity, his answer probably wouldn't be 'because I choose to believe gravity works this way the way that some people choose to believe in heaven.' But that's exactly what Shaw says (and by 'exactly', I mean 'pretty much', really). Shaw has evidence that the movie implies is strongly suggestive of her hypothesis, yet she says it's faith that guides her.

I don't think this is an example of a knee-jerk reaction to the portrayal of a character who is both a scientist and religious (which is what I take you to mean earlier when you talked about knee-jerk reactions to anything less than pure scientism?). What it is is a reaction to a character that has almost no nuance at all. She has faith (in what? We don't know. We're to assume some kind of Christianity I guess). Her scientific hypotheses are somehow the product of that faith rather than suggested by evidence (that's the point of her repeating the 'choose to believe' line that her father used earlier to explain why he believes in heaven, right?). The other scientists believe in -isms like 'Darwinism', and the clash between Shaw's hypothesis and quote 'Darwinism' is ideological, not evidentiary.

Now, it's TOTALLY true that clashes between paradigms have a lot less to do with evidence and more to do with the resistance of an established ideology to change. But I don't think that's the case here, with this scene. I don’t think whoever wrote this scene has read up on, eg, Kuhn and paradigm shifts. Why? Because subscribers to the old paradigm and the new paradigm, on Kuhn’s account, don’t push their paradigms by faith! In fact, there aren’t any accounts I can think of in the philosophy of science or the philosophy of epistemology in which ‘belief in heaven’ and ‘belief in [hypothesis x]’ are driven by the same kind of epistemic criteria. Maxwell didn’t push his (now known to be false) theory of light because of faith; nor was his theory overturned because of it. The consensus surrounding continental drift, both for and against, didn’t change because of peoples’ faith. Likewise, the acceptance of common decent through natural selection.

We’ve had centuries of philosophers dedicating themselves to thinking about epistemology (What constitutes knowledge as distinct from mere beliefs? What constitutes ‘evidence’? What’s the difference between a theory and a model, and what role do they each play in our explanations and predictions?). We shouldn’t expect a layman audience to be hip to the various battles waged in various camps of the epistemology department. But we SHOULD expect a scientist 200 years in the future to at least be familiar with at least some of the epistemic grounds that underpin the philosophy of science, given that a) most scientists today seem to be very aware of those grounds and b) the literature is exploding thanks to the epistemic questions that the cutting edge of physics is raising (eg, ‘what constitutes a theory?’). We don't get any of that nuance in this scene.

Now, what I said above about there being virtually no epistemological accounts under which science proceeds by ‘faith’… that’s not exactly true, if you are very generous with what you’d call an ‘epistemological account’. I’ve noticed that one primary tactic of fundamentalist religious organizations (Answers in Genesis, for one) is to claim that creationists and naturalist both look at the same evidence but interpret it differently based on their pre-theoretical inclinations. In other words, the reason scientists and creationists differ in their explanations of the geological column is because they each hold ideological commitments that drive their interpretations; it’s all faith, and both approaches are equally legit, they’d have you believe.

And that’s not nuance with regards to epistemology. It’s just the tired old ‘science is a religion too!’ argument, which has about as un-nuanced a set a conceptions about faith, belief, knowledge and theory as one can have! Interestingly, these are also the kinds of circles one is most likely to encounter the term ‘Darwinism’, ‘Evolutionists’, and their derivatives. Creationists use these kinds of terms to cast the modern theory of evolution as some kind of ideological –ism. I would not expect a biologist in 2200 to call it that. I WOULD expect a shallow writer in 2012 to call it that, particularly if he’s setting up a ‘science is a religion too!’ idea.

As mentioned in other reviews, this movie pretends to explore Big Questions, but all it really does is ask some old, tired questions and never explores them. Science vs religion could be interesting. Man’s place in the universe, likewise. This movie doesn’t ask those questions. It just gives us a ‘scientist’ who believes whatever she believes because of faith; it gives us a biologist who subscribes to –isms instead of theories; it gives us ‘I have faith!’ and pretends that merely giving us that is itself an exploration of faith, meaning or whatever. It pays lip service to deep existential wonderings but doesn’t actually do any existential wondering.

So tl;dr – whoever wrote the scene thinks that science is some kind of faith, doesn't know much about the scientific and epistemic enterprises, and thinks that merely having a scientist character who is a believer is enough to count as ‘exploring the Big Questions of faith and science’.