We had been discussing Heroes, and I was griping about Mohinder's bad science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felon
Been said before, but it bears saying again: real science is great and all, but it just doesn't work too well at explaining highly unrealistic things. Sometimes you gotta fudge it, y'know? Can't always just say it's magic.
Well, here's the thing - real science can work well at explaining highly unrealistic things, if you bother to put in a little effort.
I am not at all bothered by fantastic science. I don't even mind when they apply modern science terms to it. I mind when they apply modern science terms, and to it wrong - a thing a science-minded editor or even a trip to wikipedia could fix.
Now, the Heroes premier is by far not the worst offender here - when Mohinder is rattling off stuff about adrenal glands, at least he's talking about chemicals that are, in fact, produced by the adrenal glands. They gain a point there.
However, he also goes on about how the powers are not "in the blood", but in the adrenal secretions. Um, guys, how do you think those secretions get around the body? By Pony Express, perhaps?
The absolute best example of what I'm talking about - thoroughly repairable bad science - was seen in The 4400, a character was writing a paper for a biology class, and we see the title: "The Mitosis Phase of Cell Division". Cell division does have phases. But Mitosis is not one of them. In fact, Mitosis is cell division (or, the basic form, anyway).
Ain't no way I'm going to accept "sometimes you have to fudge it" for errors like that. If you're going to do a science fiction show, and earn millions of dollar on it, shell out a few extra bucks for a competent science editor, already, and stop making excuses.
However, he also goes on about how the powers are not "in the blood", but in the adrenal secretions. Um, guys, how do you think those secretions get around the body? By Pony Express, perhaps?
I took that to mean in the actual blood cells not the system.
I kind of agree with you, the days of just throwing terms out should be over and done with, today you have so many tools available that you can get the science right or at least your techno-babbel.
__________________ Signature:
All I need is minions and I would rule the world.
I'm a big fan of the idea that the actual science in a work of science fiction is as important as the piece itself makes it out to be. It's only subject to the criteria it sets out for itself. If a show presents itself as a series work as a kind of 'science procedural', or a series work involving scientific extrapolation, or if the plot hinges on real science, then accuracy is (more) important.
Given that Heroes is about teleporting, time-traveling, flying, phasing, brain-fondling instant-evolving comic-book superheroes, it gets a total pass from me, science-wise.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
The bad science bugged me a little about the Heroes premiere, too. Another thing that bugged me...when Mohinder injected himself with the super-serum, he jabbed the needle directly into his arm, at about a 90 degree angle. This wouldn't have actually injected the stuff into his bloodstream (as he said earlier, that's how it's transferred throughout the body), but just into the muscle tissue of his arm. It's a nit-picky complaint, though. It looked more dramatic the way he did it. Makes it more of a "Dammit, Nurse Robinson, there's no TIME for testing!" kind of cheesey, b-movie moment which is fine, if that's what they were going for.
As for the topic in general, I don't think heroes (or the 4400, or star wars, etc) is really "science fiction". It's fantasy, with vaguely pseudo-science trappings. As such, I don't see that it has any responsibility to live up to any kind of scientific accuracy. I just wish, if they're going to use techno-babble, they'd just go all-out with it. "My God! It's all clear to me now! These powers all center around the release of Melatizine, from the recently-discovered Occipital Fargastular Gland! It all makes sense now..."
If you're gonna use silly pseudoscience, go ahead and make it silly pseudoscience, for the sake of Flux Capacitors, everywhere.
I see science in Heroes like I see it in comics...best ignored or you'll get a headache.
I mean, all these years later and we still know NOTHING about the X-Gene, and more people that look into it that don't go mad start to think its probably not a gene at all.
I took that to mean in the actual blood cells not the system.
Yes, and that could have been made clear with the addition of one word. Not exactly a long way to go to get massive improvement in terms of cringe-production
That is, in large part, my point. You don't have to go nearly as far as some might think to make the technobabble work out okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F5
As for the topic in general, I don't think heroes (or the 4400, or star wars, etc) is really "science fiction". It's fantasy, with vaguely pseudo-science trappings. As such, I don't see that it has any responsibility to live up to any kind of scientific accuracy.
I'm a physicist and a Star Trek fan. I don't require actual accuracy, or that things in a sci-fi/fantasy show work by real-world rules.
Quote:
"I just wish, if they're going to use techno-babble, they'd just go all-out with it. "My God! It's all clear to me now! These powers all center around the release of Melatizine, from the recently-discovered Occipital Fargastular Gland! It all makes sense now..."
Agreed. It is perfectly acceptable for them to make words up to cover the fantastic elements. I think they do have a sort of responsibility - if they use real terms, use them correctly. We'd be all over them if they started using words for colors wrong, why should we accept them using words for science-stuff wrong? It is still English, and we expect proper language use, in general.
What gave it away? Was it the teleporting, time-traveling, flying, phasing, brain-fondling instant-evolving comic-book superheroes?
What are you talking about? Star Trek is certainly considered a sci-fi TV show--definitely so--and it's got its share of teleportation, time travel, and other fantastic elements. "Science fiction" is a pretty broad term.
As for the topic in general, I don't think heroes (or the 4400, or star wars, etc) is really "science fiction". It's fantasy, with vaguely pseudo-science trappings.
I used to say the same thing about Doctor Who. The question is, what show is science-fiction? X-Files, Star Trek, Lost...They pretty much all punt.
I used to say the same thing about Doctor Who. The question is, what show is science-fiction? X-Files, Star Trek, Lost...They pretty much all punt.
Doctor Who hasn't really tried to deal with hard science. Rarely does it try to even explain its super-science.
X-Files did try to occasionally dabble in trying to explain what is happening. But then much of the show was also summed up in the poster "I Want to Believe." Normally the real truth couldn't proven and Mulder remained the only real believer. Science didn't solve the problem, the problem normally died or escaped.
Star Trek definitely tried to base itself off of psuedo science. It tried hard to keep continuity with itself and as long as you were willing to believe the polarity of the tachyon field could be reversed then it normally worked out ok.
Lost originally claimed that it was based on reasonable pseudo science but has moved into the realm of magic and super science.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Sure is. It's broad enough to include works in which the accuracy of the science is irrelevant.
Like ones where people can, under their own power, thanks to some faux-evolutionary hoo-ha, do things like teleport, fly, phase, and flash-evolve by massaging some other poor saps exposed gray matter.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I think they do have a sort of responsibility - if they use real terms, use them correctly. We'd be all over them if they started using words for colors wrong, why should we accept them using words for science-stuff wrong? It is still English, and we expect proper language use, in general.
I can see your point, here. They COULD have used made-up words for their made-up science, but they didn't, and actual words mean actual things.
I can see your point, here. They COULD have used made-up words for their made-up science, but they didn't, and actual words mean actual things.
Like making the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Sure is. It's broad enough to include works in which the accuracy of the science is irrelevant.
Like ones where people can, under their own power, thanks to some faux-evolutionary hoo-ha, do things like teleport, fly, phase, and flash-evolve by massaging some other poor saps exposed gray matter.
Well, you seemed to initially be agreeing with the previous assertion that Heroes and 4400 weren't sci-fi.
Well Heroes you just have to laugh at the bad science. I mean bring up The Butterfly Effect now? When Hiro had been tramping in feudal Japan all of last season?
But that adrenaline mumbo-jumbo Suresh was spouting made me cringe.
Of course it's not the worst offender. In Fringe episode 2, the victim gives birth to a child that grows and ages, and even after the baby has popped up, he continues to grow. Where does all that mass come from? Made me give up on the show.
Who's theory? In order to say that, you must have somehow measured the total potential. Who claims to have ever measured the total potential of the human brain?
Um, I'm sorry, but I don't get what you're saying. Evolution does not teach us that we learn new abilities as life goes on. Many species go forward without any capability to learn whatsoever. There is no particular reason to think that as we go forward in time, our ability to do things with our brains must grow.
--Better thread for this convo--
Hey I'm just the messanger. It's a theory because it can't be proven. Else it will fall into the fact realm (if it were measurable). Many species do not evolve but humans have evolved, so it is reasonable to believe that we have not quit evolving. Oddly enough this is something that the heroes show has touched on plenty of times, so its not odd that Mohinder believes in this theory.
As atheory though, this argument is frequently debated. We debated it in my theoligical philosophy class 8 years ago. I've learned that with theories, because they can't be proven you either believe or you don't beleve. I believe that humans can't possibly be done.
__________________ Iron Dungeon Master Dreads
2009 Iron Players Championship
Gencon 2009 features the only single day D&D tournament where players compete using all of their D&D skillset in a non-linear adventure www.ironplayer.com
--Better thread for this convo--
Hey I'm just the messanger. It's a theory because it can't be proven. Else it will fall into the fact realm (if it were measurable). Many species do not evolve but humans have evolved, so it is reasonable to believe that we have not quit evolving. Oddly enough this is something that the heroes show has touched on plenty of times, so its not odd that Mohinder believes in this theory.
As atheory though, this argument is frequently debated. We debated it in my theoligical philosophy class 8 years ago. I've learned that with theories, because they can't be proven you either believe or you don't beleve. I believe that humans can't possibly be done.
I am afraid it is a very bad theory. I have an other theory to offer, which is only slightly less useful as this 10 % of brain use.
- I think the Moon has a layer of cheese in itself. We can't see it from the outside, and it is probably to thin to have a notable effect on the geology. But it's a theory!
A theory should only ever be relevant if it makes predictions that we can test. (It is one of the big problems of the string theory - while it might predict something, we can't test it yet). What does the 10 % brain usage theory predict? What will happen? Can we measure it somehow? Is there an experiment we could try (if we had the right tools?).
Heck, maybe my cheese-moon theory is actually better, because I can think of a way to test it - We just need a drilling roboter that drills deep enough. Not something we'll pull off in the next few years or decades, but it's at least a feasible idea.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
--Better thread for this convo--
Hey I'm just the messanger. It's a theory because it can't be proven.
Err... one of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory is that it can be proven (possibly not with tools and techniques that currently exist, but it's not a valid theory if it's unproveable).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
