Blog Post #9 (Due Sunday 02 May 11:59 PM): '2 X 2' responses to the Poster Projects

Let's look back at the Poster Presentations, link a couple together in some interesting ways and use some of the terms / concepts from our work to do it. We're calling this a '2 X 2' project: TWO posters, TWO concepts or terms, and as interestingly dense a linking as you can get.

I'm currently focused on the spatially-opposed 'Addictions' and 'Prisons' projects from Thursday--really intimately related in being so filled with ideology that the science is totally eclipsed and colonized. I heard Puritanism / esceticism everywhere—as we reject, fear and punish our pleasure-seeking bodies. Saw bunches of 'black boxes' sealed up because we really seem to want to impose ideology regardless of the facts. 'Crime is genetic. 'Crime is immoral and willful.' 'Crime is sinful.' 'Drunks are selfish.' 'Addicts are sick.' Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.

Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.

Small World

I was just involved in a conversation inside a local bar in West St. Paul, where I was extremely happy to encounter someone more passionate about food than myself. This place was a dive... in fact, I was surprised to find anyone who could still communicate. I recommended Michael Pollan and he suggested I look at this site:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com

He wrote it down on a cocktail napkin and I wrote my suggestions on another... The spread of information at its finest.

It seems a bit overdramatic, but important to say the least.

This is what I would have done for my "Intervention Piece" if I had the time....

Sink or Swim?

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3400&output_type=rss

I decided to venture out and look for my own article on global warming and when I found one titled “Certainty of Catastrophic Global Warming is a Hoax” in Capitalism Magazine of all places, I couldn’t resist. When we discuss ideas getting legs and the global warming “crisis” becoming culturally recognized, we also need to see the opponents and their own campaign to legitimate their own claim.

This author attempts to legitimate his point in several ways. First he claims that the science that would support human activity contributing to global warming was flawed from the beginning. He calls it “bad science” and stresses that more recent research discredits the claims made by Al Gore and the extreme environmentalists. He creates a sort of “us vs. them” argument by saying the delegation fighting the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was composed of eight republicans and that there were no democrats present. The third way the author stresses his argument is my favorite part- economics.

“It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.” Pretty scary stuff. There is another passage asking how legislation could be so damaging economically when there is no science to back it up?

Maybe the urgency of the economic crisis overwhelms the urgency of global climate change to readers of Capitalism Magazine.

Manbearpig

I'm extremely disappointed South Park was mentioned in the prompt, being a big fan of the show I was planning on doing something tying in South Park and climate change for at least one blog post.

So I'm going to use South Park anyways.

Robin suggests that South Park has made us all "knowing cynics." While I certainly agree with that, to an extent, I feel their impact is much greater. Just like when you go back and watch a children's movie and notice subtle "adult" references for the first time, South Park succeeds at entertainment at multiple levels. There is still enough simple and straight forward humor in the series to attract a crowd that is largely uninterested in the underlying satire or criticism of whatever the current subject happens to be. A perfect example of this is the episode "ManBearPig," (click that for a link to the video, i.e. my website of choice) featuring the great Al Gore. While the premise of a manbearpig is humorous on its own, the episode holds double meanings when manbearpig becomes a metaphor for global warming (an intended metaphor, although I was not aware of this until someone pointed it out). It works mostly because it is presented in more digestable pieces. No, of course the argument is not that ridiculous, and no, Al Gore doesn't think he can fly (I hope), but for me at least, the episode instigated the asking of more questions. My interest was piqued on the topic of global warming. This type of presentation can be extremely effective with the right audience. Raise there interest in a subject, and given how technologically literate we are, Wikipedia can be a mouse click or cell phone text away. Steering the general public towards their own revelations instead of bashing them over their collective head with it may be the most effective tool available to proponents of any hot issue, yet it is a strategy rarely used (properly, at least).

Authority of Experts

I looked at the article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The name of the website simultaneously shows that the people who created it care about issues yet are rational, intelligent people with authority. It reminds me of the whole "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" thing, but because they're scientists, and not a bunch of menopausal women, they have authority. This authority is the main tool used throughout their argument against Michael Crichton.

Authority, as seen in this article, is based on one's expertise in the field. They shrug Crichton off and say that anyone can look into climate literature and find out more about global warming, but it takes a climate expert to see the reality of "the full complexity of the climate system". In other words, Crichton is an idiot who found some data that he didn't understand and ran with it.

This idea of authority is taken further in the next point when they list 4 different very impressive-sounding groups of experts that all agree on the same exact thing. If all of these experts have looked at all this data multiple times and all came up with the exact same conclusion out of the myriads of possibilities out there, how can you doubt that its true? Its The National Academy of Sciences and The American Geophysical Union against some random guy who can write entertaining fiction. Who are you going to believe?

The rest of the article goes on with a similar trend, taking all the massive claims that Crichton makes and turning them into a simple mistake w using facts and expert opinion to explain the reality. All this is done in a relaxed manner while subtly reducing Crichton's authority by referring to all of his claims as being made by "characters" and not people. This automatically reduces anything that Crichton says to fiction and heightens the authority of the scientists.

Looking at the New Republic article, I found it strangely odd that they (editor/writer) failed to even note that this is indeed an entertaining book. Instead of conceding that Crichton has an interest in global warming, recreational at least and political at best, and that he is indeed even remotely good as an author, the article seems to completely bash his sense of character. He is a man, so the gender roles seem to fit pretty well (I didn't really notice them until the women in class noted it), and suit him. He doesn't presume to be a leading expert in climate science but rather someone who is a bit worried about the current state of things, such as the inconsistencies applied between Global Warming and other possible crisis (lax use of explicitly important terminology for example), and is using his preferred profession/method of communication to show this. The article also seems to portray him as some maniacal man out for power, a proverbial hitler, based on his devils advocate stance in State of Fear, using comments that seem to be hugely out of context to further this idea...

"In a 1995 interview with Time magazine, Crichton hinted at an agenda beyond dazzling people with roller-coaster plots and astounding Hollywood special effects. Somewhat ostentatiously citing Jean Cocteau's The Difficulty of Being, Crichton explained that the French writer "said what I've always believed about myself. He didn't care about being noticed for his style. He only wanted to be noticed for his ideas. And even better for the influence of the ideas."

Of course he did... it generates buzz, and all authors want recognition for their work. Even conceding that there is the slightest possibility that Crichton has some world domination scheme cooking behind the scenes, surely books aren't the worst that could happen...

http://www.tnr.com/article/michael-crichtons-scariest-creation

the science of the ficiton

I looked at the RealClimate blog, reading their post called “Michael Chriton's State of Confusion.” One thing I found immediately interesting was that the tag line for the site is “climate science from climate scientists.” Now I myself fall on the global warming exists side of the whole debate, and I knew just from the title of the article that the writers would be giving Chriton a little negative criticism, but in the interest of fairness, I tried to keep a keen eye for cues on where these writers would be coming from, and how their biases would show through. So with that in mind, I thought the tag line was pretty revealing. This site would be giving me science from people who knew what they were talking about, but not only that, Chriton is instantly placed in the non-scientist group. That's fair, he's not a climate scientist, but it seemed relevant that the writers of the blog definitely wanted their readers to read the post with that in mind.

Going from there, the post itself starts by saying that it doesn't normally discuss “out-and-out fiction” like Chriton's novel. This too is very telling because not only does it reinforce that State of Fear is not a credible source of information, it legitimates the site further. It suggests that the kinds of things these writers are used to discussing are straight academic works, purely facts, but that they are departing from their typical briefly because Chriton's book has made an impact. In some ways, the comment legitimates this work of plain “fiction” because the writers deem it worth the same amount of attention as actual science, but I don't think that's what the intention of that comment was.

The rest of the article continues on the same trend. There are quite a few snarky comments about the fast-paced, action adventure nature of the book mixed in amongst straight facts. They tell us where Chriton lead us wrong, then they tell us what the better interpretation of those particular facts should be. They start in on the science by saying that it's for the “actors and lawyers” out there, but what they're really saying is, just like Chriton's characters, we the readers of this blog most likely have no idea what the science really is, and since Chriton doesn't inform us, they will. We are the ignorant, they the enlightened. I can't really disagree with this, I truly know nothing about the many seeming complexities of what determines whether or not global warming is something we should worry about, but the way they present the information is still interesting. Do I know anything about the topic? No. But they imply throughout the post that Chriton does not know the right questions to ask of the science, which we wouldn't know when reading the book because we are not scientists, but the writers of the blog DO know the right questions. The problem of course is that, I have no idea if THEY are right either, because, again, not a scientist. I'm more inclined to trust the authors of the site though, because they do a good job of convincing me that they are about the facts, unlike Chriton, who's about “car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do.”

Rhetoric and Science

THE GUARDIAN, (guardian.co.uk) recent put out an article with the heading, “Climate scientist are losing ground against deniers’ disinformation”. Simply put, this article examines the ways in which the Tea Party movement and its supporters, described as, “sophisticated echo chamber of right-wing shock jocks, [and] culture-war keyboard commandos”, are all working together to push the skepticism on climate change. On the left, climate campaigners: educated scientists, intergovernmental and non-governmental policy makers, U.N. officials, and amongst others, the President of the United States; On the (far) right, climate skeptics: soccer-moms, Glenn Beck (though some sources say he now believes in the science behind global warming), Sarah Palin, Fox News, and much of the blogging community. Needless to say, these diametrically opposed viewpoints have met face-to-face on more than one occasion, yielding results that illustrate the ways in which “scientific fact” does not always trump the rhetorical force of the “mob”. There are a few points this article raises that I would like to tease out, as they speak to much of the work we’ve be doing here. It must be noted however, that this article was written by Joss Garman, a climate campaigner and described by the Sunday Times as, “ champion of the green movement”.

Garman credits much the Tea Party’s political clout to the fact that they have, “power without responsibility”. As a result, they can afford to throw as much mud as they want and see what sticks because they don’t face the scrutiny as those holding incumbent establishment positions (Garman). In this way, the climate change controversy, once largely resolved, is live once again, “despite”, Garman states, “the rock solid nature of the core facts”. We know the danger in relying on “facts” that fail to get the “mob” to go along with them. Rhetoric and fact are deeply connected, and the recent disconnect between climate change scientists, and the Tea Party and its supporters, speak directly to the ways in which a fact is not a fact until Latour’s “fourth loop”, the loop of, “public representation” (Pandora’s Hope, 105), works along side the science—not in opposition to it.

To Garman’s credit, he seems to understand this point, and provides us with an account of this fourth loop at work in the real world. He writes:

The scientific community, with honorable exceptions, continues to handle the issues badly because they haven’t apologized for their mistakes and come out all gun blazing on the robustness of the climate science. But ultimately, as John Kerry learned, and as Obama mastered during his campaign, an altogether different kind of response is required anyway—one that speaks less in the language of “parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide” and more to people’s value and everyday concerns.

The get the science to become a fact, one must deploy rhetoric that not only speaks to climate scientists, but also to the mob. “Science” Latour reminds us, “is a human activity” and is deeply connected to rhetoric.

Garman closes his article with, “Climate change is real and human-caused, the case for tackling it is just common sense”. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple. Common sense doesn’t go very far in the face of right wing activist. It’s subjective, what’s common to me, may not be common to you. Bottom line is this: if we cannot get people to go along with climate science, then there is no science at all. Rhetoric and fact cannot, in my view, be separated. To bring the science to life, to make it work, we need to get people to believe in it.

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics

Glenn Beck writes a very inconvenient book

The article (or more of a video) that I chose is on youtube and can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

I decided to look up more own article for this blog post to get an even more diversified opinion of the global warming crisis/scam. When performing a youtube search for global warming, I can across Glen Beck's segment on CNN where he talks about Global Warming and his release of his new book titled, "An Inconvenient Book." In this segment, which he actually calls "An Inconvenient Segment," beck attacks Gore and his fellow global warming crisis-callers and their ideas. The very fact that he is mocking Gore right off the bat with the names of his produced media goes right to the point of trying to de-legitimatize Gore and his production. Furthermore, he calls "Gore believers" psycho and tries to completely falsify everything that is said in his documentary. He throws out facts such as "weather related deaths are down 95% since 1920." Beck only puts a plug in for his book briefly, before he goes to a "legitimate source" to disprove global warming, the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman. Coleman stars out with a quote outline his outright view on global warming: "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled, and highly offended by it. Global Warming IS A SCAM."

This attempted legitimization using "reputable" sources is very similar to every argument that advocates for global warming use. The two sides, although they may never admit it, argue their viewpoint in symmetrical ways:

1. The argument begins with the statement of a found fact. Something about temperature, ice melting/freezing, human health...whatever grabs the listeners attention.
2. The argument then proceeds to attempt to delegitimize the opposing argument. In my example, this is done by explaining that the "Gore psychos" fabricate the data and do not look at the facts. Furthermore, scientists are only looking for information that is in support for global warming. Due to the political nature of the issues, the scientists are afraid to speak out and present the "true facts."
3. Usually this will segue into an "expert testimonial" in favor of the supported side. This political maneuver appeals to the uneducated public that can be easily persuaded by “striking facts.” Because there facts come from an expert, they carry more weight, and when they are read on an “exclusive report,” the authority of the expert skyrockets. This social/ethopolitcal move allows each side to make there case.

Unfortunately, each side to the global warming argument conducts their reports in this way. The (seeming) unclarity of the issue at hand has left debate of each side to be misleading. Both sides only report the figures and data that benefit the argument they support. In addition, the data is often simplified and does not accurately represent all the figures that can be found.

Something I found very interesting in this article was John Coleman's statement that the scientists that say global warming is an issue "have an agenda." This relates to Crichten's quote where hes says that everyone has an agenda, except for him. It seems as if the antagonists to global warming propose that it is a fabrication of data in order to make money and earn grants.

No matter which side you look from, you will find data that can be disproved by the other side. Global warming is an issue that will be debated for many years to come, and I do not think that scientists can come out with data that fully prove that it is or is not happening.

Intentional or Accidental Fame?

I looked at the article Michael Crichton's Scariest Creation, which I found not to be either for or against global warming, but rather uncovering the shocking influence Crichton's novel had on government policy. Crichton's work was created because it was his passion. I feel that he wrote due to his interest in science fiction, rather than with the hopes of changing the world. From the article, Crichton gives off a very humble and nonchalant vibe. When asked about his meeting with president Bush his reply was along the lines of "When the president asks to meet with you, you go." I truly do believe that Crichton's passion for the text was not created to create controversy within our government. If anything he helped assist the public with the idea of having the other side to the story and enabling them to think, research, and create an opinion solely.

The Shock Effect

I looked at the site with the article “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion”. In this article a concerned scientist takes Crichton’s “facts” in State of Fear and elaborates on them more.

He tells the whole story behind the information presented in State of Fear. He does not deny the facts but demonstrates how Crichton did not provide all of the information that goes along with the statements and data he presents. The Author admits to some uncertainty about the exact outcomes of global warming (e.g. earth isn’t warming uniformly, sea levels difficult to measure, etc.) but stresses that these details do not deny the negative consequences of pollution/burning fossil fuels.

We tend to remember the shocking aspects of one’s argument. The author of this particular article takes Crichton’s shocking aspects and brings to light the other components that go along with the shock value. For example, it is true that some parts of the world are not heating up, but the whole earth will not warm/cool uniformly. There are two sides to each story. As we talked about in class, we tend to only see the more flashy sides of data and not the whole picture. This is how our ideas are formed regarding global warming, or any other controversial topic. The whole picture does not demand our attention like the shocking statistics/data do.

Follow the Leader

I decided to read the article on "Michael Crichton's Scariest Creation". It is very obvious from the very first sentence of this article that the author is a fan of Crichton's work and supports his ideas wholeheartedly. According to the author Crichton is "capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists". There are several things I find interesting about this phrase. First is the use of the word truth. Apparently Crichton did not interpret the information presented to him the same as many people previously had (at least the more outspoken of the bunch) and because of this he has "discovered the hidden truth". This implies that the previous truth is now obsolete, incorrect, and not to be used anymore, and, to use a Stephen Colbert-ism, less truthy. This relates to everything we have talked about in the class so far and our quest to decide what truth is and how it becomes truth. The second aspect of the previous phrase that interests me is that the author implies that scientists, people who have years of training in the subject they study, weren't unable to come to the interpretation that a man who spent a few years doing some amateur research in a subject that he cannot be considered an expert in (I believe anyway...). Instead of immediately taking this argument down the path of corruption and bias, the author simply seems to suggest a lack of knowledge or ability on the part of the scientist.
Later in the article the idea that scientists might have certain interpretations based on who provides their funding is brought into play, but I think the overwhelming logic being employed by the author to prove Crichton is correct is simply that President Bush liked it. The fact that he has "captivated Washington" with a novel that he declares as fiction shows how persuadable some people are. Those who wanted proof that global warming was not an issue now have documents and interpretations to use in their arguments. And poof! we have two sides to our story now.
While I do not doubt that Crichton did his homework while writing the novel, I do not think that this much emphasis can be placed on it during political debates. State of Fear is so appealing because it appears to be without bias. Crichton didn't get paid to say something specific, just to write the book. We would all like to think that he is correct because he is apparently outside of our very political scientific community, but the average Joe is once again jumping on the bandwagon 'because he says so, and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about'. People need to learn to form their own opinions on these things, not just follow the leader each time the popular opinion changes.

Ban the Water

While this article isn't necessarily about global warming or climate change, it is a good example of how people can be persuaded to believe anything, especially if it is presented in a way that is convincing enough. By using the big, scientific sounding name "dihydrogen monoxide", and listing of things that it is able to do (all of which are true), it causes a sense of fear and uneasiness. I feel that this is because it is so unknown, and many people are unsure of what to do with it. Creating fear and gaining support of banning this chemical is all in the presentation, which can be applied to pretty much anything in the world (global warming, mini donuts, magnets etc). When you point out all of the negative aspects of water and give it a big, scary name, it does seem like a terrible thing, even though life on earth can't survive without it.

Crichton isn't giving us the whole picture

The argument I examined is made by the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the links provided on the Moodle. While the majority of the members are scientists, I couldn't help but think of the idiot celebrities and lawyers in State of Fear when I saw the subheading that said the organization consisted of concerned citizens and scientists. Still, the number of scientists in this organization is greater than the 0 scientists that wrote State of Fear, which lends authority to their argument. The cases they make case-by-case refute different arguments made by Crichton, providing a counter-argument and evidence. In the majority of cases, it seems Crichton has cherry-picked his evidence, showing only data that supports his case. It should be pointed out that while most of the graphs in the book show trends that do not show global warming, most of them are in the chapter about lawyers preparing for a defense attorney refuting global warming. It only makes sense that a defense case would use this data (Lie), but it is dishonest for Crichton to pass this data off as the truth. A specific argument I looked at was their answer to Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? In this case the argument becomes less scientific and more of an emotional appeal. They use fear of a worse future, but not in a catastrophic way. They are honest in stating that this is a problem for future generations, and that we are obligated to preserve the Earth for them. This is the classic "Think of the children" argument. You wouldn't hurt children, would you?

Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science

On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.

In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.

Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.

"Science Catfight"

I watched this over my morning cereal yesterday morning and thought it was pretty funny, and related to global warming!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/269929/april-06-2010/science-catfight---joe-bastardi-vs--brenda-ekwurzel

Whatever... just pay me

This book seems to be this class in a nutshell. A vague attempt to understand what is being done scientificly and why. Who does it effect? who pays for it? who describes it to the world? Why is it important to us? how could it be better and better for whom? Who is hididng behind the science? SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!! We are running out of time and I think I'm finally starting to catch on- there are few answers to any of these questions. As I inevitably fall further and further behind in this class, I think I'm understanding a theme... the connection between it ALL, and the drive for MONEY that usually influences it ALL! Wish I had more. sorry group.

knowledge is power

For the most part, I'm enjoying reading State of Fear, even if the near death action adventure scenes are starting to get redundant. I liked Chrichton's messages at the end, especially the one on P. 718 (third one down), that talks about the respect he has for people who can change their views with more information/ better understanding of a topic, rather than stubbornly clinging to opinions for 30 years. I would agree that advances in technology, scientific breakthroughs, and time can give us a better understanding of certain things as well as change the ways we see and operate. An example of this is the events that led to banning lead in gasoline(the black box theory- we know something works but don't exactly know how and what the consequences might be).

In the same vein, a part of the book so far that I thought was interesting is the 'Sequoia' chapter (pp.500-509), in which the the actor Ted Bradley talks about global warming. This character is just reciting the lines that he has been given, and has not bothered to research or check out the facts himself. He trusts his source, and "NERF would not have told him to say anything that was untrue (p.519)". Chrichton does a good job of making this character seem ignorant and unaware, especially when you compare Ted with the brainy tough girl character of Jennifer.

Predicting the Future

I'm not very far into the book yet but from what I have read so far, I think it is interesting how he is using these little stories of people who don't seem to be connected to each other (as of yet for where I am in the book). Although the language is quite simple which makes it easy but not very challenging to read which I think is good and bad. The issues that are brought up I think are good because it seems to react to and bring up I think quite well the view of both sides of the global warming argument. There is one thing that I found quite interesting that I had never heard before which was said in the book and that was "Global warming is the theory-". I have never heard of global warming being described as a theory before. So far all in all I think that it is a good book and offers an interesting view on global warming. I was reading the authors notes in the back and came across a passage that I really did not agree with because I think it is kind of ridiculous. "Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better." I think that that is ridiculous. Nothing like that can be predicted accurately. Jeez, according to the weatherman this weekend was supposed to be rainy and in the 50s but it ended up being sunny and in the 60s. This is not stuff that you can predict accurately because you can't predict the future.

Everybody has an Agenda

“Everybody has an agenda. Except me.” These are Michael Crichton’s words found in the Author’s Message section of his book, State of Fear. I think this quote speaks to much of what we’ve been learning about thus far in Science in the Humanities. While this book is entirely fictional, it’s message is analogous to how our society operates. Everybody has an agenda. A fact’s funding, political association, religions connection etc…work independently or together to bring us understanding and internalization. When we use his words as an analytic optic, we may begin to read his book and see our world differently. As for my reading experience, I found myself giving particular weight to the science of Geology, as I am currently taking a geology course at our university. I began to approach geologic claims with blind confidence, and this form of reading brings with it potential danger. Of course Crichton’s work is a work of fiction; that said I believe it is important to pay attention to how we interpret, and what devices we use narrow and tighten that interpretation.

As far as seeing devices go, I believe examining things with the assumption that, “everybody has an agenda”, is itself, a seeing device; until we learn to see this way, we don’t. Take for example, the very beginning of the book, when introduces Charles Ling and Allan Peterson. Since I myself am currently taking an introduction to Geology course at our University, I found myself, when Crichton speaks of Geology, giving particular weight to the geologic picture he paints. When Crichton talks about the Cavitation generators, oceanic simulators etc, I took them to function exactly as he described. This may be due to my exposure to Geology, but it took away from my understanding that everybody has an agenda. It is easy to forget and, at times disregard. What we take as facts may be dangerous. And we must reminder ourselves that science and politics are married in a way that complicates our view of the world. This idea is rooted in Crichton’s book and he masterfully evolves this concept throughout his work.

Separating Fact and Really Convincing Fiction

I have to be perfectly honest. I have not begun reading the book yet. However, due to a lighter work load this week I had allotted the majority of my time tomorrow to hashing out the required sections. I'll try and make some insightful thoughts based on my knowledge of books of this nature.

While I have never read a book by Michael Critchon, I know that he has a way of writing similar to other popular authors of our time. Dan Brown, Clive Cussler, and the like. Any time I read a book by one of these authors I feel myself drawn into the story completely, to a point where the lines of fiction and reality begin to blur. This is almost an uncomfortable place to be. Every part of me wants to believe that this story is completely true, something you would read about in an autobiography or something. I remember desperately wanting to reject reality and take the story of Christianity presented in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code as the true way to interpret the religion I was raised in. Alas...

I think the reason that I find myself susceptible to believing everything I read is because of the way facts are presented in these stories. The authors have clearly done their research, and many of them have some first hand experience in whatever they tend to write about. My scientific mind can't find any flaws in the arguments used or the rhetoric thrown about, so why not believe it? Of course, the inability to find flaws is due to my lack of expertise in any of the subject matter I find in such a novel.

It will be interesting to see how I handle this book. If even the theatrical adaptation to Critchon's Jurrasic Park had me convinced this sort of science was definitely attainable, I can only imagine how convincing a brick of a novel like State of Fear will be. I'll definitely have to keep reminding myself "it's just a story" and hope to keep an open mind about all of it.

It's all in the wording

One thing I find interesting about reading a book like State of Fear is the whole concept of discussing something based and founded in real world issues under the guise of fiction. Granted, we know Chriton is doing extensive research and trying to hunt for the truth, but he's given himself a beautiful little gift in that this is a novel we are reading, not a research article. He may try to stay truthful, try to expose something that a pure scientific article never could, and he may be successful, but whether he is or not is less important than whether he can entertain an audience. He has the luxury of being able to say that anything which isn't accurate, any character's statements that are too extreme or too inflammatory are not intended to be fact, but was merely his effort to create interesting characters and a compelling plot. While people may be compelled to talk about the science behind the book, he always has the cushion of being able to say that it is a work of fiction.

Chriton acknowledges the important of wording on pg 55 when Drake is trying to coerce Einarsson into framing his opening paragraph in such a way that it would back up global warming. He has Drake screaming that by wording his findings a certain way, he would be completely twisting the truth. Yet the first words written by Chriton in the novel are “This is a work of fiction,” seemingly admitting that it is not about facts, but he follows it with the words “references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in the footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.” So here we are, preparing ourselves to read a novel that, as Chriton insists, is based on real data, when the much more important statement is the one saying we are reading a piece of fiction. Fiction is, of course, all about wording. The only thing that distinguishes an author from some dumbass writing a fantasy novel in his basement that only his mother will ever pretend to read is the way he puts together words. Chriton, arguably, is a genius at this.

We know when we approach it that it's a piece of fiction, but because of the way Chriton phrases things, we find ourselves taking him and his opinion on global warming seriously. He continually emphasizes that there is no single, right perspective on the future of global warming, that it is all merely a guess, and that he would never presume to be an authority on the issue. But the manner with which he treats the scientists that would be considered authorities makes us believe they are hardly trustworthy, saying on page 715 that reading environmental texts is “itself a hazardous undertaking.” Yet he is not a scientist, and he is not trying to convince anyone that his is the only opinion. He asserts over and over, both blatantly and through humor, that he is only one point of view, one guess. He writes on 721 that “Everybody has an agenda. Except me,” which we of course read automatically as sarcasm. We trust Chriton because he cleverly words his fairly single-minded point of view. He acknowledges the manipulation of wording, and so we feel as though he is not trying to manipulate us. But, of course, he is. That's the beauty of it.

Definition of Science

To lead off my post, I have to comment on a statement made in the back of the book under author notes. The statement appear on page 717, first full bullet-point: After explaining that we will shift away from fossil fuels in the next century Crichton states "so far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century." There are many things wrong with this statement, the the thing that I take issue with is Crichton's lack of acknowledgment that technological advancement leads to greater depletion of resources. Today's technology is drastically different then the definition 200 years ago. That being said, no body knows what future technological advancement will have in store for the world, but I can only assume that it will come directly or indirectly from fossil fuels in some way.

Another problem that I have is concerning the ideas of global warming. I am going to take a different approach than the approach that I think most are going to take. I am going to agree with Crichton (for the moment). Here is why:

Science is a process that seeks to understand the unknown. It accomplishes this by forming theories and developing hypotheses to test those theories. By definition, science can never prove something right, only prove a hypothesis wrong. Science can only provide support in support of a hypothesis. Science also works to disprove evidence that is supposedly supported. On pages 124-125, when Evans is talking about global warming being an established fact, he goes on to say, "Maybe there is something wrong with the data." According to the professors of my biology class, Evans is not conducting science. He is looking for information in search of an answer that we wants to find. A proper scientist would never search for data with a intention of finding something. Why would the experiment be conducted if a scientist was only going to skew the data to either be insignificant or a "major breakthough?"

In this sense, I do not think that Evans is properly looking at the paradigm of global warming in the correct way. A paradigm shift is supposed to evolve through the discovery or new facts or invention of new theory. Evans is looking at the global warming data (seeing device) in only one way. He should analyze it in another, different way, but even then he would be going against science to look for an answer he wants to find.

Another interesting concept in this book is the the use of seeing devices. Without the graphs, numbers, equations, and measurements about global warming, our observations are useless. Without these seeing devices, global warming would not even exist. I think that Crichton places a good amount of light on the dependency of humans and scientists on seeing devices, and how the discovery of new seeing devices leads to the discovery of new "facts."

With regard to the easy of read of this book, Crichton frequently uses foreshadowing to show whats next to come. For example the boyfriend/girlfriend quarrel that ultimately leads to the physicist's death in the beginning of the novel appears again on page 145 with the appearance of a very similar fight between two similar characters. The attractive women comes on to Evans, similar to the previous example, but Sarah "saves him." This leads me to thing that these two will appear again in a similar fashion later in the story.

It's getting colder here

In recent years there have been record setting snowfalls, as well as one of the coldest recorded winters in Minnesota. Observations like these are ones that conservatives have used to try to dispute the existence of global warming. Micheal Crichton presents a similar argument, albeit in a much more clever way. He talks about how the temperature in Antartica is decreasing (and therfor global warming must not exist). This statement, while seeming more scientific than the local weather, uses the same logic as conservative who cite the local weather. To get a more accurate view of the effects of global warming it is essential to look at the bigger picture (probably by using a graph or model that shows more long term effects in more areas).
One thing about the novel that stood out was how the characters are constructed. The "bad guys" are constructed to be shown to be short tempered and easily angered about small details. In contrast the "good guys" are rational reasonable people who are willing to patiently explain things to the ignorant lawyer (and us). By using this method it's hard to associate with the pro-global warming folks and go against the main protagonist of the story.
The last I'll mention is the back cover. I thought it was really interesting how the summary was split up by the recomondations. In each section a new part of the world is brought in, making it appear as if this book is concerned with every corner of the globe. By putting this idea before we even start reading, we get a preconcieved notion that the issues contained in the book are not bound to one region but rather the entire world.

The trouble with "Seeing Devices"

I think Crichton does a great job in showing how dependent we are on “seeing devices”. I remember seeing Al Gore’s large chart with the statistics going off into oblivion with how much temperature/CO2 levels have risen. That “seeing device” was a huge part of his argument, and I love how Crichton decides to use a “seeing device” on pages 106-112 in the same manner. He uses that same familiar chart, but switches it on us to make it mean something different.

We identify with the main character/narrator of this particular chapter, where the grad students in this lawsuit project are interviewing him. We have the opportunity to read what he thinks and his reactions to these “seeing devices” presented before him. Like the character, we start to believe in these charts that show us global warming needs to be questioned. Towards the end of the interview when asked if he was familiar with temperatures change and land use he says, “Frankly, you people are working at a level of detail that is beyond me. I just listen to what the scientists say—“. By saying this, we identify with him more. Most of us would agree that we take what scientists say at face value. In Appendix II we see the actual sources of data allowing us to further buy into this global warming questioning.

The use of this narration, where we are able to read the character questioning what he’s known all along, is a great way to engage us to question our beliefs along with him. Top it all off with the “seeing devices” provided in these pages, make this novel particularly engaging.

Where are these facts?

While I still have about 100 pages left of the assigned reading, one thing continues to trouble me. Knowing this is a pseudo-fiction/non-fiction book, the plot makes me want to ask every news anchor who has ever reported a global warming story if they even understand what they're reporting... who funded it, are the words actually from the stated researchers, has the data become so isolated, or Cartesian-ised, that it simply isn't functional anymore (in the context of the issue/the place), etc. etc.

Even as a fictitious book, it does a good job of making you question the bedrock of global warming arguments... as an example, how Drake is constantly reassuring everyone that "It is not speculative. It is happening." Pg. 198 without any proof of this, and actual proof to the contrary (within the lore of the book), creating a huge blackbox effect for the followers of the cause, who have nothing to go off of except reassurances.

The odd conspiracy excerpt from Pg. XIII, also helps create a huge theme right off the bat to lead the reader directly into Crichton's plans... I.E. to create a hook so the reader keeps on chugging, while giving a sort of quasi- CSI style investigation book, allowing himself to place clues to (his?) liking, so as to give this huge contradiction of Global Warming, and create yet another hook for the reader.

Scientists vs Common-folk

I think it's most important to note that I am reading this as a scientist first, and a science-fiction nerd second. Although Crichton frequently writes about science and does his research, he seems to view science differently than a scientist would. I disagree with him on page 716 when he says, "We can't 'assess ' the future, nor can we predict it... An informed guess is just a guess." He puts forward his extremely specific guess of a less than 1 degree increase in temperature for the future. I don't know where he got this number, but if any guess is just the same, let me put mine forward. I guess that the temperature will raise by 100 degrees Celsius because the Earth may be attacked by fire monsters. His guess is probably no more informed than mine (although it fits in the paradigm of the gradual change we've been seeing). By using information, we can graph trends and predict future numbers to a reasonable extent. This comes with a Cartesian understanding of graphs (and the world).
This misunderstanding of science by non-scientists manifests itself in some of Chrichton's characters. On page 102, the lawyers Balder and Evans have a conversation about the theory of global warming. They both take a stance, Evan's saying global warming is hardly a theory, and Balder saying it is just a theory. They're both wrong (by Crichton's intention? is this character design or author's opinion manifesting itself?). The truth is science does not lightly use this term. Some other theories include gravity, natural selection, Newton's laws of physics, Einstein's relativity, etc. A theory arises in science only after standing up to extensive testing and scrutiny. What is important is that the theory can be disproven, unlike Evan's stated. This could happen to global warming. There seems to be an issue of legitimation and qualification here. These two characters are lawyers, not scientists. I was reminded of Fausto-Sterling when these two were bickering, and her argument of authority in her book. She is a scientist and knows what she's talking about; these two are not and should shut the hell up. A bit blunt, but I would be at their mercy in understanding law. Why do they have the authority to assume they understand science?

Blog posting #7 (due Sunday 4/4, 11:59 P.M.): Who's afraid of STATE OF FEAR?

Michael Crichton's State of Fear is, in my opinion, the hardest book we're reading in this class. Nevermind that it's written at about a fourth-grade reading level and the plot and characters are cliché as hell. Crichton has produced an extremely tight, often inscrutably knotted hybrid of research, rhetoric, ideology, history, publics, blackboxes, seeing devices...and a whole lot more. Our task, over the next three weeks, is to untangle it and figure out how it works. Here, we make the first step.

Your assignment: react to the book -- or what you've read of it thus far.

(Try to get about 300-400 pages into it before responding, to get a decent grasp of the whole. It shouldn't take too long.)

Your reaction may take many forms, and go in many different directions, but it should include each of the following:

-- at least one passage from the front or back matter,
-- at least one passage from the text of the novel itself (see the work schedule for the passages we found most noteworthy),
-- at least one term/concept from science studies (hybrids, paradigms, seeing devices, issue selection, circulating reference, black boxes, etc.), and
-- at least one term/concept from literary studies (like, high school stuff: characters, tone, narrative/narrator, language, etc.).

Don't-bore-your-friends (or your instructors) directive: when you post, do look at what's been posted already and try to add to the discussion, bringing in new passages and concepts and ideas, rather than rehashing points that've already been made. There's no shortage of material here -- be bold!

Meatatarianism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6p98VtdQ1w