Re: Alien Faces
- From: Burkhard <b.schafer@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:37:33 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 21, 6:31 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 01:30, Jack Crenshaw <jcr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just watched a bit of this TV show on the History Channel. Am I the
only one that thought it a total crock?
So far, I've not been able to get past the first planet, Aronelle <sp?>,
which is postulated to be tidally locked to its red dwarf sun. Then they
postulate a whole ecology of species that thrive in the "twilight sone"
of that planet, where liquid water exists.
For starters, I doubt seriously that life can _EVER_ exist on such a
planet. Sure, maybe the temperature in the twilight zone is compatible
with liquid water, but can there possibly be water there? Wouldn't the
water all end up as ice on the dark side?
Then there are those creatures, one of which is an insect that goes
through metamorphosis from a swimming larva to a hydrogen-balloon
passenger to a burrowing insect (to someone else's food).
I mean, what's the point? These seemingly serious scientists spend
their valuable time making up species out of whole cloth, then
presenting them as though they were fact.
Ok, I know that many good SciFi writers have had good success
postulating strange environments and their denizens. I absolutely
_LOVED_ Hal Clement's classic "Mission of Gravity." Isaac Asimov also
quickly comes to mind.
The differences are: (1) Clement and Asimov didn't just invent the
settings then walk away. They went on to tell stories. And (2) They
were a lot better at it than these guys.
Anyone else have the same reaction?
Jack
I have just started watching a copy of the said documentary, and in
the introduction the words "imagination" and "fantasy safari" were
included.
So I don't reckon they are parading this stuff as factual, the whole
thing is purely hypothetical.
I share Jack's concerns. There is an increasing tendency to
"infotainment" where the boundaries between speculation and solid
science get intentionally confused OK, some "hedges" in the form of
the usual disclaimers are build in, but they know full well that the
audience forgets them once the "story" starts.
Fine, this all can have a role in getting people interested, but the
danger is that a profoundly wrong picture of science is created (and
disappointment follows inevitably when people realise that science
really is hard slog) Eventually, people feel deceived, assume proper
science too involves deception, and the result is the fashionable
skepticism or postmodern "anything goes" that you find so often on
this board.
Now stopping as realising I might start my usual CSI rant at this
point...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alien Faces
- From: Jack Crenshaw
- Re: Alien Faces
- References:
- Alien Faces
- From: Jack Crenshaw
- Re: Alien Faces
- From: Devils Advocaat
- Alien Faces
- Prev by Date: Re: Supresession of the evidence
- Next by Date: Re: The first Darwin evolutionist was a Christian (his name was
- Previous by thread: Re: Alien Faces
- Next by thread: Re: Alien Faces
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|