One of the standard motifs in much popular entertainment is the egotistical, supercilious “scientist” who represents the “establishment” and attempts — usually unsuccessfully — to foil the hero (or heroes) who usually are coming from the scientific fringe replete with anti-establishment far-out theories.
Think of the 1984 film Ghostbusters, in which the establishment Walter Peck is responsible for releasing the evil plague of ghouls upon New York City, leaving it up to our heroes to save the day. Think of the entire Star Wars series in which a plucky group of rebels wages war against an evil “establishment” Empire. Think of any number of other films, television shows, novels, etc., in which someone who has been espousing some theories that “establishment” science has rejected comes along and saves the day.
Is it any wonder then that when “establishment” science comes along and talks about climate change or the need for vaccination or the ridiculousness of astrology many people already have the mindset that whatever position taken by the “establishment” is in some part wrong.
And if it isn’t evil people, then the technology itself is portrayed as evil. Think of the Terminator film series. And this certainly isn’t a recent development. Think of the 19th century novel Frankenstein.
In addition to this factor, there is another motif that is also present in popular culture. This motif presents the idea that man’s hubris will inevitably lead to his destruction. Man thinks he can control things, but ultimately nature will destroy him. Think about the novel Moby-Dick. Think about the film The Day After Tomorrow.
These motifs are not brand new. But consider how long they have been eating away at any confidence that people may have about science and technology, and you will perceive the impact I believe they have had on many people.
The Victorian era was perhaps the last time that the majority of popular culture supported what might be termed a pro-establishment scientific view. And that view unfortunately was a contributing factor to many of the worse effects of the late 19th early 20th century end points of the Industrial Revolution. History gave support for adoption of a view contrary to the Victorians.
The anti-scientific view is exacerbated by the fact that technology sometimes does fail; but in today’s world, word of any technological failure is flashed around the world within seconds. Thus, while modern aircraft are safer and more reliable today, any aircraft failure makes news instantly, and the public perception of aircraft safety goes down a few points. People in general are not able to properly weigh probabilities.
Despite this anti-science bias in a large proportion of the population, science and technology does make inroads into “normal” households. The latest trend of which I’m aware is voice recognition technology, which is invading households and will probably be the norm within the next 20 years. People have no problems adapting technology if it provides them with a way to ease their life. Things like computers, cell phones, and digital television all were quickly adopted.
It will be a difficult time, as new technologies will have economic and societal impacts, just as the transition from a horse-based transportation system to automobiles.
And the transitions we are facing will be more difficult, since the trend seems to be humans relinquishing human control. When you will you get your first self-driving car? When will an artificial intelligence take over running your household?
The problems facing the world today are largely technological, and will ultimately require technological solutions. I only hope that given the electoral victory of an anti-technology leadership, the failure of anything other than science and technology to resolve the problems will come quickly enough to overwhelm anti-science viewpoints.
Technology and science are not in themselves evil. They’ve just been given a bad rap.
Thoughts from a Bearded Collie owner 