Friday, May 13, 2011

Science Fiction: What's Not to Love?

December, 2010
Philosophy of Biology Final- Dr. Weimen Sun
California State Northridge

Science fiction, also known as "sci-fi", is a tricky category of storytelling. Its goals are to tell an entertaining and compelling story, yet by its namesake claims obligation to the rigorous standards of science. So it is unsurprising that the genre has difficulty satisfying members of both the story-driven fiction realm and the fact-driven field of science. Hard-edged scientists and layman audiences alike scoff at the questionable techniques used in sci-fi plots. The morally concerned frequently criticize the genre for its gloom & doom interpretations of the future. But for sci-fi to accomplish its unique potential to accurately reflect both the cultural and scientific developments of an era, many considerations should be made before criticizing it for its bleakness or flawed sciences. I believe it is the function of modern sci-fi to mirror society's concerns regarding science through an accurately scientific-minded analysis of those concerns.

In order to fully defend science-fiction against its accusers, I will first detail the history of sci-fi cinema in respect to the technological/scientific developments of the time. Having armed the reader with a proper framework, I will attempt to persuade the reader that at its most affecting, sci-fi is able to competently portray an accurate representation of scientific methods and concerns while telling the story necessary to critically analyze all angles of the plot- an objective inherent in the field of science.

As technological society evolved with the scientific community, science-fiction grew proportionately more sophisticated. But in the early years of America in the 20th century, very little was understood by widespread society regarding science and its methods. The emphasis on religion and spirituality during the Great Depression was a hindrance to society’s understanding of or use for general scientific knowledge. Sci-fi during the 1930s was pure escapism. Films like 'Flash Gordon' and 'Buck Rogers' were incidentally set in space as a vehicle for their fantastic adventures. Little attention was paid to realism, placing sci-fi of 1930’s squarely in the fantasy camp. The purpose of films during this time was clearly not to explore the tenants of science, but to allow impoverished audiences an opportunity to escape for a few hours.

When the country emerged from World War II in the 1940's fresh from the discovery of nuclear fission, society's opinion of science turned toward potential and progress. American culture became preoccupied with the possibility of space travel. Although the creation and consequences of the atomic bomb spawned dramatic political implications and a bolster in paranoia, it nonetheless began a long-lasting and tumultuous relationship between science and society. What was once merely an ideology that conflicted with religion was fast becoming an integrated part of everyday life.

Alongside the prevalence of scientific invention, another cultural phenomenon was booming- American science-fiction cinema. As society became more concerned with technology and its consequences, exploration of these worries emerged through the growth of the science-fiction genre. Since the 1940’s, science fiction cinema has become increasingly more sophisticated in both subject matter and depictions of scientific rationality. In the 1950's, science-fiction cinema reached what was to be its “Golden Age”. A proliferation of classics emerged like 'The Blob'(1958),'This Island Earth' (1955), 'Forbidden Planet' (1956), 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' (1951), and 'War of the Worlds' (1953). The Golden Age referred strictly to the frequency and popularity of sci-fi, not to the realistic or accurate depictions of scientific rationality. Although there were some instances of expression of scientific curiosity and the methods of research, these films acted more as symbolic analogies for the increasing fear of Russian invasion and mass destruction in the era of the Cold War and atomic bombs. Nonetheless, the transition from the escapist fantasy of the 1930s to emphasis on scientific exploration and methodology illustrates the beginning of a shift in society’s growing understanding of science in everyday life.

The 1960s saw an acceleration of America's tension-filled competition with fellow nuclear power Russia, as exemplified in the Space Race. Issues like Kennedy's assassination and Vietnam contributed to a sobering new social climate concerned with truth and realism. Sci-fi began portraying a specific interest in conveying realistic science in a fictional context with the 'hard sci-fi' movement, "a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both." (Wolfe, "Critical Terms for Science Fiction") Along with writers like Isaac Asimov, Philip K. Dick, and H.G. Wells, these writers comprised "hard" sci-fi author Arthur C. Clark's '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) was considered a pioneer in realism for science fiction. It explained to audiences the need for deep sleep during long journeys through space, the vast silence and black isolation of the universe. Scientific rationality as a tenant in sci-fi was beginning to emerge.

The 1970’s were a decade of disillusionment as the American people came to realize the detrimental consequences of fossil fuels and material abundance. Society as well as science fiction became highly speculative of man’s fate. One perspective was the newfound spiritualism of the 1970’s reflected in the Buddhist-like teachings of the Jedi Faith in the wildly popular 'Star Wars: A New Hope' (1977). On the other side was the cynical doubt cast on what had previously been fascination with science. 'Alien' (1979) made space less inviting and adventurous while in other fictions, men failed to make it into space at all. National science proclaimed gruesome population control methods in post-apocalyptic films like 'Soylent Green' (1973), as well as other bleak visions like 'Mad Max' (1979), A 'Boy and His Dog' (1975), and 'Omega Man' (1971).

The 1980’s represented a decade of cold rationality, abandoning any semblance of the spiritualist craze of the 70s. Computers were fast becoming a part of everyday life, and science-fiction films like Blade Runner were asking hard questions about artificial intelligence and identity in a vividly imagined and fully realized world. Audience’s scientific understanding was sophisticated enough to immediately grasp genetic theory when 'The Fly ' (1986) talked of DNA splicing. TRON (1982) paved the way for virtual interaction and digitization. Terminology that did not even exist when science fiction came about was now commonplace in a society of widespread science fiction. Sci-fi in the 1980’s required complex realistic worlds in which now scientifically savvy audiences could rationalize the realism of the environments.

Films during the infancy of widespread culture's scientific awareness required only based concepts upon which to prop their theories. But the 1990's and 2000's were able to approach audiences with the assumption that they had a basic grasp of science, its methods, and its quandaries. Portrayals of the digital eruption and genetic experimentation were everywhere. Just a few examples are 'Jurassic Park' (1993), 'Gattaca' (1997), 'The Matrix' (1999), and 'Strange Days' (1995). Rationality and the weight of morality and value questions, like the issue of "could we?" vs. "should we?" were becoming the key theme of these decades.

At its core, science is the practice of rationalizing choices, observations, perspectives, and contexts. When criticizing sci-fi for accurate portrayals of science, it is important to also consider the critical methods used to arrive at a theory, which are as essential to scientific progress as the theory itself. When we begin to look at the questions serious philosophers of science asked, we see their concerns and proposals accurately mirrored repeatedly in science fiction cinema. It is not enough to simply acknowledge the portrayal of accurate technologies and sciences. I believe where sci-fi succeeds in accurately depicting science is in its ability to weigh in on the core issues that precede technology, like the critical nature of observation and rationality.

The beginning of any scientific research much begin with accurate observation. An endless amount of science-fiction depicts the brain-tickling question, "How do we know that what we are looking at is actually what we are seeing?"("Observation", Klemke, pg. 339 ) As phrased by scientific philosopher N.R. Hanson, who went on to say, "Perhaps there is a sense in which two such observers do not see the same thing, do not begin from the same data, though their eyesight is normal and they are visually aware of the same object." (Klemke, pg. 339) Within science-fiction, there is an entire sub-genre known as "cyberpunk" which addresses these issues of observational reality. One such film, 'The Matrix' (1999), revolves around that very idea. The main character realizes that his entire life was spent deceiving his instinct that beneath the world he observed lay another truth, and being open to that brought him closer to it. As he immerses himself deeper into the world that lay behind his observations, he comes to learn that reality as he knows it can be altered based on his willful perception. "Seeing is not only the having of a visual experience; it is also the way in which the visual experience is had." (Klemke, pg. 345)

In the science-fiction genre of film, the exploration of a question proposed by prominent scientific philosopher Carl Hempel in his paper “Scientific Rationality: Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives” is frequently conveyed: “In what sense, on what grounds, and to what extend can scientific inquiry be qualified as a rational enterprise?” (Klemke, pg. 451) Take 'Alien' (1979), for example. A vicious, ruthless alien systematically kills the members of a space crew. But the android present onboard has been programmed to preserve alien lifeforms at the expense of the “expendable” crew. His orders were based on the emotionless acquisition of infinitely important information. This "analytically empirical" view found “the psychological, sociological, and historical facets of science as a human enterprise…irrelevant.” (Klemke, pg. 452) By portraying the android as evil and murderous, the filmmakers took the humanist stance of "historic- sociological" theory that “insist adequate methodology must be based on a close study of the practice of scientific inquiry.” (Klemke, pg. 452) What is the balance of cost between the lives of a few space-truckers and the first ever evidence ever of alien life? Hempel might describe the android’s justification as the “theory choice [of] activities aimed at certain scientific goals, and carried out in accordance with specified rules which can be justified by showing that these modes of procedure they prescribe are rational means of pursuing the given goals." (Klemke, pg. 455)

Day of the Dead (1985) is another wonderful example of the ways that sci-fi accurately depicts the value concerns of scientific practices. Two scientists of different objectively rationalized values are pitted against each other in a small group of survivors in an underground military base. One scientist wants to pursue a “cure” for the plague of living dead, a reversal of effects. The other scientist believes it is more rational to emphasize the neuro-physical behavioral influences possible, "training" the undead to resist eating human flesh. Both have a valid set of subjective values.

These examples illustrate Hempel's tenant of scientific philosophy: Which theory qualifies as rational? Although Hempel has determined two approaches by which to analyze scientific theory for rationality, they do not answer exactly how to balance all the human factors of rationalization. Hempel calls this the Janus-head methodology, the “fus[ing] of explanation with justification.” (Klemke, pg. 451)

Having explained the ways that science fiction has explored genuine concerns in the scientific field, I would now like to address what I believe is an even more detrimental attack on science fiction. The genre is frequently accused of depicting the worst case scenario of scientific consequence. Even sci-fi author Norman Spinrad was quoted to say "One of the social functions of science fiction is to be visionary, and when science fiction isn't being visionary, it hurts the culture's visionary sense. And when the culture isn't receptive, neither is science fiction. It's a downward spiral.'' ("Why Most Science Fiction Sucks", 2006) Beyond a concern for accuracy is the vilification of science and the people who pursue it. The bleak futures depicted in films like Terminator and Gattaca create the argument that the modern fiction of science only contributes to the uneasy mistrust felt by general society. Amidst the naysayer's accusations that science both plays god and promotes godlessness, science-fiction does little to encourage an optimistic perception.

However, I believe it would be irresponsible of filmmakers of the genre and misrepresentative of the critical methods science itself employs if the stories neglected the conflicts that science inherently implies. Sci-fi does not, as some critics suggest, create the negative perception of science. I believe sci-fi is merely the stage upon which the value system of the prevalent and influential field can be critically analyzed as any genuine scientist would want it to be. As Hempel himself says, "Clearly the advances of scientific technology on which we pride ourselves, and which have left their characteristic imprint on every aspect of this 'age of science', have brought in their train many new and grave problems which urgently demand a solution…A moments reflection shows that the problems that need to be dealt with are not straightforward technological questions but intricate complexes of technological and moral issues." ("Science and Human Values," Klemke, pg. 500)

Following scientific philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s evolution of the norms and values that define an era, its paradigm, it is understood that they "provide [clear] examples of effective guidance in the presence of conflict…” ("Objectivity, Value, and Theory Choice", Klemke, Pg. 443) It is remarkable that historians have a clear record of values during the paradigm shifts in the 20th and 21st centuries of values and morality in science. The space age of the 1950’s-1960’s represented an entirely different set of values from the information age that began in the 1970s and exploded in the early 1990s. The space age was optimistic, forward thinking, and imaginative. The values of society of the time were celebratory in the post-depression, post WWII period. The possibility of finally penetrating deep space and all the implications that heralded a paradigm of wonder were combined with the fearful fascination with nuclear weapons. The space age’s values of imagination, wonder, and fear were clearly branded in science fiction. Classics like the television series 'Twilight Zone' (1959-1964) and the film 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' (1951) still function as accurate depictions of society’s values and cultural objectivity of science at that time.

The shift of society's objectivity and values from the 'space' to 'information' age is also traceable through science-fiction cinema. Once the country began to see the repercussions of human activity and waste from the over-abundant celebration of the Space Age, moralistic implications of the consequences of scientific choice were brought to a forefront. Jurassic Park (1993) said it succinctly when Dr. Malcolm, in his challenge to the creator of an an-eating dinosaur park, emphatically states “You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could that you didn’t stop to think if you should.” It became the responsibility of sci-fi to accurately represent these concerns and consequences. Had the genre been filled with utopian fantasies, they would have appeared as just that- propaganda filled fantasies. Given the scenario presented in films like 'Day of the Dead', 'Alien', and 'Jurassic Park' during this paradigm, I think it is safe to say that sci-fi films “assert the existence of significant limits to what the proponents of different theories can communicate to one another.” (Klemke, pg. 449) If science fiction uses philosophically scientific principles to accurately explore the future of science, it would be counter-inuitive to neglect all the possible outcomes at the expense of reassurance.

Because the nature of science is self-critical and intrinsically interested in approaching conflicts and hypothetical variables, even fictional ones, from every angle, the modern depictions of rational science in fiction should naturally be treated likewise. It is not the fiction which asked if science "[Can] serve to establish objective criteria of right and wrong and thus to provide valid moral norms for the proper conduct of our individual and social affairs?" (Klemke, pg. 500) It is the decisions of our warfare and our consumption which spawned these concerns. Hempel describes the relationship between science and society best: "Without entering into details, we may say here that a person's values- both those he professes to espouse and those he actually conforms to- are largely absorbed from the society in which he lives, and especially from certain influential subgroups to which he belongs." (Klemke, pg. 505)

The use of fiction to express scientific quandaries was in place long before science-fiction cinema. French astronomer Pierre Laplace used the analogy of a demon to characterize the idea of a universal casual determination. He used this fiction to illustrate an existing quandary, but is never accused of creating it. Modern sci-fi is merely fulfilling its obligation "to evaluate the various probable sets of consequences of the alternative choices under consideration."(Klemke, pg. 507) It is not sci-fi that created militarized weapons of mass destruction, it is not sci-fi that melts the ice caps or encourages mass deforestation, distributes mood elevators. Although many real sciences bring us advances in lifespan, health, communication, travel, and bionics, science-fiction would be neglectful of its responsibilities to avoid exploring the consequences of these conveniences. Again, Hempel's analysis of scientific morality and value judgment outlines the key social elements that science -fiction is capable of addressing in rhetorical, fictional experimentation:

"It is scientific knowledge and investigation that must provide the factual information which is needed for the application of our moral standards. More specifically, factual information is needed, for example, to ascertain a) whether a contemplated objective can be attained in a given situation; b) if it can be attained, by what alternative means and with what probabilities; c) what side effects and ulterior consequences the choice of a given means may have apart form probably yielding the desired end; d) whether several proposed ends are jointly realizable, or whether they are incompatible in the sense that the realization of some of the will definitely or probably prevent the realization of others." (Klemke, pg. 511)

I believe science-fiction will continue to merge with society's evaluation of scientific enterprise. As society and culture incorporate new aspects of technology and advancement, current concepts of science-fiction will become more marginalized. We are even beginning to see an emergence of the 1960's "hard" sci-fi movement, being re-imagined as "mundane" science-fiction, pioneered by author Geoff Ryman. The requirements are similar to those of the "hard" science-fiction genre, in that it must adhere to theoretically accurate science, but also demands the even stricter requirement that none of the sciences can extend beyond what is currently utilized. No manned deep-space exploration, no intelligent life elsewhere, and a consciousness towards excessive waste.

Ryman himself beliefs that this form of sci-fi can be used to encourage betterment of our current environmental and moral conundrums by spotlighting our infinite potential to improve at any given moment. For those who would wish to see science-fiction display fantastical, utopian futures, Ryman asks, why must it be in the future? "Oz is, after all, only a place with flowers and birds and rivers and hills. Everything is alive there, as it is here if we care to see it. Tomorrow, we could all decide to live in a place not much different from Oz. We don't. We continue to make the world an ugly, even murderous place, for reasons we do not understand. Those reasons lie in both fantasy and history. Where we are gripped by history--our own personal history, our country's history. Where we are deluded by fantasy--our own fantasy, our country's fantasy. It is necessary to distinguish between history and fantasy whenever possible. And then use them against each other." ('Was', pg. 369)


Works Cited:
1. Wolfe, Gary K. (1986). "Hard Science Fiction". Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy: A Glossary and Guide to Scholarship.
2. Hanson, N. R. "Observation." Philosophy of Science. Comp. E.D. Klemke. 3rd ed. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 339-45. Print.
3. The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss. Village Roadshow Pictures, 1999. DVD.
4. Hempel, Carl. "Scientific Rationality: Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives." Philosophy of Science. Comp. E.D. Klemke. 3rd ed. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 451-455. Print.
5. Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver and Tom Skerrit. Twentieth Century Fox, 1979. DVD.
6. Day of the Dead. Dir. George A. Romero. Perf. Lori Cardille and Terry Alexander. Dead Films, Inc., 1985. DVD.
7. Bennu. "Future Hi: Norman Spinrad: Why Most Science Fiction Sucks." Norman Spinrad: Why Most Science Fiction Sucks. 15 July 2006. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. .
8. Hempel, Carl. "Science and Human Values." Philosophy of Science. Comp. E.D. Klemke. 3rd ed. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 500-514. Print.
9. Jurassic Park. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Sam Neil and Laura Dern. Universal, 1993. DVD.
10. Kuhn, Thomas. "Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice." Philosophy of Science. Comp. E.D. Klemke. 3rd ed. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998. 435-450. Print.
11. Ryman, Geoff. Was: a Novel. New York: Knopf, 1992. 369. Print.

No comments:

Post a Comment