For my return, I'd like to address a topic that's been provoking some debate lately, and unfortunately it's got nothing to do with ancient primate fears or predatory worms. But I do believe it's interesting, and I hope it may provoke some discussion.
A few months ago, I watched James Cameron's Aliens of the Deep. Marine biology has been a lifelong hobby of mine, and it was exciting to watch a crew who are obviously enthusiastic about the topic throw vast sums of money at a largely unexplored region of our planet. So far, an excellent documentary, and one with some heart.
Then we witness James Cameron himself discussing the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and it all slides downhill. He all but discounts the scientific importance of discovering "boring" bacteria on another planet, he blazes through mounds of species to get to the most "interesting" ones, and he ends the film with a sequence imagining what it might be like to discover an underwater civilization on another world.
Now here come the cries of "pot calling the kettle black," and I'll tell you why I take exception to such a charge. I write fiction, and I love speculative biology. I never claim to be a scientist, or to be doing scientific work, though I do like to think I base much of my writing on scientific principles. I love science, and ardently support it. I also abhor shallow, childish science, which as good a descriptor as any for Aliens of the Deep.
Flash forward to last night, when I watched Cameron's newest documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus (this time he produced, but didn't direct). Once again, I discussed it with my girlfriend afterwards, and we were both fairly appalled by the lack of hard data presented. This morning, PZ Myers confirms my notions: the entire documentary consists of little more than smoke and mirrors.Nevertheless, Aliens of the Deep provoked a great deal of discussion, and no doubt The Lost Tomb of Jesus will do the same. Which brings me to my central question: are films like this bad for science, or good for it? Is it terrible that a filmmaker like James Cameron is able to entertain and excite an average audience, and hopefully induce them to buy books containing actual research?
Not everyone who watches movies like these will dig into archaeological texts. But some people will, and many others may be moved to begin picking up popular texts on these topics. The categories of "informative" and "entertaining" should by no means be mutually exclusive, but if Cameron can achieve one and a smidgen the other, and distribute it in HD video to millions of people, ought we complain?
I must admit that I'm not entirely settled on this issue, though I do tend to lean in the direction of permissiveness, for the reason that many of my generation became interested in biology through movies like Jurassic Park and even Cameron's own The Abyss. Even Warlords of Atlantis, for all its outrageous silliness, often maintains a staunch Victorian ideal that science will conquer all.
Please, weigh in, and offer your thoughts. I look forward to hearing what arguments might be offered for either position.
