Pentagon Wants Screenplays From Scientists 757
Aix writes "According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is funding classes in screenplay writing for 15 scientists. The idea is to encourage kids to go into science and engineering through mainstream media and thereby presumably bolster long-term US national security. While it sounds like a lot of fun for the researchers involved, and anything that stems the spiral of the US into a culture of anti-intellectualism is a good thing in my book. Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
If Movie Science Got Any Sexier... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anybody really think there is any shortage of glamorous mathematicians or two-fisted archaeologists in Hollywood? Not to mention they are frequently written as the Voice of Reason, Saving the Day, Etc. The era of scientists being depicted as whining and dreary eggheads who cowardly scamper about in the shadow of the macho leading man left vogue with Doctor Zarkov.
Oh, and not for nothing, you can teach science, but you cannot teach creativity. The government would be better served rounding up a couple dozen young but semi-established script-writers and giving them a crash course in astronomy. Of course, commissioning some Haiku from a bunch of Quantum Physicists would be pretty cool, in a Mondo 2000 kind of way...
Re:glamorous (Score:1, Interesting)
No.
Kids will see right through it, and disdain it as they do educational movies. The instant that kids realize that they are being fed propaganda, they will reject it (and kids do realize these things).
Re:glamorous (Score:3, Interesting)
drama in science (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't Stargate SG-1 be a good example? (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, I don't know that this kind of stuff really brings kids into science, no matter how much real theory they use. And frankly, when it comes to higher degrees, where the money is can be a big driver. During the
I was a chemistry major my freshman year. Certainly not because of the money. The reason I left it was I had this sudden vision of what life would be like as a chemist and I thought, "Oh God, how boring." And that was the end of it for me.
My girlfriend in college went into comp. sci. because of the money. When she graduated and got her first job doing it, the first thing she said was, "God, this is so boring." I said, "Well, didn't you like it in school?" She said, "No." I said, "Well what made you think doing it for a living was going to be any more fun?"
Needless to say, her career as a programmer was short-lived.
So I guess my point is, money will attract people, but it's the interest that keeps them. I think glamorizing it might bring some kids to find interest in it, but the fact is, most science jobs aren't all that glamourous and getting hit by the reality of that may make careers short-lived.
Re:glamorous (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:glamorous (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. And shows like Futurama are awesome for this purpose as well, considering the brain mass they [slashdot.org] had [slashdot.org].
I personally can't see anything but benefits from taking mainstream media and making it mathematically and scientifically sound. You don't lose any wow factor, but you also don't present preposterous information. Real science can be spectacularly amazing, especially some of the newer physics theories dealing with dimensions (string theory, etc.) and space-time as the fourth dimension.
I love science.
Re:glamorous (Score:1, Interesting)
Even if students go into these fields as a major, sometimes they will at least take an intro class just to get the exposure -- something they may not have done otherwise.
Now, whether the scientists can churn out something that will arrest the public attention that the Jones movies did is doubtful... but perhaps an idea can be generated that can be turned into a solid movie (and the scientist can get a technical advisor credit). At least it might be a bit more original than a 60s TV retread -- hey wait a minute -- "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "Time Tunnel"...
Re:If Movie Science Got Any Sexier... (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed- but science is all about cretivity as well. You can teach anyone FACTS of science, but I don't think you can teach them to BE a scientist... in the same way I can hand any person a script and tell them to memorize it, they could read back what I gave them, but they might not bring out the life of the script the way an actor would.
While the country was in love with space movies and sci-fi in the 60's and 70's, public intrest in Appollo dwindled a bit. It was not as exciting as the movies made it out to be. Perhaps a film can be made that will make science seem "exciting" and be a box-office hit, but the principles behind what makes a good movie and what makes good science could not be further apart. This idea has it's heart in the right place, but it's not going anywhere.
Take a look at CSI (Score:1, Interesting)
And how many times have you met a woman at school who tells you she wants to study forensics? It seems like that's the only thing they study nowadays!
Re:glamorous (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who seems to be interested in science in this country was and still is a "nerd" and thus unpopular and a social outcast. Everyone wants to be friends with the athletic football jocks, the nerds and geeks are the ones who get picked on.
The only way kids are encouraged to be succesful (read=make tons of $$$) by the society (media, family, friends) is to go to college, join a fraternity, party 4 years while taking some business classes then join daddy's or uncle's company with a $80,000 starting salary. Well, that seems to be working so far but for how long?
So yeah, glamorizing science is a good step in the right direction, but I wonder if it too late.
Re:Clue stick. Re:Well, an anti-intellectual is... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is verbatim. The elipsis represents a pause where the reporter asked a clarifying question (Both sides ought to be properly taught?).
If you don't understand that Bush is implicitly arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught side by side with the Theory of Evolution, you are either ignorant or stupid. As I suspect you are neither of those, I suspect that you are intentionally spinning and trying to minimize Bush's comments, which is just as bad, if not worse. You know full well what he meant and means.
The chief fallacy that Bush is putting forth is that there really is any scientific debate, that ID and the Theory of Evolution have some sort of equal footing as competing ideas. This is patent nonsense. We might as well say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the 2nd Commandment of the Old Testament are competing ideas, and there should be some sort of debate. One Law is in the realm of science and empirical reality and the other is in the realm of religion/philosophy and spiritual reality.
And here is the crux of the matter. Bush and the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design wish to ignore empirical evidence when it clashes with their dearly held beliefs. Not just to ignore it, but to destroy it, to make it go conveniently away. This is called intellectual dishonesty (or just plain dishonesty, why mince words?), and you are guilty of the same sin when you claim that Bush is not endorsing the teaching of ID as science.
Re:glamorous (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if your personal hygiene and social skills are only good when compared to RMS, you're still screwed, but for those of us who actually are capable of interacting with women and aren't afraid to put on a tie, the prevalence of technology in particular (and, secondarily, the prevalence of science in general) on TV and in other aspects of our popular culture has already done a -lot- to improve the image of geeks in the minds of the women in society today.
Or maybe I'm just really, really blessed....
Re:I wonder.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If they make the films more *interesting* in the way you are thinking then a lot of people wont like to see it because it will be *boring* for them... it is like the movie "Memento" or "Pi", of course they are both great movies but not for the . I remember a friend telling me that he found boring Memento, because he didnt understand it, so I hope these movies are really easy to digest.
Re:Well, an anti-intellectual is heading us up tho (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see your point that without a God, then what is the point in life? Why even bother living? I cannot give a satisfactory answer to that. But I think for most atheists the goal of improving humanity, and make humanity more powerful (control of environment, conquest of skies and space, etc) is a sufficient goal by itself.
Occam's razor is one possible 'answer' to Solipsism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism [wikipedia.org] ).
Re:not even close (Score:3, Interesting)
But you are right, engineers, mathematicians and scientists could use more positive images (I like Numb3rs on that account). The U.S. culture seems to undervalue them.
Re:Uh oh, I'm in academia, and getting mixed messa (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they should start by using the money they have better. [bizjournals.com]
Re:glamorous (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not to say I'm not happy the rest of the world is investing in science. The more the better in my book.
Re:Isaac Asimov (Score:4, Interesting)
First Published In: Astounding Science Fiction, March 1948, pp. 120-125 a very good read and it accurately teaches a lot about the scientific process. The thing I found most amusing about it is it chronological context, it was published the week before Asimov gave his oral defense of his PhD thesis and he was terrified that one of the examiners would take a dim view of a "real" scientist writing SciFi. What happened was after they were done grilling him on his thesis work, they made him defend his fiction, so he not only got his PhD, but became confident that writing fiction didn't taint his as a scientist.
the cool kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Living well is the best motivation for our nation's youth. My son has an excellent grasp of technology. He also has an excellent legal mind. Though he could easily become a geek like his dad, I'm encouraging him to go into law.
If our government wants to encourage science and technology, it will have to make science & engineering a better career choice. I've made a lot of money as an engineer, but I would have made a lot more as a lawyer. I have friends who are geeks and a few years older than me who'll probably never work as engineers again: Age discrimination. I took the LSAT myself after I noticed that I see a lot more old lawyers than I see old engineers.
Re:Anti-intellectualism? (Score:1, Interesting)