Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Wants Screenplays From Scientists
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?"
"Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?"
In a word, YES.
we should all know by now that kids will immitate anything the movies (or tv) show them. just look at how many injuries were blamed on Beavis & Butthead!
I would love to see more science and engineering being taught and endorsed by the federal government, but it does not help that our POTUS is endorsing the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as a science rather than the religiously biased belief system that it is. I don't have a problem with ID being taught as long as it can be taught along with other philosophy and religious curricula.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
...will they produce something more interesting than what Hollywood makes? ..wouldn't be hard, really..
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
The astro-physicists would all be wearing low-cut gowns.
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...
Because I saw this glamorous,compelling drama, and I wanted to be just like the protagonist. ^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
... we need MacGyver!
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.
Pot. Kettle. Fragment.
I don't think it is an A leads to B thing- Movies won't make kids automatically interested in science, however I think a lot of people were inspired by the cold war to get into science, and movies that made the Russians look bad got American kids into science, and vice versa.
Whatever your opinion of the administration- Imagine if W had a conference, said that we are going to get rid of our need for foreign oil w/in 10 years, and got scientists etc. going with the support they deserve and need- it could be like JFK's moon challenge.
It isn't just movies that influence people- we need a whole atmosphere of education in the US.
Of course, another way to do this would to bring kids to 15 year reunions, when the football team captains have gotten fat and work at car washes, and the high school nerds are making great money in great jobs.... Education is cool man.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
After watching the LOTR trilogy I have now been trying to make my very own One Ring! I also have been trying to learn how to cast Magic Missile and Root spells as well, but they are on the backburner until I can make my magic invisibility ring using a bunsen burner, a gold-plated $5 ring and some Methanol.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
This seems like an awkward time for them to do this, considering as how they just slashed funding for hard research (DARPA) and schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding.
They could do worse than begin by visitng this site: http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ which examines physics in Hollywood movies. The reviews alone are priceless.
Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
I challenge anyone who thinks movies today aren't scientific to watch the original Jurassic Park.
"Hey this is Unix. I know Unix"
With scientific banter like that, what purpose does the government have in getting involved?!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Actually what I would like to see dramatized in a movie related to science is probably not what they are thinking of. One thing that will probably end up in there is the mystery, the process of discovery, etc..and all that can be compelling. But I think perhaps what is more important in the life of a scientist nowadays is the stuggle between the values of pure discovery and curiosity with the practical pressures of career, money, etc. That's the value axis I would like to see in a movie. The pressures of publication and of obtaining money for grants often press on one's sense of ethics, and most scientists are faced at some point with making the choice of personal sacrifice for the sake of science on one hand, or personal gain on the other. My scientist protagonist would struggle with that choice...
Stargate SG1, while being sci-fi, does try to adhere to real science and real scientific theory in many ways. Granted, some aspects can't simply to maintain the story. But a lot of the stuff they discuss and use is based in real theory. If more sci-fi shows would at least try to do that, I think it would be helpful.
.com boom, tons of kids where going into computer science programs and there was a sudden overflow of programmers, right around the time it went bust.
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.
if you see what's on tv, you'll find so many shows dedicated to doctors (ER, grey's acadamy, chicago hope) lawyers (law and order: special victims unit, criminal intent, trial by jury) and cops (CSI miami, ny).
you never hear anyone even mention engineers in movies or tv series. it's got to do with the social culture of the states. 100% of the political leaders in China have an engineering or science degree. In the states? none! (source: IEEE spectrum magazine June 2005).
my blog
Suddenly something in one of the tubes starts fizzling. Suddenly the President comes into view and hands Billy a big bag of money and says, "By God Billy, you've found a cure for cancer!" Everyone starts cheering.
All the kids playing with non-science related toys get fat, ugly, and contract AIDs on the spot. They all fall over dead and no one seems to care about them. Billy is given a parade in his honor.
Roll credits.
A little extreme perhaps but I think if we made science look "cool" to little kids they'd probably buy it. If I would've seen this when I were little I'd probably have become a chemist.
... and anyone who thinks SAT scores are indicators of intelligence clearly knows NOTHING about the test. Even minimal amounts of studying for the test can raise your score considerably.
but that bringing up GWB's stance on intelligent design in a discussion of scientist's creating movies is off-topic
Actually it is not off topic as we in the sciences are suffering a dramatic reduction in funding in the NIH, DARPA and other funding agencies. This is happening at the same time as a change in education in the USA with more and more students not enrolling in the sciences or engineering. This is also happening at a time when the religious right is trying to push their agenda through an administration that got elected based upon their votes.
So, comments by our CINC that appear to pander to the right end endorse an agenda that does nothing to help our science and engineering problem in this country are very much related.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Pick your poison: "President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation."
So talking about ID in a science context now suggests that it isn't being paraded as science?
Wow. Magna Cum Lowdey (sic) graduate from Rove University
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Wait. One part of the US government (the military) is looking to promote science. But it's off-topic to point out that other parts are trying to suppress or dilute it?
Yes, there is certainly more documentation about presidential appointees doing things like fudging scientific reports to make them more ideologically correct, but you can't deny that Bush and others in his administration -- as well as members of the same party in other branches of the government -- have been promoting an anti-intellectual climate. I mean, that was a selling point in last year's election! Do you want to vote for the good ol' boy from Texas, or that whiny intelectual from Massachusetts?
Bush has never endorsed the teaching of Intelligent Design as a science rather than religion. That's simply a fabrication intended to karma bait the Bush haters. Congratulations on your success -- but you are still a troll.
c le/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Actually...
"Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Will they omit the part of the movie where the highly trained scientist/engineer's job is shipped off to India? Or will they just cut to the chase and produce the movies themselves in Bollywood?
are rising wildly, right? NOT!
So... we're starting to outsource knowledge work, lumping science/technical skills in with manufacturing labor in the competetive race to the bottom. And Academia is increasingly competetive and less remunerative, and public funding is getting slashed.
I guess science is something you go into for love, right?
Tweet, tweet.
How many impressionable young children have been inspired to become semiconductor designers by the Britney Spears Guide to Semiconductor Physics?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"First of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."
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.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.
Here's a great place to start:
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I think they would come out a lot like this:
- Set a course for Alpha Centauri!
- Aye aye, Captain!
(five or more years of boring space cruise)
(exterior shots in perfect silence, there is no sound in space)
(finally the ship arrives)
- Scan for life forms!
- Sorry sir, there's no such thing as a "life form detector". It's not like life gives off a special energy or something.
- Well, shit. Let's go home then.
(several more years of boring space cruise)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Science should stick to things it can handle: physics, chemistry, genetics, biology (without origins of life). We can reproduce certain actions based on certain inputs, so it can be classed 'scientific'.
Since the origins of life cannot be reproduced, it's not science. It's philosophy, world view, or theology.
antipaucity
...off the top of my head:
Contact with Jodi Foster
Indiana Jones series with Harrison Ford
Jurassic Park series
2001: A Space Odyssey
among many others, I'm sure.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Down that road is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism - and you don't want to go there.
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 ).
schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding
Maybe they should start by using the money they have better.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
As a scientist who has peddled screenplays, let me tell you that they are approaching this ass-backwards, as usual.
.50 cal Gatlings on Mirimax and get them distributed.
[relevant aside: Did you hear about the Polish actress? She was sleeping with the screenwriter.]
If they want more good movies about science, the way to do that is not to encourage the generation of more screenplays. Fucking Hollywood is tit-deep in screenplays. You can't swing a dead cat without knocking over a stack of them.
If the Pentagon wants more science movies, then start up a production company and buy the scripts, make the movies they want made. The train a couple of nose-mounted
More screenplays? They are farting into gale-force winds.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If there is no God/gods no absolute truth that is critically relevant and can be known then WHY should i care about science?
Well, there is no real "WHY". But think about it this way, if we as a species didn't spend a lot of time caring about science, then you probably would not have been around ask that question. Hell, without science you would still be cowering in a cave somewhere, wondering if that sound you just heard was a lion who invited himself to dinner.
So there is no reason for you to care about science, other than that it is the one way we have of improving our chances, both individually and as a species, of surviving a little longer. If it makes you feel better to believe in some omnipotent space fairy, then go ahead. What really matters is whether you help or hinder the survival of the species.
You are probably asking "but why should the species care about survivial if there is no universal truth". What it comes down to is that it doesn't really matter. If the species stops caring about survival it pretty soon won't be around anymore. The problem pretty much solves itself.
Actually, if there is a god out there, I think it is probably even more in our interest to learn as much about the universe as possible. I mean, if a god exists he is certainly not looking out for us. It might be time for a coup...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
The ONLY part of the Dubya regime that isn't run by completely brain-dead presidential appointees IS the Pentagon, which published a paper earlier this year that not only confirmed that global warming was real, but also has been trying to plan for the patrolling of the soon-to-be completely-devoid-of-ice Arctic Ocean.
They are, however, completely dependent upon the neo-Con(artists) in the Congress for funding, so they are still on a tight leash. Unless there is a substantial public backlash against the Dubya regime in the 2006 mid-term elections, this nearly universal Dubya regime aversion to real science in particular, and the anti-intellectual climate in general, will continue to hamstring America's future scientific prowness, regardless of Pentagon efforts to the contrary.
Will glamorizing science in the movies make kids pay better attention in chemistry class?
This question is irrelevant and too narrow. Paying attention in Chemistry class has little to no effect on my choice of careers (Software Engineering). There are a variety of Engineering professions that do not involve Chemistry.
The question rephrased to "Would movies about Engineers make kids want become Engineers?" Would a movie influence a child's decision that will effect his/her whole life?
I participate in National Engineering week. Where Engineers from various fields go to middle school and high school classrooms to try to get kids excited about Math and Sciences in hopes they will look into an Engineering career. It is a great program and I believe that is making a difference in my community, but only time will tell.
One thing I use to motivate kids into chosing an Engineering profession is a picture of my motorcycle (with an explanation that you can afford a decent lifestyle as an Engineer). That seems to get some interest, but I also like to think I have a good personality.
- Bruzer
"Tempt not a desperate man" - Willy S.
> Suddenly something in one of the tubes starts
> fizzling. Suddenly the President comes into view
> and hands Billy a big bag of money
I very much doubt that. It is much more likely that suddenly a SWAT team would burst in and surround little Billy, pointing their automatic weapons at his head and screaming obscenities. Then they'd throw him in jail for possessing drug paraphernalia (namely, labware, chemicals, alcohol burner, etc.). If Billy wasn't alone at the time of arrest, conspiracy charges would no doubt follow.
Then he'd be named a terrorist, after some underpaid police chemist runs some unspecific test and finds explosive precursors (do you realize how many chemicals fit in that category? Anything with a benzene ring can be converted into TNT.) in Billy's test tube. Billy's friends would be immediately included as co-conspirators to blow something up while stoned on some homemade drug.
As anybody who has tried to do chemistry anywhere outside strictly controlled and designated places knows, the message from the government is chrystal clear: don't do chemistry. And now they try to blame us for listening and obeying the law? How amusing.
"Hollywood (in general) does cheap ascientific things because it makes better movies than the real stuff."
Exactly. Plus can you imagine a scientist scripting the love scene?
"The mass of her heaving bosons betrayed her entanglement with Higgs, the mysterious agent she longed to know but had never seen."
This idea is retarded. Contrary to popular belief, there is no shortage of science majors to fill the science positions in the United States. The job market, especially for physicsts, is terrible right now. I could give examples of the sacrifices it takes to become a researcher, for little material gain, but you're better off hearing it from someone who has been through this grinder, as I am just starting down this path.
In addition to this, a lot of scientific research, while it can be really rewarding in the long run, is fscking BORING! day to day. (Guess what I do for a living.) Are we really helping children by giving them unrealistic impressions of what it's going to be like if they grow up and enter the sciences. In the movies, scientists go from the desgin stage to the production stage in a matter of hours and whatever they come up with always works on the first try. Guess what? This never happens in real life. Never! If you design something new and build it, it's not going to work the first time.
I think it would be a lot better to stimulate the production of media that actually talk about science in a way that is accurate and accessible at the same time, in contrast to most of the stuff I heard about when I was kid.
I think you should read Asimov's "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline"
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm a whitewater kayaker and so know a little something about hitting the water at high speed (off a waterfall). For drops above 20 feet, boaters focus on penetrating the water with the bow of the boat so as to break surface tension. Above about 40 feet, that is no longer enough, and the boater needs to aim for the area of maximum aeration. Well-aerated water has a very low surface tension and so is safer to hit at high speeds. Waterfalls have been run over 100 feet without injury this way.
So the shotgun would have a very different effect from a hammer in that it is more likely to aerate the water. Not that it would work anyway (air hurts at 150 mph, let alone water), but it important to understand the principle at work.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This is an attempt to stem the tide of Asian/Indian dominance of Science/Medicine/tech. Jimmy Neutron was one of the movies that glorified geekiness and there are a bunch of other movies that touch on it... but the thing is movies are the wrong avenue.
When I was a kid I watched 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, and most importantly Mr. Wizard. Mr. Wizard was a show on Nickelodian in which an older gentleman paired up with kids to do cool easily-reproducable experiments and teach science. He had a show where he used an old Mac to draw a spaceship and then airbrushed in some white smoke (like an early version of paint) and then animated the smoke and lift-off. This instantly drew me to computers and was the true start of my love and interest in science and computers. Movies are one shot deals and not grounded in reality, a weekly show that shows kids like yourself doing cool stuff will get kids interested.
There is the show Zoom and Dragonfly TV, both which do a somewhat good job nowadays.. but they are sillier and not focused. But better than 99% of the current shows which don't have any moral/learning value at all like spongebob. Even cartoons used to have a real message at the heart of them and usually taught a valueable lesson, now it is all just fluff... gee, I wonder why American youth are so ignorant of any number of subjects. Hell, in a college World History class only four people got the bonus question of "Place an X on the country of India" and it was during the time of the Tsunami!!! These are sad times for kids/teen learning, I'm glad my mother had the sense to force me to watch educational TV... I'm thanking her now.
Movies are not the answer.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I'm looking forward to the new generation of wannabe math majors due to NUMB3RS...
Except, in that show, the math guy, while smart, is a social outcast, while the cool guy is the FBI agent.
I've heard that if a young black man studies hard in school, he's said to be "acting white." Similarly, my daughter (salutatorian) observed anti-intellectual attitudes by "the cool kids" at school. Since I'm a geek, and before that a nerd, I feel these kids' pain. I tell them that living well is the best revenge and their slacking peers may well find their vocation includes "do you want fries with that?"
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.
Apart from the accurate comments concerning hygiene and social skills, the reason that women usually don't go for geeks is because most geeks seem to think that all women fall into two or three easily-identifiable stereotypes, all of which are highly inaccurate and inherently mysogynistic.
Newsflash! They're just people, pretty much like anyone else; they *don't* come in models, like RealDolls. Once y'all start to wrap your brains around this idea it becomes much easier to get the ladies to take you seriously. Assuming, of course, that you couple that with regular bathing and some rudimentary mastery of personal interaction that doesn't revolve around shiny-cool tech-toys....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I know you're being sarcastic, but my favorite professor (that i've heard of) from caltech is Dr. Richard Feynman who was a noted ladies man, grey hat, world traveler, bongo player, O-ring failure demonstrator, and orange juice afficionato.
Oh wait you said math professor. nevermind. No way they can be as cool as Feynman: "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation"
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
It seems to me that this is just an attempt at "cheap education".
A startling fact is that the number of students pursuing engineering and science degrees and careers is shrinking greatly. At a time when other countries, such as India and China, are stepping up their national education in science and technology, the US is making budget cuts in education funding.
Now I don't consider myself a liberal...in fact, I am a moderate who leans in many ways toward the conservative side, but these budget cuts scare me. If we can't foster the brainpower today that will keep us competitive tomorrow, jobs will keep flowing to India. But this time, they won't be call center or grunt-programming jobs. They will be development jobs. Design job. Knowledge jobs. That is what really scares me.
This article, and this practice, seems like nothing but a smoke-and-mirrors trick to divert money from the real problem. You will inspire far more students to take up careers in science and engineering if you pay to hire good teachers (like those that I was fortunate enough to have) than by making Tom Cruise a rocket scientist. It may cost more, but the raw returns are much greater. This should be a supplement to widespread greater science and engineering funding, NOT a replacement. It would work much better that way -- to have students see it on TV as a catalyst, then go to school where their teachers make the subject interesting and fun.