Slashdot Mirror
Michael Crichton Dead At 66
Many readers have submitted stories about the death of Michael Crichton. The 66-year-old author of Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain died unexpectedly Tuesday "after a courageous and private battle against cancer," a press release said. In addition to writing, he also directed such sci-fi classics as Westworld and Runaway. Crichton was married five times and had one child.
I really don't think there's consensus on whether he's actually dead or not.
Further study is required.
At the risk of being modded troll or flamebait, let me be the first to say that whoever put that tag on this article is an asshole.
Usually the protagonists are somewhat involved in the solution to the problem.
You must be new to Michael Crichton's work. See also Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, etc. All of them have a major deus ex machina component to their endings. (Technically, in Sphere, they remove themselves from relevance to the problem.)
The man knew how to write towards a climax damned well but has no idea how to resolve the story afterwards. Andromeda Strain is just one of the most jarring in that regard.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I wasn't actually referring to people with legitimate skeptical opinions. There are in fact a few scientists who potentially know what they're talking about (given education, etc) that don't buy the consensus opinion. I think they're wrong, as do most climate scientists around the world, but that's how science works - people have theories they try to test and poke holes in.
I'm talking about denialists, people whose response to the (fairly overwhelming) consensus that exists is to say stuff like "the geocentric universe and flat earth views were also scientific consensus, once upon a time." That's true as far as it goes, but it utterly fails as a critique of the science, the theories, or the models. It's not skepticism, it's just ignoring and refusing to discuss. Similarly, when people latch on to localized variations in temperature as proof that global warming doesn't exist. That's shutting down debate before it begins - it's not the presentation of an argument, or evidence, or meaningful flaws in existing theories - it's ignoring the issue, declaring victory, and plugging one's ears.
This latter category of person is primarily who you find here, and in most places on the intertubes.
One could say the same thing about Jules Verne: Protagonists embark on a fantastic journey (center of the earth; submarine; airborn), encounter fantastic things (new environments with: giant lizards; giant squids; dinosaurs), then escape at the last minute following some cataclysm and have a great story to regale to their peers. Although a bit formulaic, that doesn't make the stories any less compelling or romantic to read.
Degrees in medicine and biology do not make one an expert on climate change. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Crichton had written "GOTO Considered Just Fine, Thankyouverymuch."
Crichton botched the science that he was trying to criticize. I think that's a much stronger condemnation than the presence or absence of any given piece of university-derived parchment.
The first article disputes his 0.8C prediction, pointing out that the trend he attributes his predicted rise to should actually have a bit of a cooling effect.
Here is a list of other, specific rebuttals to Crichton (primarily his novel "State of Fear"), in case you're interested.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!