writing the 'scientist'

veinglory · Dec 29, 2006

I was watching the BBC series 11th Hour (with Patrick Stewart) and boy was I pissing me off. I have been thinking in general about how science is often written is half of a dichotomy with emotion, religion or paranormal belief (be it Spock, Temperance Brennan, Scully, or some other avatar)

For start when a character says they are a 'scientist', I whince. A psychologist, a biologist, a surgoen, a pathologist a whatever--but does anyone, really, in normal conversation with a stranger introduce themselves as just a scientist? Do they ever spout scientific principles like dogma?

Then the dichotimising with religion. 40% of American scientists are theistic, in areas like physics and inorganic chemistry the numbers approach national norms (around 80%). So where does this come from? Does it imply scienists are cold and unspiritual, or that religions cannot survive the careful use of evidence and logic?

I thought over my own protagonists. Of those in contemporary settings three are in science based professions, one pagan, on athiest and one unspecified.

I am curious, do you think writers use science as a way to give a non-religious character a 'belief system' that acts in a religion-like way? IMHO when science fills the role of religion, as an excuse to be poorly socialised or to bullishly resist tackling 'mysteries' it isn't being used correctly--hence my annoyance with these many characters.

nancy02664 · Dec 29, 2006

I think many writers often present "either/or" pairs of characters, because such pairings make for great conflict and also allow a writer to easily explore certain themes (because you've automatically got the opposing opinions in there). Also, dichotomies are easy for readers/viewers to understand (e.g., liberal vs. conservative, man vs. woman, black vs. white).

So when there's a religious person in a story, I think many writers would automatically 'pair' that person up with a scientist (as I think most people believe scientists aren't likely to be religious). And, as a result of the dichotomy the writer sets up, science by default becomes a sort of substitute belief system. (Maybe this is because writers/producers just aren't comfortable with characters that don't have some sort of belief system, and 'science' is easier for the public to swallow than 'non-believer' is?)

And this, of course, leads to all sorts of stereotypes...

Higgins · Dec 29, 2006

Yeap

veinglory said:
I was watching the BBC series 11th Hour (with Patrick Stewart) and boy was I pissing me off. I have been thinking in general about how science is often written is half of a dichotomy with emotion, religion or paranormal belief (be it Spock, Temperance Brennan, Scully, or some other avatar)

For start when a character says they are a 'scientist', I whince. A psychologist, a biologist, a surgoen, a pathologist a whatever--but does anyone, really, in normal conversation with a stranger introduce themselves as just a scientist? Do they ever spout scientific principles like dogma?

Then the dichotimising with religion. 40% of American scientists are theistic, in areas like physics and inorganic chemistry the numbers approach national norms (around 80%). So where does this come from? Does it imply scienists are cold and unspiritual, or that religions cannot survive the careful use of evidence and logic?

I thought over my own protagonists. Of those in contemporary settings three are in science based professions, one pagan, on athiest and one unspecified.

I am curious, do you think writers use science as a way to give a non-religious character a 'belief system' that acts in a religion-like way? IMHO when science fills the role of religion, as an excuse to be poorly socialised or to bullishly resist tackling 'mysteries' it isn't being used correctly--hence my annoyance with these many characters.

Scientists actually like to say they are scientists in a business or government environment. The scientists I know are acquainted with how the History of Science has radically changed the "dogmas" of what science is and they are perfectly happy to cite the misconceptions of "scientific method" that they (usually correctly) imagine their contracted governmental agency type supervisors may have. Scientists are very adept in navigating cultural institutions and putting them to their slightly visionary uses. And they are perfectly happy to use whatever magic may be left in the idea of science to get what they want.
Given their cultural adeptness, one has to wonder what a scientist is up to when they say they are theistic. Maybe they mean Deistic or maybe they mean "Don't bug me."

So....the horrible fact is (as you suspect) scientists are adept and highly manipulative social creatures, pretty much the opposite of the stock mid-20th century lost in the lab types, IMO.

So, I'd say they are happy to have escaped the dogmatic/quasi religious ideas of scientific method that predominated until the collapse of positivism (which apparently most people haven't heard about though it happened about fifty years ago) IMO.

Jaycinth · Dec 29, 2006

In my curent WIP I have a scientist who is religious, but she introduces herself as an archaeologist and doesn't spout much of anything.

veinglory · Dec 29, 2006

I guess some scientist probably do act like that. But of anyone at work was chanting Occam's razor they get a look of eye-rolling and jeering. People here don;t even wear their white coats--it's considered a but 'much'.

nancy02664 · Dec 29, 2006

veinglory said:
I am curious, do you think writers use science as a way to give a non-religious character a 'belief system' that acts in a religion-like way? IMHO when science fills the role of religion, as an excuse to be poorly socialised or to bullishly resist tackling 'mysteries' it isn't being used correctly--hence my annoyance with these many characters.

Jaycinth's post made me think of "A Solstice Tree for Jenny" -- a children's book about a girl whose parents are archaeologists and don't celebrate religious holidays.

I think it's very interesting that the author (Karen Shragg) chose to make the parents scientists. I don't want to read into it too much -- as I haven't yet read the entire book -- but still, I wonder if it has to do with science being seen as its own belief system, or maybe as an acceptable 'excuse' for non-religiosity...

Roger J Carlson · Dec 30, 2006

I think it's a lot more interesting if a character has internal conflict in his or her belief system. I think it's a lot more realisitic. Few of us have unwavering faith in our own beliefs.

For instance, I'm a Christian and an avid reader of the Skeptical Inquirer. I like the articles about psychics, big foot, UFOs, and other "bunk". I don't even have a problem when they object to Creationism or Intelligent Design (I'm also a firm believer in evolution). But when it spills over into questioning the actual existence of God, I get uncomfortable.

When I think about this rationally, I see that from their viewpoint it's just another myth for them to expose. Nor can I really see any fundamental difference between my "myths" and a belief in UFOs. So I have an internal conflict that I really haven't resolved. I see one side and then the other, and then I back-burner the whole thing.

I think a lot of people are like that and it can make for some dynamic characterization.

writing the 'scientist'

veinglory

volitare nequeo

nancy02664

Baby Name Maniac

Higgins

Jaycinth

Your Cuddly Sociopathic

veinglory

volitare nequeo

nancy02664

Baby Name Maniac

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only