Science/Pseudo-Science

[JacksGirlfriend]

"What we are trying to do is make sure everything has a very Scully explanation," Fury said, referring to the X-Files character. "This is not a show about the supernatural, despite the fact that we have a very huge creature that likes to eat people. Despite the surreal, bizarre aspects of the island, there will be an explanation for it. It may not come for a very long time, but certain information about the island will explain how things are possible. We'll try to root it in real science or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island of monsters."

I don't take credit for finding the quote. Max posted it a couple times now. But it's an interesting quote and one I think we all lose sight of from time to time. Some of us think these words can be "bent" within a certain amount of reason; some are very firm in taking the literal meaning.

I'm curious what everyone thinks it means and how it might relate to their personal theories.

What's your definition of science/pseudo-science?

Do all the theories pertaining to Lost have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the realm of "real science" or do we have latitude in our speculation?

Does your definition include things like time travel, alternate universes or rips in time and space because they are accepted "theories" in fiction? Do you think these fall within the realm of pseudo-science because the intent of a writer is to wrap them in science and make them real?

And what about things that have no verifiable proof and yet have numerous proponents who spend lifetimes trying to find the truth? Things like UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the lost continent of Atlantis, psychic powers and/or supernatural theories of all descriptions?

These are all "science" oriented themes because they require investigation, analysis and study. But considering the quote above, can we include them in our speculation?

I think we can, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

JacksGirl

[drypelia]

It seems like talking about "pseudo-science" opens the door for an awful lot of wild stuff (producers' comments about no "bent" time or space, no magic, etc. notwithstanding). I didn't watch a lot of X-Files, but it seemed to me that Scully was reaching pretty far a lot of the time. A "Scully explanation" isn't necessarily a scientific explanation.

Without some sort of "magic," I find it very hard to believe that so many people could be "lost" on such a big island for very long at all (and I count the Philadelphia Experiment as a kind of magic). Once they locate the French woman, I think I'm just going to have to suspend disbelief and sit back and enjoy the show!

[azteclady]

drypelia,

I didn't follow X-files as faithfully as many others here, but I believe that Agent Fox Mulder (sp?) was the one always reaching pretty far for explanations to whatever 'incident' they were dealing at the time. Agent Dana Scully (was that her first name?) was "the voice of reason" in the show - the skeptic, the one who would never look first to the supernatural - heck, she would fight tooth and nail to find a scientific explanation before giving in. If I remember correctly, many a time she -didn't- give in, even if the audience was presented with the supernatural explanation as the only viable one.

Someone more versed on the X-files-verse please correct me if I'm wrong!


Beto

[Lizard]

No, you're actually quite right. Anyway, I don't think it really matters how Scully behaved in the series itself (i.e., if she became more accepting towards supernatural explanations at the end or not), but more how she entered public consciousness, and you certainly described the inprint she left there very accurately.

So, what we're told here is that, basically, explanations for whatever happens on the island will not involve cop-outs (the notorious "deus ex machina"), but rather follow logical reasoning and common sense. If they don't withstand closer scrutiny, it's pseudo-science, if they do, it's real; the important thing is that we (hopefully) don't need any third party (aliens, some kind of "not fully understood" powers, whatever) to explain away parts of the puzzle... or at least that's my interpretation.

[Black Dahlia]

I'll try and give it a whirl...

Science encompasses what can be described, measured, and observed repeatedly by different individuals at different time given the right conditions. Intercontinental supersonic flight and propelling a satellite into orbit with rockets are acceptable science, as are platypi, archaeology, quantum chemistry, etc.

Pseudoscience encompasses what can be observed, usually repeatably, but cannot yet be described with the knowledge we currently possess. Using the Earth's magnetic fields to power flight and/or levitation is pseudoscience, as are yetis, lost cryptoarcheaology, parapsychology, etc. It is rather broad and constitutes maybe 80% of what went on in the first four seasons of "The X Files."

Science fiction is what can only be theorized upon and imagined, and no matter how possible certain phenomena are in the future there is no way to produce those results today much less anyone reliable observe them. Using antigravity particles to propel a vessel faster than the speed of light is science fiction, as are wookiees, Mongo, interplanetary diplomascy, etc. Sci-fi broadly overlaps psedudoscience and pure fantasy.

It is really up to the producers how broadly they want to define their pseudoscience, but I imagine they will try and keep it tame. So while there definitely are polar bears and wild boar on the island, and it's possible there could be bigfoots or chupacabras, we are almost assured of not meeting up with any Predators or tribbles. Come to think of it, tribbles might be fun (Charlie: "'ere ye go Shannon, I found ye a nice furry pet to keep ye company.")

[MEmacmur]

My take on all explanations holding up to the science/pseudoscience ideas is as follows.

No totally out-there explanations: - no wormholes, no time warps, no purgatory etc. etc.

Some slightly out-there, but can be accepted ideas: genetic mutations, unique evolution on an isolated land mass, potentially enhanced mutation due to nuclear waste, previously unencountered (animal) species, etc.

I'm still not entirely sold on their having to even be a reason this particular plane crashed here. Perhaps the island/science experiments/miltary explanation fits the bill as to why the plane was taken down - but I don't think it will have anything to do with the passengers themselves.

Just my 3 cents...

[Radagast de Brun]

The science on Alias at times gets extremely questionable. Essentially the rule seems to be that if you can give it a scientific sounding name, it goes. I wouldn't be surprised if once again we get sucked into the far reaches of theoretical physics/engineering.

[drypelia]

azteclady said:

I didn't follow X-files as faithfully as many others here, but I believe that Agent Fox Mulder (sp?) was the one always reaching pretty far for explanations to whatever 'incident' they were dealing at the time. Agent Dana Scully (was that her first name?) was "the voice of reason" in the show - the skeptic, the one who would never look first to the supernatural - heck, she would fight tooth and nail to find a scientific explanation before giving in. If I remember correctly, many a time she -didn't- give in, even if the audience was presented with the supernatural explanation as the only viable one.

Actually, I knew that. But I often thought that her explanations didn't adequately explain what had happened - probably because in real life, nothing like that had ever actually happened. I probably shouldn't have said that she was reaching - it's more like her theories often didn't bear much scrutiny (not that Mulder's theories did either).

I think that what's most likely to happen is that we'll be presented with situations that would be impossible given what we KNOW of science (not what we hypothesize) - things like there being survivors after falling 30,000 feet from the sky. Then we'll be offered a hypothesis for how it happened, based on some speculations about where science could take us. And, who knows? Maybe someday lots of pseudo-science will be shown to be accurate. After all, Leonardo Da Vinci drew all sorts of fantastic machines that the science of the day couldn't prove would work.

In a lot of ways, I wish the producers hadn't told us that there wouldn't be "magic." In storytelling especially, I'd rather have magic over science any day. Bring on the mammoths and cold fusion power sources! Give me a giant perpetual motion machine that randomly plucks airplanes out of the sky! Let the beast be the offspring of Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster, teletransported to the island by aliens!

OK. I feel better now. :|

dry

[JacksGirlfriend]

I'm with you...

But in my version of pseudo-science, practically anything is possible.

JacksGirl

[16L43]

As much "fun" as pseudo-science is, I'd love to see the series rooted more in real science. I know that's going to be (relatively speaking) difficult when we have some beastie running around chewing on the castaways, an island that's never been charted by hundreds of thousands of satellite passes (including a few that mapped the entire Earth's surface) and a [seemingly] powerful radio signal that's never been picked up by anyone...

Personally, my eyes start to glaze over when the topic turns to UFO's, telekinesis, ghosts, The Devil's Sea, The Bermuda Triangle, The Great Lakes Triangle, Bigfoot (unless it's the monster truck) The Loch Ness Monster, parapsychology, ley lines, ancient astronauts or a whole host of other things. Not to say I don't like seeing references to those things in science fiction/fantasy works but I've always been more of "Skeptical Inquirer" reader than a reader of "The Globe" tabloid with it's headlines of the world ends on Tuesday or the aliens gave us the technology for the Stealth Fighter...:)

[JacksGirlfriend]

Everyone knows we got the technology for the stealth fighter from the Atlantians...

JacksGirl

[azteclady]

I'm with 16 - I'd rather have my science dry, thank you.

I'm all for intrigue, and red herrings, foreshadowing and running themes (coincidences, anyone?), but at the end of the day I still want to be able to apply at least some logic and common sense to the show.

I'm crossing my fingers for no cop-outs, extraterrestrial, supernatural, mythical/mystical things!

The setup is intriguing enough - I think that the possibilities for drama are plenty with 48 people trying to survive after a plane crash, in an island that they don't know where it is, let alone whether their would-be rescuers do!



Beto

[JacksGirlfriend]

Aztec: No Bermuda Triangle, no time distortions, no gateways between dimensions?

Come on - you have to give us less-than-scientific-types something!!

JacksGirl

[Mithril379]

I agree with you Azteclady - "I'm crossing my fingers for no cop-outs, extraterrestrial, supernatural, mythical/mystical things!"

That sort of thing can be fun and interesting, but I'd rather not see it on Lost. Pseudoscience can be defined broadly, and it really boils down to the perspective of the person hearing the term used. Some will understand it to preclude aliens, others would regale you with the "science" of their abduction experience. When they say a "Scully-like" explanation, I think they give us a huge clue as to the definition of pseudoscience as it relates to Lost. We may all have divergent views of the term, but Scully's definition is the one they claim to be using. Therefore I think any explantions will be based in generally accepted science. They may stretch things into the "implausable" zone, but I don'yt think they'll cross the line into "impossible".

[deviance]

Pseudoscience encompasses what can be observed, usually repeatably, but cannot yet be described with the knowledge we currently possess. Using the Earth's magnetic fields to power flight and/or levitation is pseudoscience, as are yetis, lost cryptoarcheaology, parapsychology, etc. It is rather broad and constitutes maybe 80% of what went on in the first four seasons of "The X Files."

Science fiction is what can only be theorized upon and imagined, and no matter how possible certain phenomena are in the future there is no way to produce those results today much less anyone reliable observe them. Using antigravity particles to propel a vessel faster than the speed of light is science fiction, as are wookiees, Mongo, interplanetary diplomascy, etc. Sci-fi broadly overlaps psedudoscience and pure fantasy.

The distinction between the two here is what is critical. Theoretically speaking, a lot of what is "science fiction" is possible. However, due to huge misrepresentation of science fiction in shows like Star-Trek, we don't get the feeling of science fiction. In fact, many of that type of genre bordors on fantasy, hence the genre "fantasy/sci-fi". It's not that these things are necessarily impossible, or that all sci-fi is just ridiculous, but rather that there is absolutely know way to be certain given the knowledge we have today.

Pseudoscience is something that can rather be explained with theoretical knowledge based off of either induction, or deduction. Those two words are critical here. Pseudoscience is NOT empirical, anything empirical is science, but rather pseudoscience is the possibility of it being reasonably possible with a plausible response. It is, excuse the analogy, like the courtroom, which is potentially provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is not yet been substantialized into a scientific law. For example, the Big-Bang is technically "science", but theories tying to the Big-Bang, such as inflation, dark matter, advanced relativity are but pseudoscience. It doesn't mean that it isn't accepted, it just means it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt from either induction or deduction.

[Nift]

I hope this doesn't go off the deep end. When and if it does, thats when they will lose me.

Take the horror movies for example. Stuff like Friday 13th, Children of the Corn, etc. almost bore me, because there is nothing realistic to them. UFO story lines, even the soft stuff, is too far out there also. I think it was Mel Gobson's "Signs" that was fairly interesting until the end. Time travel is too frustrating to watch, or would be for this setting.

Movies like the first Halloween and Jaws were different because it was more of a possible reality.

[Abraxas]

I don't like overboarding fiction, but at least play according to your own rules you have set by the outline of the show and/or the first few episodes. 90° turns in completely different realms of logic are not what I want to see.
I get pretty nitpicky once a show runs off from it's own logic.
You'd never have guessed that. :D
I wonder if I'm lying now.

[Iseult of the White Hands]

When I think of Pseudo-Science, I really think of authors like Michael Crichton and Jurassic Park. Because, hell, maybe it is possible for a scientist to retrieve dinosaur DNA from insects in amber, inject it into frog eggs and make living dinoaurs... Maybe. And it's exciting to imagine that possibility.

<<As much "fun" as pseudo-science is, I'd love to see the series rooted more in real science. I know that's going to be (relatively speaking) difficult when we have some beastie running around chewing on the castaways, an island that's never been charted by hundreds of thousands of satellite passes (including a few that mapped the entire Earth's surface) and a [seemingly] powerful radio signal that's never been picked up by anyone...>>

16- Now this is where I start to think about *why* nobody can seem to find that plane. Even one of the castaways mentioned satellite images, so it's part of the fictional world that these characters came from. It's also ridiculous to think that the plane isn't putting out a signal from it's locator beacon. So why isn't someone coming to get them?

That's why my theory is that they have landed on an island that is restricted. If that island was part of a scientific installation (or pseudo-scientific, if you like) then perhaps what is there is deemed too dangerous to go near. I still think maybe a biological weapon- but what about genetic engineering? Like, say, something that could allow an animal like a polar bear to live in a tropical environment. Or, by extension, allow a soldier to be effective in a hot climate that he or she might not be otherwise able to tolerate. And maybe the experiment got away from the researchers...

If the island was extremely top secret, it may have something in place to prevent transmissions from being sent to block espionage. Or... (just thought of this) maybe the French woman was there to stop whatever was being developed from being completed. Maybe she is still there to keep an eye on the Big Secret Thing.

I can't get over the feeling that the plane crash survivors are stuck there not because nobody can find them, but because of where they are. Like they have stumbled (or crashed into) something so secret and dangerous to the outside world that they won't be allowed to leave.

I also think that when the baby is born, something about it will be very significant. We have seen from the previews that the pregnant woman becomes ill, so I wonder of that will affect her unborn child in some profound way...

[drypelia]

Iseult, I like your ideas. It's kind of where pinnerman was going with the Philadelphia Experiment thread, but (IMHO) more likely. The notion of genetic engineering being the Big Secret Thing is a good one, since it's such a hot topic. And, of course, biological experiments have a long history of producing unintended results - even when it looks fairly innocent. I cringe every time I hear of some researcher investigating introducing a new species to an area in order to solve some sort of problem there. The next thing you know, the new species has completely taken over, pushing out native species and destroying the habitat. Think kudzu, water chestnuts, african bees and gypsy moths. In their natural habitats their growth or spread is kept in check by natural enemies, but put somewhere else, there's little or nothing to stop them.

So, what if the island is totally off-limits? And what if it's because of biological experiments that went awry? Then polar bears could live there, and great big giant things could live there. What if the monster is some sort of engineered herbivore that accidentally kills things when it takes an interest in them? You know - doesn't know it's own strength when it plucks the pilot out of the cockpit. Maybe when Locke sees the monster he's not afraid because it's a big bunny rabbit (OK, not likely, but it's all I could think of right off).

Interesting to explore the possibilities, anyway. I like it better than an invisible island, and if we can't have time loops or folded space I'd just as soon have a highly restricted area.

dry

[JacksGirlfriend]

I want the time loops and folded space... But please no giant bunnies. Ever seen Night of the Lepus? If not, you really have to run out and rent it. It's hysterical.

JacksGirl

[drypelia]

No giant bunnies? How about a giant chipmunk? It would be adorable with its cheeks stuffed with coconuts.....

dry, who'd be perfectly content with time loops and folded space, with an invisible portal or two thrown in for good measure

[JacksGirlfriend]

Any kind of rodent... enlarged? Not a good thing.

JacksGirl

[BJLK]

"No giant bunnies? How about a giant chipmunk? It would be adorable with its cheeks stuffed with coconuts....."

................or PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Mwahahahahaha!!!!!!:rollin

[maxpublic]

Personally, my eyes start to glaze over when the topic turns to UFO's, telekinesis, ghosts, The Devil's Sea, The Bermuda Triangle, The Great Lakes Triangle, Bigfoot (unless it's the monster truck) The Loch Ness Monster, parapsychology, ley lines, ancient astronauts or a whole host of other things.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well. These things don't even fall into the category of pseudoscience, but sheer fantasy. As someone else explained rather well, Crichton's "Jurassic Park" is a nice example of pseudo-science, i.e., taking science and 'stretching' it in order to make a good story. People who go on about aliens visiting Earth and cutting up cows, drawing strange symbols in corn, or abducting folks and giving them anal probes - well now, this just makes me wonder if they're on medication, and if not then perhaps they should be.

I would also point out that there's a rather large difference between what is called "science fiction" and "science fantasy". Star Trek and Star Wars are examples of the latter, not former. They're really nothing more than classic fantasy stories cloaked in the weakest trappings of pseudoscience. Real science fiction takes science and extends it in a logical fashion towards future developments; Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity" is a great example of this.

Max

[cccourt]

MaxPublic: I know this isn't forum etiquette...but at this point..you have piqued my curiosity. What do you do?? For a living? You are a renaissance man.
ccc:hat