Sci-Fi getting dumber thanks to super-heroes?

Randy sent me this link. It's worth reading. (editor's note: the link is now fixed. Don't try to watch daytime TV and blog, Leaguers.)

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with one of the author's points, which is: super-hero movies are full of bad science. A rocket-powered dynamo like Iron Man seems unlikely without some yet-untapped energy source. And where would you keep that fusion reactor in the suit, anyway? How does the Hulk grow with no means for gaining mass? Or Isn't Halle Berry's wardrobe in Catwoman a little improbable?

However, I disagree with a few of his points, or at least his accusations.

I think what he's trying to say is that: Science Fiction was once much smarter than what we get today.

I would not disagree with the merits of Blade Runner being a bit higher than what we're likely to get from Iron Man, as per moral complexity, well-fleshed-out-narrative, etc... But the author has selective perception regarding science fiction, and is ignoring the B-Movie tradition of sci-fi. For every plausible sci-fi movie (the author points to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator, both of which this reader finds to be dubious choices), there were ten "Battle Beyond the Stars" or "Laser Blast".

It seems, really, as if the author is also suggesting that Blade Runner didn't have to share the market with Krull, Beast Master, and a lot of other stuff that wasn't exactly dealing with the steps of the scientific method.

Most of the characters coming to screen are not products of recent scientific development. Iron Man, Spider-Man and the Hulk made their debuts around 1963. Catching a low-budget sci-fi epic was a cheap thrill for a Saturday afternoon, and, of course, this predates most serious cinematic sci-fi by a few years. 2001 would debut a few years after Spidey, and about 30 years after Superman, for example.

He also suggests that comic book movies will somehow keep our kids from dreaming, our science from science-ing. Somehow equating Spider-Man with a lack of American students enrolled in science curricula.

From an historical standpoint, sci-fi comics were the black sheep in the sci-fi family, but there was a direct connection between the guys who were publishing "Amazing Stories" and other science-fiction publications. In fact, DC editor Mort Weisinger had worked for similar publications before coming to National. And Julie Schwartz would be the one who would insist on at least pseudo-scientific explanations for his heroes beyond "mysterious energies", bringing in the Silver-age of science-based heroes. Read more at Men of Tomorrow.

Often the earliest super-heroes, often referred to as "The Golden Age" heroes (circa 1938-1955) reflected the wisdom of the time. Hourman could gain his amazing strength from a pill (with no thought given toa ddiction, etc... but much to the power of modern chemistry). Starman was powered by the strength of his "gravity rod".

However, one of the markers of comics' move from the Golden-Age to the Silver-Age was the post WW-II interest in science and industry which fueled the country. The first Silver-Age sci-fi hero, Barry Allen as The Flash, is a walking textbook of physics issues. I recommend checking out the Showcase Presents: The Flash, which is terribly pseudo-sciency, but does try to make leaps from the textbook to the imagination, in a "look, kids... science is fun and cool!" sort of way (even when it makes no sense, whatsoever).

Further re-imaginings of characters, such as The Atom, explored the possibilities of the textbook as applied to super-hero feats of wackiness.

By 1962ish, when the FF was strapping themselves into an experimental rocket in order to beat The Commies into space, Stan and Jack were mostly concerned with drumming up new ideas to save Timely/ Marvel comics. As mentioned above, the science of the concepts wasn't necessarily rock solid. One was less likely to gain powers from an irradiated spider than one was to, say, get pretty sick. And if genetic traits were passed, Peter Parker did pretty well by not growing extra arms or having weird bug-eyes.

But that wasn't ever really the point of Marvel comics. Marvel was far more invested in the development of the characters behind the powers than in merely showcasing super-feats and displays of the mights of science. Pretty clearly, Stan and Jack were taking a page from the absurd science of movie serials and Saturday matinees. But characters such as The Hulk took also from both Doctor Jekyll & Mister Hyde with a strong shot of Frankenstein.

The point that this guy really misses, I think, is two fold:

1) The 20th century was when science came into the home of the average person. Myth and magic had to give way to the powers of the atom. Interesting ideas for a super-hero possessing the powers of the spider could be attributed to either magic or science. In 1963, science was going to win out, no matter how nonsensical the explanation.


2) Science fiction has long pre-saged actual invention. Laser beams, which are used every day in countless applications, first appeared in a science fiction story. And just because you don't see the path for Tony Stark's incredibly small, incredibly powerful power source, or how repulsors work today, doesn't mean that you won't see it in five years.

How many scientists, engineers, etc... first dreamed of becoming the next Ray Palmer, Reed Richards, Tony Stark? How many kids will look to exoskeletons and the possibilities?

We now live, eat and breath science. To suggest that we aren't surrounded by high-tech developers of cyber-space is bizarre. To lay the blame for a lack of developing science academia at the feet of Tony Stark is crazy when there are so many other factors out there from anti-intellectualism and the now popular attacks on science from politicians and folks looking for camera-time, Spidey isn't really your issue. Especially for those who really know Spidey know that his web-shooters weren't just genetic mutation, but are his own invention.

If anything, this article is somewhat depressing in that the author is suggesting that rather than dream of HOW the feats of Tony Stark or Spider-Man can be achieved, those dreams are too big and should be considered impossible. In a world where we went from a small engine propelling the Wright Bros. through the sky to landing on the moon (and coming back!) within a few decades, how can anything we see Batman, iron Man or any other super-hero doing be considered impossible? Perhaps today's suit of armor has no stabilization control, but tomorrow's might look and behave differently. Its not about the outward package, its about the problem you need to solve to get the basic concept to work.

I'm not writing off the science of super-heroes. I may know that a yellow sun will never make me defy gravity, and bullets will never bounce off my skin, but that doesn't mean we, all of us, can't imagine how that could happen.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents.

Arden loves a good narwhal

If you're planning on watching some good TV in, oh, 2030 or so, I suggest you prepare yourself for the future endeavors of young Dr. Arden Hermann-Wilmarth.

Arden, you see, is a fan of all things sciency. And especially things which live below the waves.

So, yeah... I think you can expect our apple-cheeked science-nut here to soon be the next Jacque Cousteau. Look forward to his sea-faring adventures, just as soon as he finishes grad school.



This shirt is, by the way, made by Jill's mom. Which is pretty cool. Way to go, Hope!

NASA assists in development of SkyNet

Why not just paint a big, red target on humanity and put a countdown clock on every desktop?

Here.

Of course, as I often say, I welcome our coming robot masters.

Science: Finally Doing Something Useful

It seems science has now given us glow-in-the-dark cats.

here

Honestly, as often as I trip over Jeff at night on my way to bed, which is, like, twice a week... I think this is exactly the sort of things science needs to be working on.

Thanks to Jamie for the link

Man to Ape

In the wee hours of Saturday's festivities, I made a passing remark that my high school hadn't done much to teach evolution and that my knowledge of the process came from college. What was intended to be a remark upon the value of higher education was, unfortunately, taken as an indictment of public education, especially an education from a school with local political considerations which may have played more than a small part in the discussion.


a school where I might have actually paid attention. Or paid for it with my life.

It's worth noting that I had only a passing interest in the sciences until my senior year of high school. It may be worth noting that I had mostly only a passing interest in high school. I was far more interested in skating through courses like biology than killing myself for an A+. I was too busy reading comics, worrying about art class and English, playing basketball, trying out for plays, trying to start a lacrosse team and trying to go to shows to care much one way or another about what sort of education I was getting in high school biology. At the time, I assumed most public high schools taught basically the same things, and didn't really know what I didn't know... so it didn't seem at all like a big deal.

A fairly normal track at Westwood, the first high-school I'd attended, was to take a basic intro to science course as a Freshman, biology as a sophomore, chemistry as a junior and physics as a senior. Tucked in there were other science offerings such as anatomy, bio 2 (which KOHS also offered), and a few other options.

So it was that when I moved from Austin to Spring between my Freshman and Sophomore years I was lumped into the honors science track and took biology with a herd of freshmen. That year Jeff Wilser and I dissected worms, frogs, squid, a fetal pig and I spent most of the year wondering how what I learned from The Swamp Thing and X-Men applied to what I was learning in class. And I frequently asked questions about the Swamp Thing and the likelihood of humanity ever shooting beams from their eyes.


Apparently, not going to happen.

I received few answers which I found satisfactory as to how a plant could take on the consciousness of a biologist as he lay dying in a swamp, but my instructor was patient and I felt like I had a pretty good feeling as to the difference between the innards of a pig and a worm by the end of the year. That, really, had been our focus, after all. Anatomy, eco-systems, and how far we could push our teacher without getting bounced out of class seemed to be more than enough to fill a year.

We had, in the spring, covered Mendel Squares and there had been mention of evolution as a part of our year. I believe terms like "natural selection" had been bandied about, and looking at if you could curl your tongue or which direction a hair swirl would go as an inherited trait. But, really, that was about it as far as I can recall.

I had a subscription to National Geographic, read comics about mutants (which had about the exact grasp on science as one would expect of a comic where a man can cover himself in ice and not die of hypothermia), owned a set of Encyclopedias, watched Nova on occasion and National Geographic Explorer, so I knew of Darwin. I had heard of the Beagle, knew that mutations occurred between generations, and that was the basic mechanism for the present state of the world's biodiversity, in the snap-shot view of the modern human (with an historical record).



What was not covered, as I can recall, was much about Darwin himself, nor was Darwinism heavily emphasized in our lessons. The focus, in retrospect, was more upon genetic traits and inheritance than on the advantage of a larger beak to eat a different sort of nut. Whether Darwinism was deemed beyond the scope of a basic biology class, I don't know. Or whether a political decision had been made by our creaky school board and Superintendent (who was, I think, 147 at the time), I have no clue.

But I have my suspicions.

In college I was more interested in geology than I was biology, but as these things tend to do, some of my courses began to intersect. Age of the Dinosaurs was, for some odd reason, placed under geology. I was hoping for a course that would teach me about gigantic pre-historic eating machines, and that was absolutely part of the curriculum. These teachers were no fools. But it was also about the progression of life and the minute changes of anatomy that work as an advantage in a dino-eat-dino world. Further, with a fairly clear way to read the fossil record through radioactive decay and soil layering, the picture was logical and clear.



I also took UT's Bio-for-Dummies, or biology for those of us not planning a career in a lab coat or herding lab rats. Here, the angle of biology was inverted from the broad-based/ Marlin Perkins world of Biology I'd poured over in high school. It was DNA and RNA sequences, bio-diversity on a microcosmic scale, spreading outward through non-random splitting and re-splitting, and the cause of mutation becoming abundantly, pointedly clear. Moreover, our instructor was a retired UT prof who had grown bored and returned as an adjunct. He was passionate about the topics he taught in a way I think must have come out of having that year or two of retirement to live in his own head, with no pressing publishing dates to worry about, and deciding that he'd spend the years that were supposed to be for him making sure 18-22 year olds knew how the hell a cell replicated itself and what that meant for each and every one of us.

Also, he intoned, beware of pseudo-science. Beware of the folks coming at you with an agenda that goes beyond mitochondria and gene sequencing. Heed the tenets of the scientific method, and understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact.

For a student, who wasn't much of a student, but who was looking for tools with which to observe and understand the world around him, the course had a tremendous impact.

In my final semesters at UT, I was able to take Physical Anthroplogy, and, again, as these courses tend to do when you've landed in your fifth year of undergraduate education, just as one sees patterns in history course after history course, and learns to make those connections that come with a more detailed approach to education than the "drink from the firehose" of the first year or so, there it was again. My own body was being detailed in its change from large-mandibled anthromorphs to protein hungry tool users. DNA and RNA sequences slowly, gradually changing.



And the knowledge that it wasn't so much that one species was some high-evolutionary (after all, leave you alone with a hungry puma and see who wins in that scenario), but that its been an advantage to be able to build wheels and spears. And the slow, gradual change over millenia was a beautiful thing, in its way.

I don't take what I learned in college for granted. Or I try not to. I was not a great student, and I doubt most of my instructors would remember me (while I suspect my high school biology instructor would probably remember me for reasons other than my raw genius).

Like a lot of folks, I don't see evolution as a matter of belief, unless you want to reduce trust in academia to some form of faith. Instead, it is a matter of observation and understanding. Part of that understanding is that, while the data is massive, should reliable data begin to move science in another direction, understanding why and how observations have produced a new hypothesis or theory.

Biologists, anatomists and scientists do not have answers to every question or unexplained phenomena in the pattern of evolution, nor do they claim to. When new and contrary evidence shows up, it's not a challenge to destroy the whole image, but an opportunity to re-evaluate what the scientific community believes it knows.

For me, while I've never been a lab-coat kind of guy, it's been a method I understand and can appreciate. It's given way to understanding how science can move forward, and in its simplicity, its something us non-scientists can embrace as a method for our own observations.



I'm not sure what the point was to this post, other than a nostalgic trip down academic memory lane. I've often regretted my own lack of more rigid academic pursuits in the sciences, though I suspect my near inability to deal with any math beyond trigonometry would have probably been a bit of an issue.

The world is a lovely place, and viewing it through the lens of what few scraps of information I was able to pick up in school only makes it all the more of an amazing universe in which we dwell.

Monkey's Inhumanity to Monkey

Every once in a while, you come across a bit of media that so accurately reflects your view of the world, it's a bit startling. The media resonates so much that it seems as if you, yourself, were responsible for the media, were you more energized to write lengthy blog posts NOT praising Superman.

Thanks to Randy, I've come across just that sort of thing. And, of course, the media I refer to is an article in the online version of the semi-defunct humor magazine, "Cracked". Such is my fate.

The article is based upon research published in the 90's surrounding "Dunbar's Number", and, I guess, the research is pretty well assimilated into primate anthropology (which means that research into good 'ol human anthropology is applied).

The story in "Cracked" describes how our brains are really only capable of caring about 150 people or so at any given time. Through some evolutionary survival instinct, or perhaps because of the limited capacity of our noodle, we seem to be hard wired to find emotional connection to only a limited number of people. This wiring, coupled with how homo sapien has set up societies across the globe is probably responsible for many of our ills as a species.

Fairly serious stuff for Cracked, I'd say, but, of course, its written in the current, abso-ludicrous Cracked fashion, and so it's a highly digestible read.

Anyway, check out the article. It's worth a read.

Hey, Leaguers. Sorry about the sad lack of posting. I've just had some busy days, and then, when I wasn't busy last night, I chose to roll over and go to sleep. I suggest you all write my bosses and tell them I'm entirely too busy and its preventing me from blogging, thus, denying the entire world a vital resource.

Minnesota Bridge Collapse

I keep turning the Minnesota bridge collapse over in my head. Of course thoughts and sympathy go out to those folks.

Part of what I find so depressing is that we know these things can happen and we still turn a blind eye. You hope as a kid that adults will make the right, obvious decisions, but...

If its not in the budget to fix the bridge, then we can't fix the bridge. Anyone who reads the paper might know that a vast number of bridges in our country are not considered safe, but there's an economic incentive not to touch the bridges as it would stop the daily commutes of millions of Americans if we were to actually bring those bridges up to code. That, and raising taxes to actually fix the bridges...

I cross an unknown number of bridges into work. I take at least one bridge over train tracks on William Cannon and, of course, I cross the South 1st bridge when I head over Town Lake on my way in to town each morning. For various reasons I took the Congress Avenue bridge leaving town this evening, but generally, it's the expansive S. 1st/ Lavaca bridge two times a day.

I may also pass over smaller bridges as I cross gullies and creeks on S. First, headed toward town. Certainly there's a dip that, when I think about it, certainly isn't flat with the ground, so that's most likely a small bridge.

Jason crosses the Lamar Street bridge twice a day or more.

I do not think about the possibility of the bridges collapsing. Never. Until
today, when suddenly you realize all those "1/3rd of bridges are considered unsafe" statistics apply to you. I am deeply saddened that the bridge collapse occurred. I think we can all see a bit of ourselves in the position of the commuters.

I wish the victims and families of the victims of the bridge collapse my best.


MAY THE LEAGUE RECOMMEND

Hey, it's not just time for a new season of "Who Wants to be a Superhero?", there's a new show on PBS. So, may The League recommend...

Nova ScienceNow

I know, Nova is a show for geeks. BUT... it is informative and very well produced. This new version is hosted by the astrophysicist guy who makes routine appearances on The Daily Show, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Nova ScienceNow is broken up into shorter, roughly 20 minute segments, far briefer than the usual hour-long Nova shows. Each segment focues on a wildly different topic, with Dr. Tyson popping up between segments and then give you "the cosmic view" at the end. Sort of like "Springer's Final Thought", only... not a rambling bit of incoherence.

One of my life's great regrets was that because I struggled with math in grade school and middle school, I sort of gave up on math and the possibilities for a career in anything which required a strong math or science background. Other topics came more easily, or I could skate by. So, before I ever really understood anything about math or science I was vainly deciding that I'd prusue something a bit more abstract or artistic or something. I had good teachers, I think. I loved Physics and Biology in high school, and I took a boatload of Geology in college, as well as biology, anthropology and other stuff (knowing full well I'd be doomed in physics.) I sort of thought of science, at the time, as something completely out of my grasp. Which was kind of sad and dumb of me. But if it came down to getting low marks in a class or getting the easy A in theater arts, I was going for the easy A.

Nova ScienceNow manages to simplify things so that a brain as ill-functioning as my own can understand the concepts. They're going for the coolness factor and skimming over some of how stuff actually works, certainly, but... Hell, you get to see some really neat stuff and understand how science can make a better world. Plus, you know, robots and dinosaurs.

I was particularly interested in a story on the work of Cynthia Brazeal at the MIT AI labs. She's making social robots that are learning to react to human emotions at a certain level. It was one of those moments when you see a small part of the future, and all those Asimov stories don't seem so crazy. And, for some reason, when they showed the POV of the robot, I was profoundly sad. I don't know why. I guess the idea of the little robot's brain being brought into the world and trying to see and understand the world is that first step beyond being merely a machine. It's sort of a beautiful thing, seeing those silicon neural synapses firing, and wish fulfillment of generations of kids. But you can also almost see the thing struggling.

Sure, in fifty years when the robots have driven us all onto the coasts and we've got our backs to the water while the AI gunships are hunting us down, its not going to be pathetic and heartbreaking... But now... Well, let us hope we are kind to the things we bring into this world.

Anyhow, check out Nova ScienceNow. For us armchair science enthusiasts who are still bstunned by shiny objects and promises of a future full of flying cars and cloned dinosaurs, its a great show.


Christmas is coming...


I'm just saying...


Also just saying...

More Prison dancing action!
From Randy. And this time... QUEEN!!!

Astros Win in the 14th!
Of course I wandred off in the 11th thinking they'd lose...


I Am Popeye

KILL IT!!! OH MY GOD, KILL IT!!!!!

Dear Japan,

No.

Sincerely,

The League

Terror Robot 1

Terror Robot 2

Terror Robot 3

Crisis with Multiple Dogs!

Randy sent me this link. This physicist has a series on his blog in which he discusses physics with his dog.

And discusses how we live in a multiverse.

DC was right all along...