From: seanc130@hotmail.com   
      
   "Sean Carroll"  wrote   
      
   > Now, as for my own opinion about the show? It's obviously nowhere near the   
   > level XF was. (Who but a fool would ever expect it to be?) And yet, I find   
   > myself strangely hooked on it. They must be doing *something* right, since   
   > it's still one of the biggest shows around, and a major watercooler topic   
   > among the hip kids. Most of my old X-Phile friends seem to be fans. And I   
   > almost never feel 'bored' when I'm watching it. Even if it's not a   
   > spectacular masterpiece, I still find it to be fairly intelligent,   
   > engrossing, scary at times, and visually striking -- there are some pretty   
   > damn good special/visual effects, usually at least one or two per episode.   
   > At least, it's enough of all those things to keep me watching, and to make   
   > most of my thoughts and feelings about it lean to the positive side,   
   > toward praise rather than criticism. (Not that I don't think some   
   > legitimate criticisms can be made.) Hell, the character of Walter Bishop,   
   > particularly his chemistry with Peter, is worth the price of admission   
   > alone, as far as I'm concerned.   
      
   Oh, and one more point. I like that they present all the weird, trippy stuff   
   as 'fringe science', more than 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' stuff. I like   
   the fact that it's more about imagining what bizarre things science may   
   discover in the future, on the outer edges of reality, where things don't   
   fit into the neat little boxes of naïve, oversimplified materialism and   
   pseudo-rationalist arrogance (the attitude that any 'extreme possibility'   
   that's a little 'out there', or challenging to the consciousness, or smells   
   of the paranormal, is dismissed as useless mumbo jumbo).   
      
   Too many of both scientists and paranormal advocates -- the extremists who   
   are two sides of the same coin -- promote this nonsense idea that science   
   and the paranormal are two contradictory worldviews. They have either too   
   much scepticism and no willingness to even consider these things, or too   
   much willingness to believe and no scepticism at all. They either say that   
   all so-called paranormal phenomena are nonsense, believed only by the overly   
   credulous, and rational science has no room for any such things; or they say   
   that all these paranormal things are real, based not on evidence but belief,   
   and that these things are somehow 'beyond scientific explanation'.   
      
   Either way, despite being superficial enemies, they're both making the same   
   mistake, and overlooking the same truth. As Dr J Allen Hynek used to say,   
   there will be a 22nd-century science, and a 23rd-century science, and a 50th   
   century science, and a science millions of years in the future, and   
   scientists will demonstrate, explain, and harness phenomena that we don't   
   even have any clue exist yet -- let alone the stuff that there are only   
   scattered eyewitness accounts of today, that many dismiss as unreal because   
   the physical proof isn't there yet (or, as in the case of UFOs, they're just   
   ignorant of the massive body of physical evidence that already exists,   
   because the mainstream has refused to look at or publicise it). One needs   
   both a willingness to look beyond the mainstream and entertain ideas about   
   things that aren't yet understood, *and* a rationalist scepticism to weed   
   out the bad ideas from the good ones, in order to truly advance science. (As   
   we all should know, thanks to the Scully/Mulder partnership.)   
      
   Imagine if you told someone in Isaac Newton's time about quantum mechanics.   
   'Nonsense!', he would say. 'That violates all the wonderful new laws of   
   physics we just discovered!' But they didn't *know* all the laws. The were   
   only at the very beginning of the journey. Quantum mechanics is very real,   
   and a fundamental aspect of the world; but they couldn't have discovered or   
   believed in it at the time, because science wasn't ready yet. But science   
   became ready. Science is always advancing, and new things always continue to   
   be discovered, even gigantically bizarre things that challenge all the   
   mainstream scientific ideas of the day.   
      
   So many TV shows talk about the 'paranormal' and the 'supernatural' these   
   days. I believe that 'paranormal' is a useful term, but it can be   
   misunderstood; many people think of it as meaning that something is somehow   
   beyond all possibility of scientific understanding. They think it really   
   means 'supernatural' -- a meaningless term, since, as Scully says, 'Nothing   
   happens in contradiction to nature. Only in contradiction to what we know of   
   it.'   
      
   But 'Fringe', in the tradition of XF, is trying a *scientific* approach to   
   the paranormal. I mean, obviously, the actual 'science' of the show is   
   almost all fictional. (Although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that   
   some day, at least *some* of it could come true -- parallel universes, in   
   particular, are becoming more and more widely accepted by the physics   
   community in real life.) But the point is, it's more pseudo-SCIENCE than   
   PSEUDO-science. Their method for exploring the unknown is a lab full of   
   chemicals, physical and biological experiments, mathematical calculations --   
   not unreliable mediums and 'ghost whisperers' and idle armchair conspiracy   
   theorists, over half of whom are lying charlatans or self-deluded crazies (a   
   few may be legitimate, but there's really no way of knowing which ones, if   
   any).   
      
   And that's what I love about 'Fringe': that its view of the paranormal is   
   that it's an opportunity to push the boundaries of science, not to tell a   
   bunch of faerie tales and urban legends and promote the doctrine that some   
   things are just 'beyond the reach of science'. I mean, I love the show   
   'Medium', for example, but its treatment of the paranormal is wholly   
   unscientific -- it's all about magical spirits and visions provided by some   
   kind of omnibus benevolent force that wants to 'put things right'. That's   
   not what 'Fringe' is about. I think it's a worthy successor to the XF   
   tradition of *scientific* paranormal investigation.   
      
   --   
   --Sean   
   http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile   
   http://spclsd223.livejournal.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)