I may not strongly disagree with Elliott's view on the science of global warming---but isn't "dissing" without reading and the use of the word "heresy" pretty supportive of Crichton's argument (as I understand it from the summary on Amazon) here?
I figure some will enjoy the political/environmentalism commentary, others will enjoy a thrilling (I assume given the author) bit of pure fiction.
2 comments:
I can understand why Eliot would decline to a novel because of its “scientific heresy.” Eliot’s not closing his mind to any science, he just doesn’t want to read a book of fiction. Most of us tend to have beliefs that we believe in strongly enough, that we don’t want to waste our time reading fictional stories that have the effect of discrediting them. After all, how many of us enjoy reading disturbing stories, even when they are fiction, about Mormons. What happens when Crighton, or someone else, writes the next “deVinci code” of Mormonism? If we enjoy reading a sensational maligning of scientists and environmentalists in the name of “objectivity,” then maybe we can understand why some people would read sensational maligning of Mormons? I'm ok with people reading this book, I'm sure it makes interesting points, but I think that books like this are less valuable than more legitimate scientific sources, like peer-reviewed journals, words of scientists, etc.
Sorry if that little message I just posted sounded kind of terse. I've been at a science meeting in Sweden all day, so I guess I'm still in an "intense" mode. (People here are know for being pro-Gore.) I'm sure it would be mind expanding for me to read it. I trust Paul a lot, and fiction IS just fiction, right?
Post a Comment