13 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

Exciting, highly imaginative, engaging, and intelligent writer of science fiction and futuristic books.

I read Jurassic Park in the fourth grade, and shortly thereafter Jurrasic Park II - The Lost World, both based on biotechnology and genetics.

The Andromeda Strain was another great book based on biotechnology. His most recent book Next was based on biotechnology, and had a hint of Singularity-related intelligence enhancement.

The 2002 book Prey was based on nanotechnology.

Other great science fiction books he has written that I have read include Timeline and Sphere. (both were incredibly awesome books).

Two other great books he wrote that I have read are Congo and Airframe. I don't believe they were science fiction, but possibly (it's been a while).

His 2004 book State Of Fear was another great story all about fear-based politics, including a tough look at the global warming scam.

All of these were exciting and imaginative stories. I am sure I will read each of them again at least one more time.

:(

Edited by Savage, 07 November 2008 - 03:38 AM.

[niner]

When I was in Junior High School, I couldn't put Andromeda Strain down. Sadly, Crichton's legacy is a mixed bag.

[JLL]

"But the science community's harshest criticisms were reserved for Crichton's 2004 State of Fear, in which eco-terrorists keep research funding flowing by causing unnatural disasters that they blame on global warming. In arguments later cited by such climate change denialists as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Crichton attacked the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures — a position that was already scientific consensus, and has become an even stronger consensus since."

What... Crichton taking a stand against alarmist fearmongering was his greatest feat.

Science is not about consensus... and apparently wired.com is not about science. Hail Crichton!

[RighteousReason]

Apparently he also read and occasionally commented at OvercomingBias.com

[VictorBjoerk]

What a loss to humanity.The jurassic park movies are great.

[Heliotrope]

i read most of his novels too. loss of an advocate , to cancer, at 66, he's not that old

[niner]

"But the science community's harshest criticisms were reserved for Crichton's 2004 State of Fear, in which eco-terrorists keep research funding flowing by causing unnatural disasters that they blame on global warming. In arguments later cited by such climate change denialists as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Crichton attacked the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures — a position that was already scientific consensus, and has become an even stronger consensus since."

What... Crichton taking a stand against alarmist fearmongering was his greatest feat.

Science is not about consensus... and apparently wired.com is not about science. Hail Crichton!

I think you misunderstand, JLL. Crichton's State of Fear WAS alarmist fearmongering. He was mongering fear with a fictional tale of "eco-terrorists", "causing" natural disasters to "keep research funding flowing"! What a fine combination of Right Wing paranoia and make-believe.

The word "consensus" here implies that there is widespread agreement on the connection between atmospheric composition and temperature. Such widespread agreement is a correlate of the correctness of a theory. The Atomic Theory, for example, is a consensus view. There is consensus because no one can find a problem with it; it doesn't mean a bunch of people just sat around, had some beers, and decided "this is the way it's going to be".

[niner]

loss of an advocate , to cancer, at 66, he's not that old

Advocate for what? Certainly not nanotech, for which he was an alarmist fearmonger... He was a great entertainer in his day, but in his later years he just became a crank. It's true that 66 is not that old.

[rwac]

"But the science community's harshest criticisms were reserved for Crichton's 2004 State of Fear, in which eco-terrorists keep research funding flowing by causing unnatural disasters that they blame on global warming. In arguments later cited by such climate change denialists as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Crichton attacked the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures — a position that was already scientific consensus, and has become an even stronger consensus since."

What... Crichton taking a stand against alarmist fearmongering was his greatest feat.

Science is not about consensus... and apparently wired.com is not about science. Hail Crichton!

I think you misunderstand, JLL. Crichton's State of Fear WAS alarmist fearmongering. He was mongering fear with a fictional tale of "eco-terrorists", "causing" natural disasters to "keep research funding flowing"! What a fine combination of Right Wing paranoia and make-believe.

The word "consensus" here implies that there is widespread agreement on the connection between atmospheric composition and temperature. Such widespread agreement is a correlate of the correctness of a theory. The Atomic Theory, for example, is a consensus view. There is consensus because no one can find a problem with it; it doesn't mean a bunch of people just sat around, had some beers, and decided "this is the way it's going to be".

Niner, There's a major difference between the the Atomic theory (say) and AGW.

The Atomic theory has been used to make nuclear reactors, weapons, fusion devices, etc.
It is very testable.

AGW or Climate Change is different in the sense that there's no hope of actually using it in any way.
Can you give me a concrete prediction that, if it was false, AGW would be in doubt ?

AGW is not Popperian. The atomic theory is.

[Evolutionary]

R.I.P. Michael Crighton... I remember I used to play a PC game called 'The Lost World' when I was around 7 years of age or so. The film Jurassic Park I watched on TV, it rocked.

I also read overcomingbias, but didn't realize that he commented there.

[JLL]

I think you misunderstand, JLL. Crichton's State of Fear WAS alarmist fearmongering. He was mongering fear with a fictional tale of "eco-terrorists", "causing" natural disasters to "keep research funding flowing"! What a fine combination of Right Wing paranoia and make-believe.

If you want to think of it that way. I was referring to the lectures and everything else around the book (see the link at the end of the post), which were basically about cutting through the bullshit and looking at the actual science instead of environmental fearmongering - which mostly comes from the left wing (not that I care about one wing or the other).

The word "consensus" here implies that there is widespread agreement on the connection between atmospheric composition and temperature.

Well, there is also widespread disagreement. Did you see the petition that was signed by hundreds of scientists that said the debate is far from over?

Such widespread agreement is a correlate of the correctness of a theory. The Atomic Theory, for example, is a consensus view. There is consensus because no one can find a problem with it; it doesn't mean a bunch of people just sat around, had some beers, and decided "this is the way it's going to be".

Agreement is not always a correlate of the correctness of a theory; 100% of the people on this planet once believed the Earth was flat, yet it didn't make their theory any more correct. All it took was one man to prove them wrong.

If science worked in a democratic way, it would get us nowhere. Let's look at the actual studies instead of what the so-called consensus is.

Also, a lot of people CAN find problems with AGW theory. It's just that the ones who are not willing to look want the ones who can to shut up and tell no one about them. Doesn't sound like rigid science to me - it sounds like environmental fearmongering. And there's a shitload of money to be made in the process.

http://www.michaelcr...ndependent.html

[Mind]

Crichton's State of Fear WAS alarmist fearmongering. He was mongering fear with a fictional tale of "eco-terrorists", "causing" natural disasters to "keep research funding flowing"!

Holy crap. Not only is it apostate to challenge any single point of AGW theory on scientific grounds, apparently you can't write fiction about it either.

[John_Ventureville]

Michael Crichton was a gifted storyteller but I don't know if he was truly pro-technology and a friend to transhumanists. His books made such subjects as genetic engineering and nanotech seem scary to the public. "Prey", his nanotech book is supposedly under development in Hollywood.

John

[RighteousReason]

Michael Crichton was a gifted storyteller but I don't know if he was truly pro-technology and a friend to transhumanists. His books made such subjects as genetic engineering and nanotech seem scary to the public. "Prey", his nanotech book is supposedly under development in Hollywood.

John

You are right. The plot line almost always involved technology going horribly wrong- Jurassic Park 1 and 2, Andromeda Strain, Next, Prey, Timeline, and Sphere. However, Hollywood always exacerbates this into some kind of "message". He was never about being against technology or progress.