(no subject)

[fan_eunice]

I really wish shows/movies about the supernatural handled skepticism better. This is not a huge complaint, just one that almost inevitably sets my eyes rolling. Medium is handling it better than a lot, since they've established that her dreams can be misinterpreted and/or lack specificity or detail a certain amount of questioning of what they mean or being unable to immediately act on her information makes sense. What does not make sense is when the information is met with flat out disbelief and exclamations of it being crazy talk by the people who've worked with her long term.

Look, I am a hard core atheist and skeptic. And while I love me my shows about the supernatural, I don't believe these things exist for real outside of fiction. This is because I don't have evidence that they are true, not because I'm gonna go 'nuh UH' to things I have experienced or seen with my own eyes for crying out loud. I dunno, I just get kind of irritated by the implication that skeptics are just doing so to be contrary or stubborn, and will continue to be so in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise instead of incorporating new information and acting accordingly. This is actually one of the things I love so much about Fringe, actually. That once it is established crazy ass shit exists, the reaction of characters is no longer to declare that it can't be, and waste time being convinced at every new instance of crazy ass shit, but to work within the fact that they know it is.

Really, supernatural type shows, it's okay...once you've established the rules of your universe we don't need to be convinced anymore and neither do your regular characters. We all know it is true because we've seen it.

Comments

[cereta]

This was actually one of the reasons I liked Doggett on the X-Files. Yeah, he was a skeptic, but when a monster was right in front of him, he damn well shot the thing rather than disbelieving. It's also why I liked Linda Blair's guest shot on SPN. When faced with actual evidence, she shifted her thinking rather than trying to make the evidence fit the way she already thought.

[fan_eunice]

Poor Scully was one of the worst victims of this nonsense. Her initial skepticism made sense...Mulder comes off as a total nutjob at the best of times. At a certain point it just became willful ignorance though, of a sort that just didn't fit with an intelligent and inquisitive scientist with mountains of proof sitting right in front of her.

[klia]

Yeah, I was going to mention Scully. Her protestations got ridiculous after a while because she'd seen SO much, and she started coming across as obtusely pigheaded and closed-minded rather than healthily skeptical.

I think on Medium, Manny's dismissiveness bugged me the most. Sure, he was the DA and needed evidence before he could act, but he knew her track record and, I think, should've trusted her more. I mean, he was, after all, using a psychic to help crack cases and get convictions.

[fan_eunice]

Yah...I mean it makes sense to ask if she's *interpreting* her dreams correctly when they don't make initial sense and to brainstorm what they could mean. It makes sense to point out they don't provide enough detail to know where to start looking. But after the billionth time her dream proves to make sense after the details of the crime are revealed, dismissing what she's saying out of hand just gets ridiculous.

[sapote]

I've seen this said about the Left Behind books: of course the skeptics in those books come off poorly; they live in a world where straightup divine intervention occurs constantly and is well-documented by news cameras. But unless we get very cagey about word definitions, we don't. Different world, different rules.

[fan_eunice]

Exactly. It makes sense that someone might initially be skeptical or look for alternative explanations when confronted with something supernatural, or be dismissive and rationalize if it's a one time event. That anyone would continue to do so in the face of ongoing and overwhelming evidence and proof...it just isn't how people act.

[jackiekjono]

Wouldn't that be lovely?

I think they do a pretty good job of not portraying the skeptical community as a bunch of denialists in the Dresden Files, too. I accept, though, that it is really tricky to avoid throwing rocks at skepticism in the real world when you are bringing in supernatural elements into your world.

Just occurred to me - Should we start a write in campaign to get the Amazing Randi a guest shot on Fringe?!?!?!?!? He would be totally awesome and badass.

[fan_eunice]

I don't think it's throwing rocks to have someone not believe in whatever supernatural thing, but it is to have them continue to deny or dismiss it when they are confronted with consistent proof. Not believing in ghosts if you've never seen one isn't unreasonable. Not believing in ghosts when they regularly show up on your doorstep complete with documented ghost papers and an official afterlife ID is just...silly.

[heresluck]

This is actually one of the things I love so much about Fringe, actually. That once it is established crazy ass shit exists, the reaction of characters is no longer to declare that it can't be, and waste time being convinced at every new instance of crazy ass shit, but to work within the fact that they know it is.

WORD. This is, for me, one of the key ways in which Fringe improves upon the elements it borrowed from X-Files.

[fan_eunice]

I don't think it's really happened at all since the first season during the initial 'wait, there's seriously weird shit out there? really?' phase. Characters may be surprised at the nature of any given weird shit, but they aren't doubtful or dismissive of it because it makes sense within the context and rules of their universe. That's all I'm asking!

If your universe has objective evidence that the supernatural/weird shit exists, then it makes about as much sense for a character who is aware of it to act as though it didn't as it does for me to insist that internal combustion engines work by magic no matter how many times you pop the hood and show me different.

[liviapenn]

God, Jonathan Kent on Smallville used to do this EVERY WEEK with whatever Clark's new power was. "What are you saying, Clark? You can hear things happening that are far away? This is unbelievable! I don't believe it!" Dude, last week Clark was suddenly *shooting fire from his eyes* and week before that it was x-ray vision. How is this more implausible?? It's not!

At some point you've really gone beyond normal skepticism and into deep psychological denial. ^_^

[fan_eunice]

Hee! Seriously. I think I probably would have thrown my definition of normal out the window the first time I saw my toddler lift a truck. By the age of 15, I can't imagine what would shock me.

[franzeska]

People think skeptics are doing it "just cuz" because they (the believers) have cracked ideas about how proof and experience work. In particular, without a firm grasp of cognitive biases like the Forer effect, it's impossible to evaluate whether personal experience actually proves anything. It ends up sounding like the skeptic is ignoring what the believer knows they experienced for themselves. So then people write skeptics in a stupid fashion.

(And sorry to hear about your internet!)