The point about the media is well taken. For instance, the TV Crime-Drama Numb3rs had an atheistic savant mathematician who was graciously given work by his Brother (an FBI agent) to help with solving crimes. At some point in the series, the older FBI brother begins flirting with Judaism, which the mathematician brother decries (since he is an Atheist, of course)… well, that doesn’t sit well with the audience, so they have the typical episode where something miraculous occurs and the mathematician sees God.… This is what we will have to deal with in the USA. That and that atheists are seen as the most reviled group, right after murderers, homosexuals and drug addicts.
On the other hand, we have shows like “Lie to Me” and “House”, where the main characters are brilliant atheist altruists for whom the quest for truth is the most important thing, even if they’re also antisocial jerks who’re willing to lie and make people miserable. That’s still an improvement. ;-)
I loved the first 4 seasons of House MD for the exact same reason. However in the last two seasons they softened up his character (plus added a lot of other inconsistencies), to the extent it’s too frustrating for me to watch it.
I stopped watching it lately when the super rich guy sacrifices his whole fortune to save his son and manages to do so!
Looks like no mass-media show can escape the fate of being dumbed down finally.
I stopped watching it lately when the super rich guy sacrifices his whole fortune to save his son and manages to do so!
People routinely do stupid, irrational things and end up better off for it by blind chance… and then use that to justify their stupid decision. So I thought that particular instance was just realism, showing what atheists have to put up with. ;-)
The show does throw in a few annoying synchronicities now and then, but then, so does real life. Also, let’s be honest: House’s routine epiphanies are no more out of the blue than a random miracle would be… and as far as I can recall, all the miracles on the show have been due to doctors’ epiphanies or other human virtues, rather than by divine intervention.
Also, let’s be honest: House’s routine epiphanies are no more out of the blue than a random miracle would be...
No. They are not random. That is the result of continuous subconscious processing. Completely realistic and familiar for anyone working on hard problems.
I would not mind some random miracles, but in the last episodes of the show highly improbable miracles became the rule rather than exception. The first few seasons were quite different.
No. They are not random. That is the result of continuous subconscious processing. Completely realistic and familiar for anyone working on hard problems.
And anyone working on hard problems would also solve some of them during the straightforward, logical deductions phase.
(Ironically, this particular aspect of the show is arguably an anti-rational message, since the straightforward expertise and logical thinking of all the doctors (House included, except for his occasional work in the clinic) always makes things worse instead of better.)
There have been a lot of simpler problems that House solved immediately by ingenious but conscious deduction.
I agree that it is not realistic that House regularly has his flashes of insights always triggered by some seemingly irrelevant discussion with James. Still It is a dramatic vehicle that entertains me, simply because I know this kind of flashes very well and I can identify with them. I’d say this is the definition of a hard problem, that one needs some epiphany to solve them. Mathematicians usually label everything that can be solved by straightforward deduction “trivial”, even if the deduction is long-winding or elaborate.
I don’t agree that this aspect is anti-rational. Intuition is not at all irrational: once you had the flash, you get a completely rational insight. Even if the invention process is (practically) impossible to explain, the result should be fully rational (and rationally checkable) otherwise it is useless. It is an extremely common experience: everyone who works on non-trivial or problems gets used to using his brain in a very intuitive manner: moving from vague shadows to well defined contours, not on a crystal clear linear path.
I also don’t agree that the message is that the logical thinking and expertise of the doctors in the episodes is useless. It is important to cut of the irrelevant branches. After everything seems to be ruled out, House’s even greater expertise is needed to solve the case, but this solution is based on ruling out the higher probability branches first.
On the other hand, we have shows like “Lie to Me” and “House”, where the main characters are brilliant atheist altruists for whom the quest for truth is the most important thing, even if they’re also antisocial jerks who’re willing to lie and make people miserable. That’s still an improvement. ;-)
I loved the first 4 seasons of House MD for the exact same reason. However in the last two seasons they softened up his character (plus added a lot of other inconsistencies), to the extent it’s too frustrating for me to watch it.
I stopped watching it lately when the super rich guy sacrifices his whole fortune to save his son and manages to do so!
Looks like no mass-media show can escape the fate of being dumbed down finally.
People routinely do stupid, irrational things and end up better off for it by blind chance… and then use that to justify their stupid decision. So I thought that particular instance was just realism, showing what atheists have to put up with. ;-)
The show does throw in a few annoying synchronicities now and then, but then, so does real life. Also, let’s be honest: House’s routine epiphanies are no more out of the blue than a random miracle would be… and as far as I can recall, all the miracles on the show have been due to doctors’ epiphanies or other human virtues, rather than by divine intervention.
No. They are not random. That is the result of continuous subconscious processing. Completely realistic and familiar for anyone working on hard problems.
I would not mind some random miracles, but in the last episodes of the show highly improbable miracles became the rule rather than exception. The first few seasons were quite different.
And anyone working on hard problems would also solve some of them during the straightforward, logical deductions phase.
(Ironically, this particular aspect of the show is arguably an anti-rational message, since the straightforward expertise and logical thinking of all the doctors (House included, except for his occasional work in the clinic) always makes things worse instead of better.)
There have been a lot of simpler problems that House solved immediately by ingenious but conscious deduction.
I agree that it is not realistic that House regularly has his flashes of insights always triggered by some seemingly irrelevant discussion with James. Still It is a dramatic vehicle that entertains me, simply because I know this kind of flashes very well and I can identify with them. I’d say this is the definition of a hard problem, that one needs some epiphany to solve them. Mathematicians usually label everything that can be solved by straightforward deduction “trivial”, even if the deduction is long-winding or elaborate.
I don’t agree that this aspect is anti-rational. Intuition is not at all irrational: once you had the flash, you get a completely rational insight. Even if the invention process is (practically) impossible to explain, the result should be fully rational (and rationally checkable) otherwise it is useless. It is an extremely common experience: everyone who works on non-trivial or problems gets used to using his brain in a very intuitive manner: moving from vague shadows to well defined contours, not on a crystal clear linear path.
I also don’t agree that the message is that the logical thinking and expertise of the doctors in the episodes is useless. It is important to cut of the irrelevant branches. After everything seems to be ruled out, House’s even greater expertise is needed to solve the case, but this solution is based on ruling out the higher probability branches first.