Due to the volume of work that presently requires my attention I have been lax about blogging. Nevertheless, consistent posts will return. Although I want to comment further on the Boggo Road situation, I have chosen a different topic for this first post more closely related to what I have been doing.
No doubt many have come across recent pronouncements of the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who. Besides that it is also the 50th anniversary of The X-Men. My post concerns only Doctor Who though as The X-Men are not currently the focus of massive academic attention despite their similar vintage celebration.
To a large degree I dislike the anniversary being used as cause to talk about the revised series. If, in 2055, we are still talking about Russell T Davies, David Tennant and company then those can be central aspects of an anniversary celebration. Presently we are seeing the anniversary of the original series. I've often said, "I'm a fan of Doctor Who and that's why I loathe the revised series." Despite the shared title and BBC home, these two ventures are markedly different. Given the substantially altered tone and behaviour of characters (specifically the Doctor) the two series are easily likened to the case of Battlestar Galactica. No one would say there is a credible continuity between the original and the reimagined BSG and likewise it is difficult to say the new Doctor Who is heavily associated with its forebear.
Commenting on Doctor Who leads me to an observation I made while attending a recent conference. Two of the presenters, both with qualifications in English alone, engaged in evaluative discussions of the science presented in film and television narratives. By that I mean they were assessing the validity of scientific statements as made in films against actual scientific knowledge. Such a task is quite fine in principle. However, I was concerned at the potential for error that arises from non-scientists making evaluative assessments without possessing the requisite expertise to do so. It is one thing for Anne Simon, Laurence Krauss, and Michao Kaku (all professional academic scientists) to engage in such evaluation. But how can anyone in the audience be sure that what they are being told is accurate? One speaker provided an opening monologue about only ever being an adequate science student. Then during questions it was also acknowledged that information from the science department had been sought on all matters. That raises the question of why someone with an openly avowed lack of knowledge would undertake work wherein they cannot lay credence to their own claims. One example was a description of the use of worm holes for time travel as "a big if". But could that presenter explain anything about why that is so? No. Because they were simply told it was and accepted it.
It was the second presenter whose talk focused specifically on Doctor Who. By the presenter's explanation the talk was derived from a course headed by self same English academic about 'Science fiction and science fact'. There are ways that a non-scientist could engage with that topic but the presenter was connecting part of a fictional narrative with contemporary science. A direct relation was not present at all (i.e. there was not a mention of quantum physics then a discussion of that field); rather, the presenter had decided to postulate a relationship between a new Doctor Who quote about time being "a big ball of timey-whimey wibbly-wobbly...stuff" with M theory (an extension of string theory). The presenter was never explicit on just how the two were connected, likely because of a lack of actual knowledge concerning M theory itself. What was basically provided was a second-hand talk on M theory via verbatim Brian Greene quotes (from an interview) and a direction to read his Elegant Universe. Relying on the statements of others in such a manner is problematic because it clearly displays a lack of awareness with the broader literature. A single source does not an academic assessment make.
After having to type out that loathsome quote I will at least note that it was one of my favourite examples of what happens when the science of science fiction is totally forsaken. I am not arguing that science fiction needs to keep to actual science. What I mean to convey is that when even the illusion of scientific law and character are lost what one gets is a fundamentally incoherent narrative. Events simply happen and cannot be easily questioned because there is no internal logic at work. I challenge any and all who wish to defend the new Doctor Who to provide rational explanation for the events of the episode in which that quote appeared ("Blink") without recourse to some similarly vague and meaningless treacle of childish verbiage. For a further example of the incoherence that results from ignoring any sense of logical structuring see Looper (2012). In the scene where the usual (pseudo)scientific explanation would be given it is simply eschewed leading to a conclusion that makes no sense besides to say that the writer wanted that ending and didn't see fit to actually make it plausible even within the confines of a fictional reality.