Christopher Nolan’s mental heist thriller is the summer’s blockbuster that has the blogosphere and twitterverse locked in discourse over its elaborate plot. Movie goers, bloggers, tweeps, and critics are all dishing out their theories about the story’s structure and their interpretation of the plot’s conclusion. What is there to say about this film, as an artist and a skeptic, and its journey through the mental labyrinth?

Check out the rest of the article I wrote about Inception over at Skeptic North.

I’ve added three new images to the header rotation…just some quick little Trek doodles.

The film has some new ads out that look like real commercials for an organization setup to shelter people from the devastation. Unfortunately, there are many woo-artists who have been spreading the 2012 myth for quite some time now. This major motion picture is drawing more attention to this so-called Mayan prophecy.

Griffith Observatory has a nice page on their site which debunks the 2012 myth, here. This is appropriate, since most of the myth’s claims are astronomical (no pun intended).

THERE IS NO PLANETARY ALIGNMENT on December 21st, 2012. Even if there was, planetary alignments WON’T DESTROY THE EARTH.

THERE IS NO GALACTIC ALIGNMENT of our solar system either. Our galaxy is too huge to have a midpoint that you could pinpoint to a specific year.

THERE IS NO MYSTERIOUS PLANET headed our way to destroy us. Government agencies aren’t hiding evidence of a Planet X or Planet Niburu.

Now, here comes the really silly part; guess what? THE MAYAN CALENDAR DOESN’T END IN 2012. Yes…the claim that’s the basis of the 2012 myth isn’t true either. The Mayans never made any 2012 apocalyptic predictions. Part of their calendar ends–which had many cycles–but a new one begins.

So, you probably shouldn’t be concerned about the world ending in 2012. At least, not any more than you do any other year. Our own calendar ends too—-on December 31st. I predict some people may even have a party!

The director, Alex Proyas, was quoted saying he wanted the movie to explore different viewpoints, “the scientific viewpoint of the logical construct of the universe and the one of faith, where people see this incredibly complex place we live in and go, ‘Well, how could this have all just happened randomly?’“ (my bold) This is one major annoyance with the film; it doesn’t even know what science is and what viewpoint it has. Again, audiences are getting the misguided message that science claims everything is random and stuff just happens by accident.

The irony is, unlike new age garbage like numerology, scientific theories actually do make accurate predictions for the world around us. Real predictions…not just after-the-fact pattern matching that happens with divination games like astrology, tarot, and psychic readings. You can use scientific theories to accurately launch a small rover into space and have it travel to another freakin’ planet and predict where it should land on that planet, hundreds of millions of kilometers away! Or you can have a theory like evolution, which predicted, about a hundred years before the discovery of genetics, that such a system should exist–it predicted the existence of an entirely new field of science!

Science is all about discovering how the world works and the cause behind the things we see and experience. It is faith that gives empty answers for why the world is the way it is; it’s faith that tells us that the big questions about the universe are infinitely mysterious and beyond our grasp.

And, frankly, it’s a little tiring to see the happy religious characters lecturing to grumpy miserable scientist characters in films and TV. The happiest people I know are scientifically minded and lead their lives free of faith and the supernatural. All the religious and new age people I know are quite unhappy, worry-full people, who always seem to be lost and unsure. Anecdotal, I know…

It’s not hard to see why such a horrible movie is doing so well at the box office. A lot of people are full of doubt, fear, and uncertainty about the future. It’s a comforting idea that there’s a magic solution that can warn us of danger and protect us against the unknown…and the only thing you have to do is keep believing, no matter what the facts tell you.

Just keep listening to the little voices inside your head–they know a lot more than the objective voice of reason coming from your MIT colleague.

Cage, you and your pseudoscience crapfest are forcing me to quote again:

For me, it is far better to understand the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying or reassuring.

-Carl Sagan

I think the biggest reason behind why I like shows like Star Trek is the great science role models they have. How many times have you see a movie where, surprise surprise, the only scientist in the show is insane/evil/immoral and a superweirdo. *sigh* It seems rare to come across a hero like Indiana Jones, who is just as irresistible in his professor-bow-tie suit as he is with his whip. There are many reasons why so many people love Star Trek (I’m a TNG girl), but mine would be how it presented a world that valued intellectuals.

The crew of TNG were renaissance men (female crew included); they had a broad base of knowledge on everything–art, music, history…they read books and poetry, played instruments, and even did theatre. In the universe of Trek, if you weren’t well-read, couldn’t do math, spoke with poor grammar or you were just plain ignorant, you were very uncool indeed! A lot of shows will have a main character, who is a good leader, brave, social, charming, etc., use a nerdy socially awkward secondary character when they need ta gets some science stuff done. But in Trek, the scientists and engineers were the main characters, and those who were ignorant about science and math were the weirdos.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen much of this myself from the general public of small towns up here in the north; I hate coming across this attitude of being proud that you can’t do math, don’t read, don’t know history, and speak with horrid grammar. But what annoys me slightly more are those who say they are “fans of science”. Why? Because every time I’ve heard this, it’s been from someone who will add a “but…” to the end of that statement.

Oh, they’re a fan of science all right. They think that Hubble and the Mars rovers are cool and will at least know what the LHC is. They like their smartphones and not-dying from smallpox. But perhaps the reason I don’t like hearing “Hey, I’m a big fan of science…” is because what immediately follows is usually a rant about new age woo, pseudoscience, or fluffy spirituality. Ugh.

This reminds me of the typical movie hero I mentioned; They’re just “fans” of science when they need it…and call upon the nerdy science wiz in their group. But when science starts to tell them something they don’t like, they put it on their ignore list. Please, if you’re going to tell me things like “faith and science will one day merge”, “I’m not religious. I’m spiritual”, or tell me that science is wrong about astrology/dowsing/numerology/pokadotpineappleology, then please don’t tell me you’re a fan of science, mmkay?

Because you’re making ME not want to say what a big fan of science I really am! So until all you pseudofans stop using that phrase, I’m going to steal the lame teenybopper style phrasing that you find on Wet Seal graphic tees and say that Music Science is my Boyfriend! lol