I think the film has other value, but anyway, I think you’ve got a point here. One thing really jutted out at me: the “science side” mentioned at least twice “peer-review” as an important feature of science, which it mostly isn’t, and in context it read to me like an applause light for the audience. Though, an alternate reading is that the DiCaprio character was doing the applause lighting to the in-universe audience (I’m not sure this makes sense in context, e.g. it might’ve been the J. Lawrence character instead, and it would be a sort of sophisticated reading....). I think there was another thing with this flavor, though I forget what it was.
I found this especially grating because he used it to criticize engineering. Peer review is only very dubiously an important part of science; but it’s just plain confused to look at a plan to build a bridge, to build a spaceship, or to prevent a comet from destroying Earth and say “Oh, no, it hasn’t been peer reviewed.”
I noticed the same thing, and realized that I was feeling the LW-tribe feeling of “people say they like real science but like fake science, only me and my in-group like real science”. It was also annoying for me as I watched it, but I think that responding specifically to that phrase is as much a tribal signaling thing as using it is.
I think the film has other value, but anyway, I think you’ve got a point here. One thing really jutted out at me: the “science side” mentioned at least twice “peer-review” as an important feature of science, which it mostly isn’t, and in context it read to me like an applause light for the audience. Though, an alternate reading is that the DiCaprio character was doing the applause lighting to the in-universe audience (I’m not sure this makes sense in context, e.g. it might’ve been the J. Lawrence character instead, and it would be a sort of sophisticated reading....). I think there was another thing with this flavor, though I forget what it was.
I found this especially grating because he used it to criticize engineering. Peer review is only very dubiously an important part of science; but it’s just plain confused to look at a plan to build a bridge, to build a spaceship, or to prevent a comet from destroying Earth and say “Oh, no, it hasn’t been peer reviewed.”
Hard agree, it felt iffy to me.
I noticed the same thing, and realized that I was feeling the LW-tribe feeling of “people say they like real science but like fake science, only me and my in-group like real science”. It was also annoying for me as I watched it, but I think that responding specifically to that phrase is as much a tribal signaling thing as using it is.