Otherwise Known As Kevin Miller (XI)

What? Scientists colluding to stifle dissent? Where have I heard this before?

The entire time I was researching and writing Expelled, the Intelligent Design proponents we interviewed kept drawing parallels between the struggle they face from the Darwinian establishment and the challenges faced by climatologists who dare to question whether global warming is real and/or whether human activity has anything to do with it. Denial of grant money, refusal to publish their papers in peer-reviewed journals, denial of tenure and a generally hostile attitude toward the dissenting scientists and their work are just the tip of the iceberg.

Of course, when we made such allegations in Expelled, the Darwinian establishment accused us of being conspiracy theorists, of exaggerating the problem and of outright lying. There's no conspiracy to stifle Intelligent Design. And even if there is such a conspiracy, it's well deserved, because everyone knows that "it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but we don't like to talk about that)." So if these ID guys are challenging Darwinism, it has nothing to do with science. They're simply out of their gourd, and they deserve to be treated as such.

I don't have the time give a proper response to such distorted depictions of the objections ID proponents are raising--which would involve an extended discussion of how every scientific theory begins with a set of unprovable philosophical assumptions, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and just for good measure, David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. However, I will say that such thinking contradicts another belief that Darwinists hold to be true in virtually all other cases, namely, that science progresses not through stifling dissent but through encouraging it. Rigorous peer review is supposedly the foundation of good science, essentially creating a self-correcting mechanism whereby if one scientist makes a mistake, his or her peers will be sure to catch it. I've heard many scientists say this process gives science an air of virtual infallibility. If we don't catch the error now, someone will catch it sooner or later.

That's all fine and dandy when everyone is working within the same scientific paradigm or frame of reference. In such cases, no one is asking IF the reigning paradigm--i.e. Darwinism or man-made global warming--is true but merely how and why it's true. But what's to say the paradigm itself is correct? The scientific peers may be holding each other accountable within the system, but who or what is holding the system accountable? After all, if the astrology community made a similar claim--that their research into how the motions of heavenly bodies affect our lives can be trusted because they follow a rigorous peer review system--most people would still write them off as quacks.

Which brings me back to this story, which seems to reveal a systematic attempt to stifle dissent and squelch data that casts doubt on prevailing views about man-made global warming. All along, I said that the dynamic we unearthed in Expelled is not unique to the field of evolutionary biology. All scientific research is a high stakes, highly politicized activity driven by big money and even bigger egos. Scientists stake their personal and institutional credibility on their work, and when someone comes along and questions not only their particular findings but also the theoretical framework upon which they rest, people get a little testy. Which only goes to show that the glowing rhetoric about the merits of peer review as a self-correcting mechanism in science is completely disengaged from reality. Rather than ensure quality, it merely enforces orthodoxy.

This isn't just bad news for dissenting scientists, it's also bad news for the general public, who have been led to believe in a fable called "disinterested scientific inquiry." But as philosopher Daniel Dennett says, "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage has yet to be examined." The same can be said for politics, journalism and education. Anyone who thinks differently is naive.

On the other hand, maybe this isn't such bad news, because perhaps next time we won't be so quickly fooled by hucksters in lab coats who try to convince us that the science on a particular matter is "settled." As the late Michael Crichton pointed out, consensus science is like patriotism -- the first refuge of scoundrels:

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. 

Let's be clear, the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Update November 26, 2009: A breaking story out of New Zealand shows that the government's chief climate advisory unit--the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)--has allegedly been manipulating data there as well to reflect a warming trend over the past 160 years, to the tune of 0.92ºC per century. The raw data, however, reflects a statistically insignificant 0.06°C per century. An NIWA spokesman said they will issue a press release later today to justify their manipulation of the data.

And if you have 95 free minutes on your hands, you may also want to check out this video of climate change skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who is also featured in a documentary I'm working on right now:

Just an excuse to do a post on Metallica? Well, maybe...

I was shocked to open my newspaper this morning and read a horrifying story about a Belgian car crash victim who was misdiagnosed as being in a vegetative state (coma) for 23 years. Turns out his brain was functioning perfectly well the entire time, but he had no way of communicating that to the outside world. So he spent over two decades in silent anguish until someone finally realized what was going on. He still can't move his body, but now he's able to tells his story via a specialized computer.

Way back in 1988 when I was a young metal head, we banged our permed--yes, permed--mullets to a song by Metallica that told a similar story about a soldier who descended into a living hell after losing his arms, legs, and face in an artillery blast. Called One, the song was inspired in part by blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo's anti-war novel and film Johnny Got His Gun, which tells the story of a young soldier in World War I who endured a similar fate but then finally establishes contact with his medical staff by tapping out Morse Code with his head.

I can't tell you how many times I watched the video for One, which features footage from Trumbo's film. But I can tell you that if you hand me a guitar today, I can still play most of the song--including some of the guitar solos--note for note. As Metallica lead singer James Hetfield would say, sad but true.

Joe Eszterhas knows how to write a script

You know Joe--proud Hungarian and former screenwriting rock star who penned such raunchy films as Basic Instinct, Showgirls, Jade and Sliver. Then he got throat cancer, became a Christian and is now writing a script about the Virgin of Guadalupe.

I have this great book by Joe (all of his books are great) called The Devil's Guide to Hollywood. In it, he describes the ideal process for completing a first draft of your screenplay:

Write six pages of script a day. Stick to this schedule no matter what. You'll have a finished first draft in roughly 20 days.

Then go back and edit what you've written. Spend no more than five days on this edit.

Then rewrite your script from page one--with your edits. Spend no more than one week on this rewrite--that means twenty pages a day.

Put the script away for a week; don't even look at it.

Then edit it once again. Spend no more than four days on the edit this time.

Then rewrite it again from scratch with your edits--taking another week. This will be your third draft.

Now begin the process of trying to sell it--this, your official first draft.

If you add it all up, it comes out to roughly 45 days from blank page to salable script. That's a pretty doable schedule. When I'm on a roll, I can easily write 12-15 pages of script a day, slightly more if I'm working from a detailed outline. Which makes me wonder how much outlining Eszterhas does before he begins. Stephen King recommends knowing at least 60 percent of your story going in, which feels about right. And by the way: that 60 percent includes the ending, or a reasonable approximation of the ending.

Another glaring omission is time spent showing the script to friends, fellow writers, script doctors, agents, etc. prior to sending it out. If you asked Joe why he left out this step, I suspect he would give you a similar answer to the one Martin McDonagh, writer/director of In Bruges, gave when Jeff Goldsmith of Creative Screenwriting asked him that question: Because most people don't know what the hell they're talking about. I don't know if I'm quite that smug, but I admire the sentiment.

So there you have it--how to write a script and take it to market inside of two months. Joe did it at least 15 times, and if you have a smidgen of talent and a boatload of determination, you can, too. Even if you're not Hungarian. Or a rock star.

The end of screenwriting as we know it?

I got a little giddy this morning when I read Earl Newton's rant about how screenwriters have to stop being the schmucks whose work gets tromped on by directors, producers and the like, and start taking charge of how the the finished product turns out. Here's a little taste to whet your appetite:

I’m not sure if I have a resounding thesis statement to make, as much as an expression of anger.  I’m very tired of the idea that the director’s vision trumps the screenplay.  I’m saying this as a director myself.  Having a great visual imagination doesn’t qualify you to weigh in on story.  Yet it’s not uncommon for a script to be tossed out and completely reworked by a director, sometimes at the last minute, to support their “vision.”  Is there any other industry where a leader can come in, completely shred years of work and research, and “follow his vision?”

That's not to say screenwriters don't make mistakes or that the input of directors or producers is always negative. Far from it. But ultimately, if all you can do is write, there's a point at which you're relegated to the sidelines while the REAL filmmakers do their thing. It's a helpless and often frustrating feeling, especially when the finished product turns out to be nothing like you originally envisioned it.

So if you're an aspiring screenwriter, take Newton's advice to heart. Develop some additional skills. Even if you never become a director, editor or producer, the more you learn about how that rest of the film making process works, the more fully realized your vision will be on the page--and the less likely it will be altered or corrupted later on.

And now a word from Raymond Chandler...

"I suppose you know the famous story of the writer who racked his brains about how to show, very shortly, that a middle-aged man and his wife were no longer in love with each other. Finally he licked it. The man and his wife got into an elevator and he kept his hat on. At the next stop a lady got into the elevator and he immediately removed his hat. That is proper film writing. Me, I'd have done a four-page scene about it."

Incidentally, if you enjoy old time radio shows, have a listen to Chandler's Adventures of Philip Marlowe.

Is anti-Semitism still a clear and present danger? Watch "Defamation" and find out

From the web site:

Intent on shaking up the ultimate sacred cow for Jews, Israeli director Yoav Shamir embarks on a provocative quest to answer the question, "What is anti-Semitism today?" Does it remain a dangerous and immediate threat? Or is it a scare tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit their critics?

Speaking with an array of people from across the political spectrum (including the head of the Anti-Defamation League and its fiercest critic, author Norman Finkelstein) and traveling to places like Auschwitz (alongside Israeli school kids) and Brooklyn (to explore reports of violence against Jews), Shamir's findings are shocking, enlightening and--surprisingly--often humorous.

You can read more about the film and see a list of screening dates here.

Could "Crazy Heart" be this year's "The Wrestler"?

And will if finally earn Jeff Bridges an Oscar?