-
I’m not sure that makes sense though. You can be right and wrong about different things. Being right isn’t a universal state (although I understand the equivalency, Crichton saying the papers are full of shit while also denying climate change).
But I’m biased because I do agree with the newspaper thing to a degree - even if that’s fading with age and I’m sceptical about pretty much everything I read unless it properly cites evidence to support its arguments.
It’s funny though, I wonder why I’m comfortable to just write Crichton off as a whack job (despite the obvious dangers of what he was espousing).
-
It deserves no credence.
That's a stretch. It's lazy to say you don't have to consider every notion on its merits regardless of its origin, IMO.
Sure, if the origin is a raving fuckwit, that can be a helpful data point if you're lacking other means to judge the statement, but it should be obvious that's hardly conclusive on its own.
Everyone can teach you something.
Thanks for the info, interesting stuff!
I don't agree with his beliefs, but don't spend much time being outraged by it.
On point 4, genetic engineering and genetic science is heavily regulated because of all the ethical dilemmas, animal testing, potential issues regarding misuse?
I mean lab mutated viruses and genetic engineered disasters have been a horror film and cautionary tale book staple for years.
And besides, I thought Jurassic Park was more of a cautionary tale about irresponsible innovation, and an extremely wealthy owner's arrogance and pride, rather than the science itself?
Point 5, its pretty common for a sci fi writer to be fascinated by the paranormal/pseudo science. I would have thought a pre requisite for being a sci fi or fantasy writer would include an abnormally high interest in the unknown and make believe.