tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post773658331498158171..comments2024-03-19T02:14:31.704-04:00Comments on <center>OnFiction</center>: Research Bulletin: Detecting Scientific Inaccuracies in MoviesKeith Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16419339550879570935noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-71274398637520802402011-01-02T10:58:02.023-05:002011-01-02T10:58:02.023-05:00Seems to me the study touches on a larger issue, w...Seems to me the study touches on a larger issue, which is the issue of visual power.<br /><br />If, in a movie, a seemingly credible figure speaks about a topic, then viewers will accept what is said. Movies based on Michael Crichton novels are good examples. Jurassic Park, for one. Crichton, an MD turned writer, mixed science with science fiction in just the right proportions to convince his fans that his stories were within the realm of the possible.<br /><br />But the willingness of viewers to accept as true the statements made in movies is hardly limited to science. As we know, Oliver Stone has taken millions of viewers for a ride in many films. When it comes to "facts" and what viewers come to believe, his JFK movie added more fuel to the conspiracy-theory fire.<br /><br />I thought using Donald Sutherland to play an unnamed "deep throat" character was a nifty bit of cinema trickery. Had Stone filled the role with an unknown face, the character would have had no power to persuade.<br /><br />Then there are outright cinematic liars like Michael Moore who fool people into thinking their films are documentary truth simply because they say so.<br /><br />If you consider the con job perpetrated on movie-goers who watched The Sting, you see how easy it is to manipulate people's perceptions.no_slappzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04207475509053402475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-58638069726323604382010-12-20T13:46:58.997-05:002010-12-20T13:46:58.997-05:00You're right that the participants answered &l...You're right that the participants answered < 3/8 of the target questions. I doubt means the viewers "filed away" 5 incorrect science facts, since it isn't likely that they knew all 8 facts to begin with. <br /><br />Assuming the movie science questions were the same difficulty as the general science questions(5.07/8), which may not be true, we're looking at more like an average of 2 incorrect facts adopted.Scottnoreply@blogger.com