With the marketing around the new X-Files movie (and by the way, WTF?), I've been thinking about that series, and its assumptions, and that got me on to a general trend in SF that was, pretty much, the entire theme of The X-Files.
It's something that always vaguely bothered me in ways I ouldn't quite articulate even when I watched the show back in Jr. High, and now on further examination just seems so blatantly egrigious. It comes down to the poster in Mulder's office (and the subtitle of the new movie): "I Want To Believe." Science fiction has its share of Mulders, and it also has its share of Scullies, the cold skeptic, always looking for the other explaination.
In most SF, the believer is right, and the skeptic is wrong. This is understandable, because the elements that make it SF -- the aliens really are trying to talk to you, the time machine really does work, and so forth -- are usually pretty far-fetched. I'm fine with this, because, let's face it, it's a lot of fun to play in a world where these things, however unlikely, are true.
However, what does bother me is the way the skeptic is so often played as the irrational one. Sure, the believer turns out to be right, because that's what the story is about. But in the majority of cases, the guy weilding Occham's razor is going to get it right over someone who "Wants to Believe."
Worst of all, in a lot of stories, the point where the skeptic does "see the light" involves some suspension of their skeptical disbelief, often through some pseudo-religious/mystical experience, rather than through the scientific elimination of alternate theories. I know, I know, this makes for better drama. But at what cost? Can we constantly glorify sloppy thinking in our fiction without affecting our own rationality?
It's very strange to me how much "science fiction" contains this sort of egregious unscientific thinking right at its core.
