Scully and the horrible skeptics on TV.

EGarrett

Illuminator
E
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,086
Is there any REAL human being on the planet who would act like Scully from the X-Files? Ignoring invading aliens, flaming demons and her own ALIEN ABDUCTION to apparently continue pretending they don't exist?

Most TV writers don't seem to have the slightest grasp on skepticism and critical thinking. I'm a JREF member, but if a frigging alien picked me up in a spaceship and flew me around, I'd BELIEVE in aliens.

Sheesh.
 
As much as I agree with your general point about how skeptics are portrayed, I have to be the first to point out that Michael Shermer himself was "abducted by aliens" and still does not believe it happened.

Our senses can mess with us :)

--- G.
 
I see what you're saying. It's not unreasonable to dismiss an actual alien abduction as a hallucination...

But Scully's world made little to no sense if you assumed nothing spooky was going on. Where did the aliens come from? The cigarette-smoking man who never said anything but always magically turned up at these cases? Sh-tloads of things were unaccounted for and she idiotically ignored it...

Real life is the opposite. If you assume nothing "woo-ish" is going on, the world makes sense. Why do the aliens never show up? Why do magic potions never work etc.

All I (dare I say we?) do is go with what makes sense. If the world was as crazy as the X-Files...I'd have UFO's on my wall too. Probably a tin-foil on my head also.
 
EGarrett said:
I see what you're saying. It's not unreasonable to dismiss an actual alien abduction as a hallucination...

But Scully's world made little to no sense if you assumed nothing spooky was going on. Where did the aliens come from? The cigarette-smoking man who never said anything but always magically turned up at these cases? Sh-tloads of things were unaccounted for and she idiotically ignored it...

Real life is the opposite. If you assume nothing "woo-ish" is going on, the world makes sense. Why do the aliens never show up? Why do magic potions never work etc.

All I (dare I say we?) do is go with what makes sense. If the world was as crazy as the X-Files...I'd have UFO's on my wall too. Probably a tin-foil on my head also.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it seemed to be an inversion of our world where you basically had to be an idiot to ignore the vast amount of evidence people were tripping over in their daily lives. In that context, Scully the skeptic had some kind of serious mental problem :D

Remember how they switched places for a while? Mulder found out about some hoax and lost all faith in anything paranormal for a season or two while Scully started getting slapped in the face with rock hard evidence every time she opened a door ;)

Generally, she was a two dimensional character based on a long tradition of "silly skeptics" in fantasy fiction. How many times has Hollywood shown us stuffy professors proclaiming something in plain sight to be "ridiculous" in the midst of a major supernatural disaster that eventually claims their skeptical lives?

A lot of times. It's not only a staple of old time movies, more recent b-movies and general fantasy - you can even see it all over mainstream productions like "Jurassic Park" where the skeptical lawyer got eaten by a creature that he had previously refused to believe existed. This is also a popular fate for skeptics in zombie and other horror movies.

It sends a very thinly veiled message about the human psyche, and basically shows us graphically why people cling to superstition: fear of uncertainty. It's normal to have feelings of being ill at ease, in fact I'd say it's quite an achievement to completely get over ones inherent discomfort with uncertainty. We have a boogeyman on our shoulder that constantly goes: "What IF?" For people with severe OCD that eventually escalates into the ridiculous: "What could it hurt to turn the lightswitch off and on 20 times if it will possibly save me from castration?" - and I fear this sick attitude has a lot in common with most people's approach to the paranormal. They don't want to "risk it", and feel better believing something unprovable that pondering the (seemingly) unknowable.

"YOU FOOL, if only you had not denied the existance of the ghost of Santa Clause you might have lived!"

--- G.
 
Last edited:
Morrison's Lament said:
"Jurassic Park" where the skeptical lawyer got eaten by a creature that he had previously refused to believe existed.
Click to expand...

I agree generally with your post, but I have to point out this bit is wrong. The lawyer wasn't depicted as a skeptic, his role was the materialist. For him, everything was measured in $$$, and thus he was indifferent to the massive ethical implications of Hammond's work. He wasn't eaten by the t-rex because he didn't believe in it, he was eaten as a form of humorous revenge against greedy lawyers.

In other survival stories though, skepticism of The Threat is less about critical thinking vs credulity than it is about rationalism vs action. Half-Life ( one ) is full of bits like this. The lab-coated, stereotypical scientist 'boffins' spout various one liners in the face of the catastrophe/invasion to the effect that their rationalistic world-view - hitherto more powerful than any other element in the story - becomes woefully inadequate when the phenomena being studied escapes from under the micrsocope. Academia is replaced by survival, and a purely rationalistic approach simply can't hack it.
Similar thing in Aliens where the company execs are skeptical ( to say the least ) of Ripley's story. Again, this is not an indictment of critical thinking skills, so much as a set-up for pulling any kind of support, physical or psychological, out from under the characters. They have to rely on their own abilities, with no option to appeal to outside assistance.

Better examples of skepticism being written of unfavourably are probably to be found in horror movies with supernatural, rather than biological, premises. Given that most of the classics of the genre are western made, the supernatural elements frequently descend eventually to a biblical foundation. Skepticism in these stories ( I'm wracking my brain for examples but it's late and I need tea ) is usually portrayed as doubting divinity. Doubt is therefore sinful, and righteously punished in the story.
The best example I can think of is in The Exorcist, where the protagonist Father Carras, is suffering a crisis of faith due in part to his mother's illness and imminent death. Thus his approach to Regan's possession - far more thouroughly explored in the book than the movie - is rationalistic, determinedly so. Until the final climax where Carras accepts possession as a supernatural reality and sacrifices himself for Regan.

As for Scully... Like most of the X-Files, she's a simple construct. There is no depth to her skepticism, to Mulder's belief or the motivations of the writer. It's crap. Glossy and entertaining crap, with two sexy leads. But crap nonetheless.
 
Kell: that is an excellent post, even though you're criticizing an earlier post of mine I find myself completely agreeing :D

--- G.
 
EGarrett said:
Is there any REAL human being on the planet who would act like Scully from the X-Files? Ignoring invading aliens, flaming demons and her own ALIEN ABDUCTION to apparently continue pretending they don't exist?

Most TV writers don't seem to have the slightest grasp on skepticism and critical thinking. I'm a JREF member, but if a frigging alien picked me up in a spaceship and flew me around, I'd BELIEVE in aliens.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

The X-Files is science fiction. It was possibly the greatest creative television work in this genre of the modern age. Near its end, it did seem to "Jump the Shark". The original creator Chris Carter, was some kind of pot-smoking genius. He knew what would entertain a cultish audience and gave them the best kind of candy. X-Files is not just science fiction; it is science fiction of science fiction. X-Files is postmoderm science fiction.

Carter used his singular brilliance of captivating an audience beyond the realm of anything that scientific skepticism could ever harness. He already knows what skeptics ought to know. Romantic credulity will make you popular and rich, while skepticism makes you a blind cad who struggles to gain any social favor. X-Files took what is already relevant in modern culture and ran with it.

Carter uses 4 simultaneous viewpoints in each X-Files episode:

1) The audience's views and knowledge sitting in their chairs watching the program.
2) Mulder's views and knowledge.
3) Scully's views and knowledge.
4) Some kind of realism and causality that is defined within the program itself.

As viewers, we always get to see things that Mulder and Scully do not. We should automatically be better critics than either of them. We not only saw the topical event(s), but we also get to witness the thinking and actions of Mulder and Scully... as if we were a "fly on the wall" for everything. The events (generally a crime) are always portrayed as being paranormal. We watch paranormalcy as it would probably appear if it truly happened in real life (outside of Hollywood). Scully is obviously wrong from the get-go... because we saw that a paranormal event actually occured. We saw science fiction (depicted as non-fictional reality) and then we get to watch Mulder and Scully argue and prance around about it. Both of them are portrayed as smart idiots. But Scully tries to climb a bigger mountain because the audience has already been shown unfathomably extraordinary normalcy (ie: paranormalcy). No matter how doltish and "woo-ish" Mulder is shown to be, he is ultimately in a better mindset because any given episode and the entire series is based on paranormal events. Mulder cannot lose and Scully cannot win. But that's not even true, because Carter already knows that the audience is going to second guess their own eyewitness views of what happened.

In "real life", Chris Carter is a skeptic. But he is also a brilliant producer of science fiction. Who would think that X-Files is not "pro-woo"? It is. Mulder and Scully are just token personifications of real people. Carter earned millions from X-Files because he recognized modern culture and had abilities to produce high-quality television drama.

EGarret, Carter didn't lack a "grasp on skepticism"... instead the X-Files is his endeavor into television science fiction. That might be ironic. But I would bet that he is richer than you are.

Kell said:
As for Scully... Like most of the X-Files, she's a simple construct. There is no depth to her skepticism, to Mulder's belief or the motivations of the writer. It's crap. Glossy and entertaining crap, with two sexy leads. But crap nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Of course she's a construct. But the audience is always given a dilemma. We were shown a paranormal event in an eyewitness manner. One could also say that there is no depth to Mulder either. We always know more than they do, because Carter allows us to see events that they never saw.

Skeptical Inquirer article: Why Was The X-Files So Appealing?

Skeptical Briefs: Cigarette-Smoking Man

There was also a Skeptical Inquirer interview with Chris Carter, but I can't find it online. I have the magazine issue of it.
 
Simple: Skully was not the Skeptic on the show. Mulder was.

Skully was the believer.

A skeptic will examine the evidence for something without bias. Mulder did this; Skully never did (until Mulder was taken by aliens, that is). Mulder looked for extraordinary evidence (and got attacked by it when he found it); Skully didn't 'look' for squat. Mulder was able to use his intuition to figure on many differant possibilities that still accounted for the evidence they had already found; Skully gave hypothesis which were sometimes patently ridiculous in their 'normality' (almost to the point of MiB's 'you saw an image of Venus bounce off a weather balloon trapped in swamp gas'.)

In the X-Files' universe, with monsters and aliens practically falling from the skies, only the a Believer could consistently ignore what was going on right in front of him/her.
 
Did I reverse the characters? Scully was skeptical and Mulder was not? I'm prone to these simple errors.
 
Last edited:
Wait a second. Scully (the woman) was the skeptic and Mulder (the man) was the "believer", yes? Is there some X-File happenings within this thread?
 
William Parcher said:
Wait a second. Scully (the woman) was the skeptic and Mulder (the man) was the "believer", yes? Is there some X-File happenings within this thread?
Click to expand...

I think bignickel's point is that while Mulder was explicitly portrayed as the believer and Scully as the skeptic, due to the fiction of the show - the unequivocally paranormal events occurring - it wasn't actually skeptical of Scully to remain so unconvinced for so long. And that her attiude was more like that of a believer, in that she strove to maintain her belief ( that there was no paranormal ) even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Mulder, conversely, believed in wooish things based not on wishful-thinking or delusion, but in his laudable efforts to learn more about them.
It's a sort of ironic spin, made possible only by sheer dint of the show clearly presenting some paranormal events as real. Then leaving others - the Bigger Picture of conspiracy theory - to seem more plausible as a result. That's the benefit of writing fiction ;)

Actually, this makes for an interesting point re: the OP. Skepticism - as personified by the character of Scully - is presented as being dogmatic and resistant to change. Willfully unnaccepting of anything paranormal regardless of whatever the X-Files special effects department were throwing around in a given episode. She isn't really a skeptic by definition, she is an unbeliever. A skoftic. This, as we know from this very forum, is a prefered perception of skeptics by believers. It is a convenience - for Chris Carter writing the X-Files, and genuine believers - to portray skeptics in this way.

I'm trying to write a proper response to previous posts too, but I'm getting so carried away it's become a small essay. Editing it down atm...
 
It's because the general public hates anyone without faith. They consider us cynical, not skeptical.
 
I fully agree about what you're saying about Scully in "X-Files", but maybe there is other works of fiction were skeptics don't look close-minded?

We can think of a caracter like Sherlock Holmes as being a good illustration of what a skeptic is really suppose to be, and how a skeptic is suppose to react to paranormal claims... Just sad that Conan Doyle was himself such a believer...
 
Hey, I'm an alien!

Well, I am when I get to the Customs barrier in the USA...
 
Morrison's Lament said:
Generally, she was a two dimensional character based on a long tradition of "silly skeptics" in fantasy fiction. How many times has Hollywood shown us stuffy professors proclaiming something in plain sight to be "ridiculous" in the midst of a major supernatural disaster that eventually claims their skeptical lives?

A lot of times. It's not only a staple of old time movies, more recent b-movies and general fantasy - you can even see it all over mainstream productions like "Jurassic Park" where the skeptical lawyer got eaten by a creature that he had previously refused to believe existed. This is also a popular fate for skeptics in zombie and other horror movies.
Click to expand...
You make me think of Ghostbusters, the original movie. The villain guy strides into Ghostbuster HQ with the police, laughs at their containment unit and their begging of him not to mess with it...and shuts it down...causing an army of Ghosts to take over the City. Stupid skeptic!!! ::bangs head::

William Parcher said:
The X-Files is science fiction. It was possibly the greatest creative television work in this genre of the modern age.
Click to expand...
Okay, I knew from this point that there was trouble brewing. I'm not even a Trekkie, but Gene Roddenberry is being horribly, horribly disrespected here.
The original creator Chris Carter, was some kind of pot-smoking genius.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh, creator of show a "genius"...this individual might be an X-Phile who is going to take this whole thread personally...

{overanalyzing essay removed, where Carter is credited as a genius for actually cutting between different characters during show}...In "real life", Chris Carter is a skeptic. But he is also a brilliant producer of science fiction.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh, "brilliant"...(braces self)...

EGarret, Carter didn't lack a "grasp on skepticism"... instead the X-Files is his endeavor into television science fiction. That might be ironic. But I would bet that he is richer than you are.
Click to expand...
::DUCKS, attempted ad-hominem flame passes just over head:: *PHEW*, timed it perfectly.

In the future, don't take attacks on your favorite show personally, because it only leads you to attack others personally and threads will turn to crap fights.

Not to mention, I'm 23-years-old, and also on the list of people who make/made more money than me: Al Jolsen, Saddam Hussein, and whoever created Pet Rocks.

Just because your genius producer friend makes money, it doesn't mean his creation has great quality. You're letting your X-File fandom cloud your judgement.

bignickel said:
Simple: Skully was not the Skeptic on the show. Mulder was.

Skully was the believer.

A skeptic will examine the evidence for something without bias. Mulder did this; Skully never did
Click to expand...
Great point. But nonetheless, the show itself placed Scully as the "skeptic," even if it was only in name, which is why it got on my nerves. That's at least a better way to think of it if this topic comes up in the future. Thanks.

I fully agree about what you're saying about Scully in "X-Files", but maybe there is other works of fiction were skeptics don't look close-minded?

We can think of a caracter like Sherlock Holmes as being a good illustration of what a skeptic is really suppose to be, and how a skeptic is suppose to react to paranormal claims... Just sad that Conan Doyle was himself such a believer...
Click to expand...
Holmes is good. Another one that I thought of, which is actually ironic...

Scooby Doo. The show Scooby-Doo seemed to teach skepticism to kids very well. In most every episode that I can remember, the gang gets chased by some scary flying ghost, but they keep their heads together (well, except for Shaggy) and ultimately unmask it and find the old man trying to scare people off his land.

Ironic that a 30-year-old cartoon could do that so much better...
 
The new scooby doo seems to carry on the skeptical tradition. They even talk about the most "logical" things to do. Of course, it's not heavy at all about it or always "logical", since the most "logical" thing to do is to eat a scooby snack sometimes.
 
Actually, although I agree Skully was not a skeptic on that show, I don't see the basis for Mulder beingone, either. While he did look for evidence and dig into the events, he also came up with a paranormal explanation immediately, usually within the first ten minutes of the episode start, and rarely (if ever) changed his mind. The "evidence" he went looking for was always the evidence that would confirm his theory, he never looked at alternative explanations, and in many cases denied evidence that went against one of his theories.

Both characters on the show were believers, it's just that they believed in different things.
 
This is a great thread, really has gotten me thinking about media portrayal of skepticism.

I'm gonna see if I can compile a small list of the "Hahaha, you fool!" type of poetic justice for skeptics in tv and films. I get the feeling I've seen these people in every movie ever but I'm having problems nailing down the specifics, mostly since those were largely kiddie movies I saw a long time ago...

--- G.
 
Actually, although I agree Skully was not a skeptic on that show, I don't see the basis for Mulder beingone, either. While he did look for evidence and dig into the events, he also came up with a paranormal explanation immediately, usually within the first ten minutes of the episode start
Click to expand...
Yes, but in the world of the X-Files, pretty much everything did end up having a paranormal explanation. So it made sense that he would save time by guessing what paranormal thing might be afoot this time, in the same way that the JREF would save time by looking for cold reading as soon as a psychic pops up.

But Mulder never really stopped his investigation there, he'd see things through. So I think he did follow the 'skeptic' method much more than Scully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom