-4

In the movie Interstellar, there have been a couple of instances where we see the main characters, who are scientists, talking and believing in fate related emotions.

In the beginning of the movie there is a strong reference to Murphy's law which states that "whatever can happen will happen".

Later in the movie Amelia Brand, while talking about Edmund, says that "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space". She mentions this when she chooses to land on Edmund's planet even though they hadn't received any positive data which could possibly support future human race. How does she base her decisions on a human emotion rather than actual scientific data?

Scientists strictly believe in science and facts and data.

P.S : Have removed the " Is it a Plot Hole" comment.

Addition : I found Amelia basing her decision 'of finding a habitable planet especially when they were running out of both time and fuel' entirely based on her feelings OVER scientific evidence a bit surprising (personal opinion).

|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Todd Wilcox, Paulie_D, Dave, mattiav27, Nog Shine Jun 13 '18 at 6:19

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 11
    Characters not acting like you want them to is not a "plot hole". – Napoleon Wilson♦ Jun 12 '18 at 19:06
  • 14
    "Scientists strictly believe in science and facts and data" -> I think you mean "robots". Scientists are just people like the rest of us. – Erik Jun 12 '18 at 19:07
  • Thanks Erik, i just meant that landing on a planet to research if it has a good living condition for humans is a huge decision, especially when they are running out of fuel and time, and Amelia being a scientist bases this responsible decision on her feelings, while they receive strong signals from Mann's planet. – Shalini Jun 12 '18 at 19:12
  • 2
    coders use weighting to determine the outcome of what humans would term a 'close call'. Humans use 'feelings'. if they didn't , we wouldn't ever get so much plot in any given plot... – disassociated Jun 12 '18 at 19:31
  • 11
    Just because someone is a scientist in no way means that can't have faith. – Paulie_D Jun 12 '18 at 19:34
4

There is a famous anecdote, attributed apparently to Niels Bohr:

A journalist visited home of a Nobel prize winning scientist. The visitor was surprised to find a horseshoe above the front doorway of the scientist’s abode. Tradition asserts that a horseshoe acts as a talisman of luck when placed over a door.

The visitor asked the physicist about the purpose of the horseshoe while expressing incredulity that a man of science could possibly be swayed by a simple-minded folk belief. The physicist replied:

  • Of course I don’t believe in it, but I understand it brings you luck, whether you believe in it or not.

Scientist are humans. Humans have faith in both silly things like horseshoes and "lucky socks" and not so silly things like religion or love.

In the movie itself:

COOPER
She’s in love with Wolf Edmunds
BRAND
Yes. And that makes me want to follow my heart. But maybe we’ve spent too long trying to figure all this with theory -
COOPER
You’re a scientist, Brand -
BRAND
I am. So listen to me when I tell you that love isn’t something we invented - it’s observable, powerful. Why shouldn’t it mean something?
COOPER
It means social utility - child rearing, social bonding -
BRAND
We love people who’ve died ... where’s the social utility in that? Maybe it means more - something we can’t understand, yet. Maybe it’s some evidence, some artifact of higher dimensions that we can’t consciously perceive. I’m drawn across the universe to someone I haven’t seen for a decade, who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can’t yet understand it.

So Brand is willing to follow her feelings, saying that "love might have higher meaning". It is not a plot hole - it is being human.

There is a fragment from the "I, Robot" movie where scientist explains, why robot rescued adult instead of a child from a car accident - "The adult had a higher chances of survival". "Yes, - says the police officer - but humans know, that you always go for child first. It is what humans do."

Scientists are not any different.

|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .