Sadly, when I think back to my education, and in particular in primary school, I was told pretty much the opposite of this. With the exception of fiction, any printed material was to be considered authoritative and true, while all other sources were to be regarded as less credible. People can say anything, but something in a book has been deemed true by some authority.
I shudder to think.
And how do you determine which are more credible? Surely not just by reading other books.
Well, if I’m researching the North Pole, choosing between the encyclopedia and say, Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer, it seems like a rather easy choice to me.
That’s not really the point though. The books he is researching from are clearly wrong because, in the world of the movie, Santa Claus *does *exist. Science would say that what you observe is more true than anecdotal evidence of any kind, right? The books were wrong, he has proof. That doesn’t make the movie anti science, it just makes it fantasy. It would be as if in ET the kid had spent the first part of the movie reading about the improbability of life on other planets and then BOOM, ET lands in his yard. Miracle on 34th street did the same (ish) thing, but it was all the stupid grown ups who didn’t believe instead of the kid. I am sure there are dozens of others that I am not thinking of off the top of my head. Making it the kid who was the skeptic was just a novel spin on the old saw of people not believing in Santa Claus and turning out to be wrong.
I think Anaamika is right that the main reason you get the anti science vibe is because the movie fails to make the Polar Express sufficiently compelling. It’s not an anti-science movie, it’s just a poorly done fantasy flick.
If the movie sets a kid to be the bad guy for choosing the search of knowledge over blind faith, whether he turned out to be wrong or not is irrelevant: it’s anti-science and pro-faith.
Sorry you had to watch it, it sounds lame.
I’d be interested to know what you think of virtually every cop movie where the hero “goes with his gut” that the villain is guilty, ignores evidence that says otherwise, and at the end of the movie is of course, vindicated.
Seriously, there are countless blockbuster where the hero prevails because he has “faith”. Perhaps Polar Express is a bit more blatant but it is hardly unusual.
That if every idiot cop decided to go with “his gut” you would just need to look clean to get away with any crime, of course. Still, it’s more jarring in a kid’s movie.
Those buddy cop movies are made for adults?!? :eek:
Well, yes, but the vindication usually consists in actual evidence showing up. There is nothing wrong with “going with your gut” in your search for evidence - indeed, science itself relies, in practice, on the fact that people will do this - provided you do not (and both cops and scientists generally are not in a position to) conclude matters simply on the basis of that gut feeling.
…perhaps “anti-intellectual” fits the impression of the OP better than “anti-science”?
(Personally, though, I prefer pro-science Santa Claus movies. Well, pro-science fiction, or close to it, anyway. 
)
In the category of “I can accept everything else but I can’t accept that”, it always niggles at me that they can see the North Pole from the Arctic Circle. By that reckoning they could have looked south and seen, say, Boston. It’s 1600 miles.
Ghosts, invisible trains, Santa Claus, “flexible timekeeping” - sure. Misrepresenting the location of the Arctic Circle? That, sir, is where I draw the line.
Last year, Chronos started a thread in which he pointed out the real problem with movies like this.
I’ve seen the movie, and this didn’t bother me in the slightest, as it is common fare in kids movies, and many movies. What bothered me was how freakin’ *creepy *it was! Talk about uncanny valley.
The *real *anti-science movie is Lord Of The Rings. Hello, Saruman and his war machines, anyone? Again, I’m not criticizing; it’s a movie. It’s entertainment. Not real life.
PS - WilyQuixote - great user name!
I like the cut of your jib!
There are times and places when logic and analysis are appropriate, and times and places when we benefit from belief in the fanciful (or, if not belief, indulgence).
Which he has strong evidence of, including that it works. So it is not paranormal, not in that universe. Hell, we find in Ep. 1 that they can measure it scientifically.
Here is the sleight of hand in stories like this - which are very common.
We got the skeptic up against the believer. Stand ins for the non-believer and the theist, I think. The skeptic has all these good logical arguments - and then they find strong evidence for what the believer believes in - Santa, angels, ghosts, whatever.
I think this is wish fulfillment for theists, who would really like to find some evidence some day. Watching this type of show or movie can make them feel vicariously justified.
But the real offensive part is when the skeptic/scientist refuses to accept the evidence. (Like in The Last Battle.) That is saying that the scientist is really working on faith also, not on evidence, and so is no better at thinking than the believer. That is where the anti-science part comes in.
If really solid evidence of the paranormal showed up, the grant applications would be flying. Only in the ignorant view of science do the scientists refuse to even look.
I’m not usually one of those “reason for season” types, but one problem with the secularized, Coca-Cola Santa you get in these sorts of movies is it gets a lot harder to explain why Santa doesn’t give toys to Jewish kids.
What Jewish kids? 
We don’t exist in those movies.
I wonder if anyone has correlated logical and reasoning ability with the age that a kid gives up believing in Santa.
Indeed. I’ve seen the movie, but I didn’t remember anything the OP was talking about–in fact I don’t remember a single thing about the movie other than Creepy Tom Hanks. Talk about things that will haunt a man forever…