In Cixin Liu’s The Three-Body Problem, humanity faces an existential crisis from an alien civilization known as the Trisolarans. As the scientific community races to understand and respond to this threat, political and military leaders often struggle to keep up, their decisions clouded by short-term thinking and personal agendas. This contrast between scientific rationalism and the emotional or populist tendencies of political leaders resonates strongly with today’s challenges, from climate change to public health. This blog summarizes my presentation at the conference entitled “The Politics of Weird and the Weirdness of Politics,” organized by Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, Faculty of Letters, Department of English. My talk was entitled “Alien Logic and Political Weirdness: How the Three-Body Problem Exposes the Strange Politics of Rejecting Science.”

Science vs. Politics: Who’s Better Equipped?

The scientists in The Three-Body Problem, like physicist Ye Wenjie and nanomaterials expert Wang Miao, are humanity’s best hope. Their reliance on empirical evidence and cutting-edge technology allows them to decode the mysterious Trisolaran signals, revealing the threat in its full complexity. The novel presents a stark lesson: humanity can only hope to overcome unknown and existential threats through scientific inquiry and intellectual rigor. While the scientists focus on careful, evidence-based decisions, political and military leaders often undermine these efforts, driven by emotion or power struggles rather than logic.

This divide isn’t just a plot point in science fiction; it mirrors the real world, where scientific expertise is sometimes sidelined by leaders prioritizing popularity or ideology. In today’s political climate, crises like climate change and pandemics demand a science-based approach, but some leaders resist, creating a strange dynamic that disrupts effective governance.

The “Weirdness” of Rejecting Science

Author and cultural theorist Mark Fisher describes “weird” as “that which does not belong.” Rejection of science introduces this “weird” dynamic into decision-making, especially in times of crisis. Instead of relying on expertise, some political leaders opt for narratives that resonate emotionally but lack a basis in fact. This move away from rational, evidence-based decision-making in favor of populist appeals can be disorienting, leading to policy choices that feel disconnected from reality.

Rejecting science feels weird because it contradicts our historical reliance on data and expertise, especially during crises. Throughout history, successful governance has depended on empirical evidence and scientific knowledge. Disregarding these tools disrupts our expectations, making decisions seem bizarre and, at times, counterproductive. When leaders dismiss expertise in favor of immediate, emotionally driven solutions, they risk leaving society unprepared for real dangers.