MovieChat Forums > Numb3rs (2005) Discussion > The "Work" Of Dr Charles Eppes For The F...

The "Work" Of Dr Charles Eppes For The FBI !!!

posted 9 years ago by JoeKulik
3 replies | jump to latest

There is a serious philosophical problem with the criminological work that Dr Charles Eppes is portrayed performing for the FBI on N3.

In every episode of N3, Dr Eppes is shown to produce Mathematical and Scientific formulas and algorithms that can explain and even predict the behavior of the criminal in question. Taken to its logical extreme, this implies that Dr Eppes, episode after episode, proves that there is no such a thing as Free Will neither in the criminal nor in the average man on the street. Dr Eppes' work on N3 seems to imply that Free Will is just an imaginary construct of the human psyche, that while a person, criminal or otherwise, might BELIEVE that he has the Free Will to act as he chooses, Dr Eppes can produce a formula or an algorithm that can explain or even predict his behavior in terms of rationally understandable laws of Science and Mathematics, laws that are functioning perhaps below the consciousness of the individual person, but yet nonetheless override any such "imaginary" conscious notion as Free Will.

Is this what Charlie Eppes is telling us episode after episode for six seasons on N3, that the criminal, and by extension all of us, are merely the puppets of the laws of Science & the laws of Mathematics? That whatever human behavior that Mathematics and Science have not yet been able to explain are nonetheless the products of Mathematical and Scientific laws yet to be discovered? That there is no such a thing as Free Will, neither in the criminal nor in you and I?

I realize that such a heavy argument is way out of proportion with the reality of evaluating a mere TV show, a mere fictional figment of some screenwriter's imagination. But even at that level, what does it tell us about the "Mathematical" and "Scientific" "work" portrayed by Dr Eppes and his college professor pals for the FBI on N3? To me, it tells me that all the seemingly successfully "work" that Dr Eppes and his college professor pals do for the FBI on N3 is just is just a lot of FICTIONAL BULL *beep* because I, speaking as just one person, certainly do believe that I have Free Will and that I am not a mere puppet of the laws of Mathematics and Science. I agree that it is FICTIONAL BULL *beep* that I find very interesting and vey entertaining as well, but it is definitely FICTIONAL BULL *beep* nonetheless !!

[–] ElizaDushkusGroomToBe 9 years ago

The fact that you can accurately predict a person's actions doesn't mean they don't have a choice in those actions. Like Charlie has said multiple times, with enough information you can predict anything.

Say for instance you are a parent of a child who loves chocolate ice cream. You take your child to an ice cream shop and ask what kind of ice cream he/she wants from the choices of chocolate and vanilla. The child will ask for chocolate ice cream, and you know it because you know your child. Does that mean that your child didn't have the ability to choose vanilla? No it doesn't, it just means that you can predict what choice will be made because of your knowledge, because of the past patterns of the child's choices.

Formerly l5rfox.
And there was one world with nothing but shrimp. I tired of it quickly.

[–] cakyrias 8 years ago

JoeKulik: Like most retards, you can't stand facts. Almost every episode was based on a case that was solved by using math. The cases came from around the world. The only fiction here is having them all in one unit of one Dept with one mathematician.
Think about why this threatens you so much; 'cause you are way more angry than the issue, YOU laid on the show, deserves.

[–] Costumer (1786) 5 years ago

Late, but ...

There is no call to use a perjorative toward JoeKulik. He asked a reasonable question with reasoning to support it. I agree that his premise is incorrect and free will exists; the ability to predict depends on knowledge of the individual or observed behavior of outside influences. But just because I disagree with him doesn't mean his premise is inherently unreasonable. He asked the question in a respectful manner. He deserves respect in return.