Films/DVD Asylum

I'm pretty sure that that's not what she meant, Clark (your attempted sarcasm notwithstanding).

12.238.114.147

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: "How they use their own faulty logic..." posted by clarkjohnsen on August 19, 2002 at 07:06:39:

It's apples & oranges, dude; science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism! As you should know, those who don't want to believe in scientific evidence often employ pseudo-science to promote their agendas. I've seen this film myself and it is indeed fascinating on several levels. In some ways it's analogous to watching a VH-1 documentary of __________ (you-name-it, fill in the blank) band's stratospheric rise to fame followed by a "nightmare descent into drug and alcohol abuse." Errol Morris (Mr. Death) was certainly a mixed bag and unique character.
AuPh

Follow Ups:

"Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 13:29:22 08/20/02 (10)
That's a good one! Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising its ideas, to arrive at better truth.
So too is history. The operating definition of revisionism is, "To bring written history into accord with the facts." But woe to most of those who try!
clark
- Scientific theories can be revised, but scientific method remains constant... - Mrs. Piggy 14:58:46 08/20/02 (3)
  No one faults his ideas, just on principle alone (but it is a good starting point). His "methods" are flawed. They are scientifically flawed.
  Maybe you should see the documentary before commenting on it.
  mp
  - "His 'methods' are flawed." - clarkjohnsen 07:30:43 08/21/02 (2)
    Easy for a mere moviegoer to say! But do you mean, the locations chosen? His sampling criteria? The physical analytical techniques later employed? The gas-decay math? The nature of the molecules found?
    What?
    clark
    - All four, yes... - Mrs. Piggy 14:05:37 08/21/02 (1)
      are you certain you didn't see this documentary?
      - good answer for... - The Killer Piglet 18:14:59 08/21/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: All four, yes... posted by Mrs. Piggy on August 21, 2002 at 14:05:37:
        
        "a mere moviegoer."
        Here' I'll Anoint Thee Reviewer, you are now Wiser Than The Rest And Fit To Comment On Things You Have Not Seen Nor Read.
        *poof*
        KP
- Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. - Audiophilander 14:02:44 08/20/02 (5)
  There are two entirely different contexts for revision dependent upon the criteria one chooses. The legitimate criteria is based upon "new verifiable evidence" while doctrinaire revisionism is based upon reinterpreting evidence or "creating" new evidence to fit preconceived notions in order to alter the established facts and rewrite history/science.
  > > > "Science (true science, anyway) is *constantly* revising it's ideas, to arrive at better truth." < < <
  "Better truth" or more factually accurate? ;^)
  AuPh
  - "doctrinaire revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 07:26:16 08/21/02 (3)
    Oh, now we have a whole new category! How many more must there be?
    Nor do these objections address the physical evidence. It will not do, simply to assert that because it accords with preconceived notions it must *ipso facto* be wrong.
    Instead of "better truth" BTW, I should have said "higher truth".
    clark
    - So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? - Audiophilander 08:13:59 08/21/02 (2)
      BTW, not to suggest that you're blowing smoke, but some of us might be curious as to what you mean by "higher" truth as well! ;^)
      AuPh
      - Wrong. - clarkjohnsen 08:23:00 08/21/02 (1)
        
        In Reply to: So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? posted by Audiophilander on August 21, 2002 at 08:13:59:
        
        I clearly stated that I had not seen the film. My sources are all in print.
        And you know what "higher truth" means, however unwilling you may be to admit to such a condition.
        clark
        
        Well, I have seen the film and who knows what higher truth means from your perspective. - Audiophilander 10:24:03 08/21/02 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Wrong. posted by clarkjohnsen on August 21, 2002 at 08:23:00:
        
        Not to be critical of your attempted liguistic exercise here, but if you haven't seen the film then poetic waxing over the minutiae (i.e., the meaning of revisionism) seems a trifle moot, does it not? Of course everyone's entitled to express an opinion, whether informed or originating from one's nether regions, but it would behoove you to investigate the source material at least once before drawing critical conclusions or playing semantics games, don't you think?
        Respectfully,
        AuPh
  - Very nicely said... - Mrs. Piggy 19:10:31 08/20/02 (0)
    I think your right on the money!
    
    mp

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.