Films/DVD Asylum

Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess.

12.238.114.147

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

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" posted by clarkjohnsen on August 20, 2002 at 13:29:22:

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

Follow Ups:

"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)
    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)
      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:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.