In Reply to: I'm pretty sure that that's not what she meant, Clark (your attempted sarcasm notwithstanding). posted by Audiophilander on August 19, 2002 at 07:56:45:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Science has absolutely nothing to do with revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 13:29:22 08/20/02 (11)
- Scientific theories can be revised, but scientific method remains constant... - Mrs. Piggy 14:58:46 08/20/02 (3)
- "His 'methods' are flawed." - clarkjohnsen 07:30:43 08/21/02 (2)
- All four, yes... - Mrs. Piggy 14:05:37 08/21/02 (1)
- good answer for... - The Killer Piglet 18:14:59 08/21/02 (0)
- Well Clark, that depends upon one's interpretation, I guess. - Audiophilander 14:02:44 08/20/02 (6)
- "doctrinaire revisionism" - clarkjohnsen 07:26:16 08/21/02 (3)
- So, the bottom line is that you agree with Errol Morris's revisionist history, right? - Audiophilander 08:13:59 08/21/02 (2)
- Wrong. - clarkjohnsen 08:23:00 08/21/02 (1)
- Well, I have seen the film and who knows what higher truth means from your perspective. - Audiophilander 10:24:03 08/21/02 (0)
- Very nicely said... - Mrs. Piggy 19:10:31 08/20/02 (0)