Every Academic Needs to Watch This

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Looks like the same old hooey to me.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

[woot]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

That's funny. If Michael Moore is misleading, the makers of "Expelled" are pathological liars. Actually, they are pathological liars regardless of what you think about Michael Moore.

Anyone who avoids MM movies on principle should actively campaign against Expelled on principle. Unless, of course, you hide behind principle in order to support your own biases.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by woot

That's funny. If Michael Moore is misleading, the makers of "Expelled" are pathological liars. Actually, they are pathological liars regardless of what you think about Michael Moore.

Anyone who avoids MM movies on principle should actively campaign against Expelled on principle. Unless, of course, you hide behind principle in order to support your own biases.

I enjoy real documentaries.

[woot]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I enjoy real documentaries.

I enjoy pie. Care to explain relevance?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

I enjoy pie. Care to explain relevance?

Perhaps Rocky is pointing out that there is no difference between Moore and the makers of expelled.

I tend to agree.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Perhaps Rocky is pointing out that there is no difference between Moore and the makers of expelled.

I tend to agree.

If that's what he's saying, then that's fine, but I'm not convinced that's what he's saying.

Still, I must emphasize that it's impossible to overstate just how dishonest and misguided Expelled is. MM often at least starts with a realistic premise before slanting it to the extreme. Expelled begins with the premise that science is either a monolithic establishment or a democracy (depending on which strawman is more readily attackable at the moment) and it is therefore unlawful to exclude the opinions of every tom, dick, and harry.

Michael Behe, the fruitcake who is responsible for the atrocity that is ID, was forced to admit during the Dover trial that a definition of "science" that would include ID must also include astrology, alchemy, and any number of other debunked ideas. Is that what we want science to become? Are we concerned with reality or are we only concerned with every person's right to never be told that they're wrong about anything?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by woot

I enjoy pie. Care to explain relevance?

I like Pie too. Mmmmm....pie.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I enjoy real documentaries.

You have said this before but I am not sure what you mean. Or better said, I am not sure I understand your use of the term "documentary."

If you have ever taken a film studies class, one of the first things, if not the first thing you learn about the docu-genre is that documentary simply refers to non-fiction with documentary value. It has nothing to do with politics and certainly does not require all opinions to be represented.

From the turn of the century, through the cinema verite era, to today, "documentaries" have always been non-fictional accounts told through the eye of the director. Even a cursory look at a list of Academy Awards for "documentaries" over the years shows a wide spectrum of topics, many of them controversial in nature (see Life and Times of Harvey Milk).

What are examples of "real documentaries" as you call them? And how do you reconcile films like Harvey Milk or American Dream (which could be argued is a one-sided account of the strike against of the Hormel factory in Minnesota)?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You have said this before but I am not sure what you mean. Or better said, I am not sure I understand your use of the term "documentary."

If you have ever taken a film studies class, one of the first things, if not the first thing you learn about the docu-genre is that documentary simply refers to non-fiction with documentary value. It has nothing to do with politics and certainly does not require all opinions to be represented.

From the turn of the century, through the cinema verite era, to today, "documentaries" have always been non-fictional accounts told through the eye of the director. Even a cursory look at a list of Academy Awards for "documentaries" over the years shows a wide spectrum of topics, many of them controversial in nature (see Life and Times of Harvey Milk).

What are examples of "real documentaries" as you call them? And how do you reconcile films like Harvey Milk or American Dream (which could be argued is a one-sided account of the strike against of the Hormel factory in Minnesota)?

"Real" documentaries are about animals and are shown on Nature on PBS.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

"Real" documentaries are about animals and are shown on Nature on PBS.

So if this film shows animals humping, then will it be considered a documentary?