SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Is he wrong?? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133287)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Moore is known as a chronic liar. That's already enough for me.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...elmoore-vi.jpg

There is only ever one side to him.....the Moore/his side.

He's not that popular here in the UK IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Some view "truth" as being dependent of ones' point of view. I view truth as incorruptible fact.

A good example would be 2 people arguing over the color of a piece of cloth, but one of them is color-blind.

But how do you tell which is colour blind?
Just the one who is in the minority?

Anyway, lets say that:
Person 'A' says he has a blue experience of the cloth.
Person 'B' says he has a red experience of the cloth.
Person 'C' says the cloth is emitting light at 500nm wavelength.

No one has said anything false here and only person 'C' has said something
potentially falsifiable because he is the only one speaking about a external, as
opposed to internal, world.

Persons D and E think that their experiences corrosion directly to an external,
ontological world, they might say:

D: the cloth is blue
E: the cloth is red

D and E's statements are falsifiable, but there is no way to check who is right.
Our senses are the only way to check and they disagree.
Even if 100,000,000 people agreed with person D, we would still not have anyway of
checking that they are all right.

lastly, persons D and E are both assuming that qualities like 'blue' and 'red' exist
externally and independently of our selves.
If no one looks at a tree, are it's leaves green?

I am not saying that truth is dependent on your point of view.
And I am not saying that truth is not incorruptible fact.

I'm just saying that any ontological truths that are external from us, can never be
verified and never be known, if they exist at all.

Assuming that C has the factual evidence, A/D or B/E must have enough proof of their theory to incorruptibly agree with C, it then becomes fact. If D or E cannot agree with C, then D and E are both false and C becomes a theory all its' own.

An example:

The WTC collapsed (C)

Bush engineered the collapse of the WTC (A/D)
Bush did not engineer the collapse of the WTC, but did overlook or miss many oppurtunities to prevent its' ocurrence (B/E)

(A/D) is an unfactual theory without any substantial proof or evidence, yet people still believe it as being the gospel truth. (B/E) is a factual theory that has been corroborated with mountains of evidence "(F)" and is undisputed (C).

Therefore, (A/D) would be the colorblind party. While they are seeing the truth in their eyes, they incapable of corroborating (F) their views with the independent third party (C).

Confuzzled yet? I'm starting to get there.http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...ies/eyepop.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I have a hard time with people who are totally one-sided; people who are so convinced they are right they feel they can say anything, true or false, so long as it leads to what they feel is right. Michael Moore is one of these. So is Sean Hannity.

Moore's movies tell the truth; but they don't tell the whole truth, and they don't tell "nothing but the truth".

That about covers it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Some view "truth" as being[...]

But how do you tell which is colour blind?[...]

Assuming that C has the factual evidence [...]

You have missed the point totaly.
Thats is my fault for not explaining as well as I should.

To put it in short:

How can we check what is true about the external world if we can not tell the
relationship between our experiances and the external world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Moore's movies tell the truth; but they don't tell the whole truth, and they don't tell "nothing but the truth".

This was never more evident then in his movie "bowling for Columbine". I am sure that we all know the gun nuts depicted in the movie. Are all gun owners like these nuts? Of course not, but there ARE such gun nuts.

I imagine the Moore interviews 100 gun owners, finds the 15 nuts and then makes his movie about them.

Has he lied? Well that is up to your interpretation of lying.

He did not make up any falsehoods. These were actually gun nuts - not lying

He did not randomly interview gun owners to get an accurate sample - not lying but not honourable

He gave the impression that these gun nuts were representative of the gun community - Not lying but misleading

So does Moore lie in his movies? No

Does he deliberately mischaracterize the issue's environment? Yes

Does he "cherrypick" only the information that supports his agenda? Yes

Does he deliberately mislead the viewers yes

Does he deliberately use words in a way to lead the viewer toward his agenda? yes

Does he deliberately use emotional scenes/terms to lead the viewer to make an emotional response vice a logical one? Yes

Does he deliberately only tell a partial story that supports his agenda? Yes

hmmm Does this sound like other people with agendas? Yes

Moore makes documentaries. There is no requirement for a documentary to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A movie can be heavily biased and still be called a documentary.

Watch Moore for emotional enjoyment, not for academic research. I don't know of too many people who are completely neutral about Moore's films. Either you like them or you hate them, but they are invoking of emotions thats for sure

As long as you keep this in mind, there should be no problem with his movies.

So.....the external world being the world outside of oneself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

So.....the external world being the world outside of oneself?

Yes.
Outsides ones mind.

I make the distinction because we directly experiance the internal world.
We do not experiance the external world at all, we just experiance sense data that
may, or may not relate to the external world. We have no way of checking if it does
because we can not directly experiance the external world in any way.

The external and internal worlds are one and the same.

We view our world with ourselves being part of it, in effect, to stand outside of and observe oneself in order to analyze, comprehend, or allow our internal mind to encompass it and condense it into "reality".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

The external and internal worlds are one and the same.

Impossible!
If the internal world of out senses is the same as the external reality then colour
blindness is impossible and hallucinations or dreams are as equally real as everything
else. :doh:

What grounds do you have to claim that the external and internal worlds are one and
the same?

how can you perceive either if you're not a participant?