[MD] BBC documentary 'the trap'

[david buchanan]

John said:I myself have not seen the documentary, but I did read Craig's explanation of why he found it's arguments  weak.  He presented a clear logical argument of classic simplicity and explanation.
dmb says:
If you have not see the documentary, then how could you possibly know if Craig's explanation was clear or logical?

John continued:If you disagree with his logic, you should address that.  But you don't.  You attack instead of argue.

dmb says:
His "logic" is exactly what I addressed. The substance of it, where I said "The Trap merely explains the suspicious, paranoid historical context (the cold war) in which a suspicious, paranoid theory of human behavior was able to take hold", was apparently a no-brainer for you even though you didn't see it. If you'd "come to that conclusion myself just based on the plain relationship of fact, but I suppose having a talking head confirm it for me wouldn't hurt" , then what are you complaining about? 



John said:
Everything can be framed as  syllogism.  Everything is an argument, with parts.  It is the classic  process of philosophical debate to re-frame english into logical construction and base conclusions on that. 
dmb says:
Didn't you JUST say that my refutation doesn't count as making an argument? And now everything is an argument? You can't have it both ways. But yea, I suppose just about anything can be framed any way one wants. But converting historical facts into a syllogism is dubious at best and Craig's conversion simply did not reflect the claims made by the film. It NEVER made the case that cold war theories are bad, which was the main premise in both of Craig's bogus syllogisms. (ZAMM was written during the cold war, by the way, and that book complains about the same amoral rationality that the documentary goes after. I mean, the film only adds specific details to what Pirsig says, as Arlo spent so much time explaining.) And by saying that the film just made an "observation of what occurred. It only connects the dots in a complex cultural situation, which has very little to do with any kind of logic", I did not mean that the film was illogically but simply that complex cultural situations are not given to treatment by simple logical forms. He reduced a three hour explanation, filled with historical facts and examples, to a couple silly premises that the film never asserts. 

John said:
Ah if only life were like tv, and the good guys and the bad guys were so easy to distinguish.  You've got this nice meaningless cliche all  set up in your head and you attack it constantly. My advice is more time with a good basic logic text and less with HBO.


dmb says:
You can wax philosophical about a roller coaster but then get all snobby about an historical documentary from the BBC? Yea, that's fair. That's cool.
I saw his other documentary too (The Power of Nightmares) and you really should see them before you jump on the bandwagon. Unless you're a complete zealot, you'll probably change your mind. They're both excellent and I learned a few things from them both. 

Have you seen Entourage? Deadwood? The Sopranos? Big Love? Say what you want, man. HBO airs the best TV I ever saw and I'm not ashamed to admit that I love it, love it, love it. Technically, however, I watch this stuff on my computer now. We don't have HBO anymore and I haven't watched actual TV in a while now. It just costs too much.





_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009