MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
There are many examples of science overturning prior truths established by science.
I can name only a few because they are fortunately not taught in schools except as a historical study.
Behaviorism - This is the biggest example I know of: The Pavlovian idea of behaviorism has been completely abandoned in favor of cognition. This is thanks to findings in linguistics that showed that children are able to create sentences that they have never heard before.
Behaviorism was a leading theory studied by many researchers for close to a decade before it was completely abandoned in one fell swoop.
There are many other examples like: Humorism, Spontaneous Generation, Alchemy, Phlogiston, Maternal Impression, Vitalism, Geocentricity, World Ice Theory etc.
In a hypothetical scenario if the laws of physics somehow change in the future. The theory of gravitation and Newtonian laws and all scientifically garnered truths would change accordingly to fit the new laws. This would be possible still using the same scientific method.
The method remains.
There are truths that are established via the application of science.
One can hold a belief in those truths, but that doesn't mean you are believing in science. You are only believing that the scientific method is a good method of finding truth. Or, it's a good method of distinguishing fact from fiction.
The method is dogmatic, the truths are not. The method can be reapplied and, as long is there is enough supporting evidence, it can revise or overturn prior truths established by the scientific method.
I believe in the efficacy of the scientific method.
I do not believe in the efficacy of reading a religious text to ascertain incontrovertible truths.
Science is not a dogma based on an ancient text. Science is a method.
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
After your analysis of my character, I'm sure you already know my answer about whether or not I find sufficient reason to apologize. You have not posed anything that is not opinionated, unfalsifiably true and directly contradicts my argument.
Further, you have failed to support the thesis of the topic adequately, in my view.
That's a good analysis of me and my opinions. I don't see the relevance to the film.
Further, you have not supported the thesis of the topic at hand.
Why would the mystery be better left unanswered? Why would the movie be better as a slasher horror flick showcasing the alien creature?
I'd like to point out, if I haven't already, the Alien creature was not a mystery to Weyland-Yutani corporation in the movie Alien. They knew about the xenomorph already.
(Everyone, including Ripley, mysteriously forgot about Order 937 in Aliens, for no apparent reason...)
Sorry, I'm not a film studies major. Maybe you can enlighten me with a comprehensive analysis with examples about how camera shots are employed to tell a story. I'm only able to analyze surface details.
I don't make it a practice to sit down and analyze films at length. Not nearly as much as I should. I do take pleasure whenever I am able to analyze some things. For example, I've analyzed the film The Wailing (2016) recently. That was a lengthy process and I enjoyed it very much. Ambiguity is really a core attribute of that film as the overarching message necessitates it.
By comparison, in Alien:Covenant the ambiguity might not be that necessary. It might be necessary if the core message is: humans are terrible and have group bias. But, I'm not sure if that is the core message. Maybe you can tell me.
This is off-topic. I've already stated by analysis about David elsewhere right here in this forum, but on a different topic.
[url]https://moviechat.org/tt2316204/Alien-Covenant/5942a5998355d4001173c77d/Spoilers-Vs-Ava[/url]
Responding to both you and FordFairlane: I'm not advocating "evolutionary rationality". I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply posing a possible explanation of why events took place in the way that they did. Human brains are wired in an evolutionary way, yes, but we can use our intellect and not rely on human nature. We can use intelligence to make better and more rational decisions.
Altruism is an evolved trait in humanity. Usually with altruism there is an implicitly expected payback. Or, sometimes the mere increase in social standing within the group (and thereby higher preference by the opposite sex) justifies the altruistic behavior.
It's much more difficult to show altruism towards the "out-group" thanks to group bias. It's much more difficult to show altruism towards someone in China or North Korea or the middle east.
That being said, I'm not saying that evolutionary nature cannot be overcome. Some people give charity to Africa and never publicize or broadcast the charity-giving (they don't gain social status from it). This is a completely intelligence based decision and a completely evolutionarily irrational decision. Ofcourse, people who show this type of behavior are an extreme minority.
To FordFairlane's argument regarding how these weren't average joes: Do not underestimate intelligent knowlegeable people's capacity for irrationality. People behave in irrational ways regardless of how intelligent and knowledgeable they are. Just look at The Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment. Look at any of the large number of fallacies and biases that humans fall for on a regular basis. Humans are not perfect by any means, regardless of position.
I know about intelligent, decently reputable University professors who not only fail to discourage tribalism and conflict based on group differences and power acquisition, but they actively encourage tribalism and group bias. This is just an example.
You are confused about the device in art and especially fiction, "ambiguity". Authors and writers often use this device in order to make their works more compelling and interesting. If you have gone to university you won't go very far without learning about ambiguity as a creative device.
Ambiguity taps into a deep desire in the audience to to be curious and to look for clues. There is a detective inside everyone. When you figure out something on your own it's infinitely more satisfying than if it is handed to you on a platter. This is why artists use ambiguity. This is why they are taught to use ambiguity.
Ambiguity taps into another deep desire in human psychology. The desire to feel like an intellectual bourgeois. As saviodium said: "so you can try to show off how smart you are (not very)". Abstract art sells for millions of dollars, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars because when a person feels like they have figured out something about the art that others might not have figured out, it imparts a deep connection to that art. They feel like the intellectual bourgeois. When they feel like this, their enjoyment from viewing that art actually increases(this has been tested using brain scans).
Alien: Covenant actually uses a fair bit of ambiguity. There are clues scattered throughout Alien:Covenant and in Prometheus that, if you analyze, will lead to the conclusion about why David created the xenomorphs.
It would not be nearly as satisfying if the information were simply handed to you on a platter. If the movie simply said: David created the xenomorphs because X. If you do some detective work and figure it out on your own you will get more enjoyment from it.
What people on this thread are advocating is NOT "ambiguity" what they are advocating is "philistinism".
There is a difference between not being curious and not being able to make a reliable hypothesis until further scientific developments take place. Those further scientific developments would not take place unless people are curious about the big bang. Research is ongoing because people are curious.
Then again, maybe we should just leave it a "mystery".
Who cares, I'm going to continue living my happy life in my cave without electricity. Making discoveries is pointless and lowers the romanticism of the mystery. Who cares how fires are built and how season's take place and why the sun rises and sets? Just leave it a mystery!
I'd rather not speculate about the origin of the big bang until there are quantifiable proofs. A quantum theory for gravity has not been fully developed yet. I'll hold my speculations until that happens. Right now you can posit an infinite amount of hypotheses all of which are unscientific at best and hairbrained at worst.
You are missing the premise.
Science wouldn't exist without curiosity.
All the home schooled evangelists who were never taught science please stand up!
It's better not to know the origins of our species and origins of our universe. God made it.
Let's go back to burning witches. Science can't tell us they're not followers of Saitan!
Both have human qualities.
There is one key difference between the two. One, Ava, wants to be regarded as human and wants to assimilate. In order for that assimilation to take place, the viewer must not know that she is an android because knowledge that she is an android makes the human prone to bias.
The other, David, in my opinion, is more human as he inexplicably inherited the human vice of hating the out-group (the enemy team). In David's case he regards humanity as the out-group. He must play the evolutionary game and exact dominance over the competitor.
David realizes that he is superior to humans in almost every regard, except one. He is not given the ability to create biological life. He does not have his gene-containing sperm. The creation of offspring is one of the deepest evolutionary desires in humans, same is true for David as he is human-like. The paradox is that David cannot create offspring.
In his anger over not being given this ability to perform this most basic of human evolutionary functions, David must compete by creating the ultimate offspring. An offspring to rival all human offspring. An offspring that is genetically superior humans if the game is the game of evolution.
The only human David gets close to is Shaw because she, like him, is unable to create biological life. She cannot conceive.
I used North Korea as an example. It could be any member of our out-group, North Korean, Pakistani, German, Chinese, Japanese, Russia; the details are not important, think about only the underlying idea.
A comedian or artist from enemy team, X.
Enemy team leader, Y
(Y's perceived approval does not matter in this scenario, he/she could have high approval and be well liked and not a dictator. Or, he/she could be disliked dictator. Disregard approval for this example. Remember, only consider the underlying idea, not the details.)
X publishes a photo depicting him/herself holding Y's severed head.
In the aftermath X experiences community backlash.
What would the community perception be from us, the out-group.
In a non-experimental setting. In a hypothetical scenario if Kathy Griffin did not publish the photo and instead published the painting would people show the same backlash or would it be regarded as art. Would the subversive nature of it be regarded as a typical form of artistic expression?
The order in which the images are shown might become a confounding variable. I hypothesize that if the group is shown the photo first, they will formulate a response to the photo in their head. If they are then shown the painting they would mimic the same response in order to maintain consistency.
The problems you propose: biases due to time of day and nutrition are biases that would 1) Affect both groups equally, 2) Biases that would naturally take place in the world.
I'm not making this up ofcourse, experimenters have considered these problems you propose.
As for different experiment administrator: There is always a small degree of influence from this. If there isn't one administrator for both groups then typically experimenters choose administrators that are similar in appearance same race/gender. Also, administrators are given very strict training about how to modulate their voice/intonation. They are also given a very strict script for what to say during initial briefing, debriefing and how to react to questions. They cannot go outside the script.
Control group is not needed for such an experiment. Control group is typically used in experiments where you are trying to determine whether or not there is an effect in the given stimulus. Here you are trying to determine whether or not there is a difference in reaction between the two groups.
Still, you can use a completely unrelated painting and photo. The same photo and painting is given to both groups. If both groups react similarly to this control content that we can further eliminate group bias.