so if my memory is right, then this is an incorrect example when accusing Hollywood (and an "exaggeration", exactly what the author's thesis was complaining about regarding others), thus brings into question any other statements made by the author.
The author might have unintentionally misremembered the scene. He might have intentionally exaggerated. Or perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be. But even if the author was incorrect in his summary of the movie, the point still stands that movies tend to sensationalize disasters, and many people without any prior acquaintance of disasters get their impression from popular media.
I agree that exaggeration has no place in good research, but your particular criticism, even if valid, does not affect the truth of the larger claim. Anyone of us can easily think of a large number of disaster movies that exaggerate out of proportion.
Now, if some of the larger claims made in the chapter are wrong, I'd love to hear them for the sake of my own preparation. I don't think one slip up automatically means the rest is junk.
why am i making an issue of this, and why did i BOLD the use of the word "
exaggeration" in my post?
because the author's title of his/her own paper is making a point that such a practice is unacceptable behavior:
ANTICIPATING HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN DISASTERS
Myths, Exaggerations, and Realitiesi never said the rest of the article was "junk", just that if my memory of that scene is correct, then everything else in it should be viewed with a suspect perspective until proven correct.
if memory isn't what it used to be and i am incorrect, i was hoping that someone here could set me straight, thus allowing me to feel better about accepting the other premises in the paper.
nor did i in anyway imply that movies should be used as training tools. and if some people believe what they see in dramatic action thriller movies is real, well, you can't fix stupid.
the difference is that movies like Volcano are FICTION, almost always "exaggerated out of proportion" for entertainment-purposes-only, whereas the article is being offered as NON-FICTION and is suppose to contain facts.
and yes, i believe
if a single invalid claim is made in a serious research paper, then all other information contained within should be viewed with some suspicion.
so, again i ask everyone here: is my memory correct?
Previous Topic
Index
