Offline
Well, we have two metas from medical experts with different opinions. So both views are still open.
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
Well, we have two metas from medical experts with different opinions. So both views are still open.
...and what it really comes down to is what we choose to believe, for whatever reason. It's like Global Climate change in the US. We have a whole bunch of scientists that skew their research to say whatever major corporations tell them to, and we have other scientists who are more in line with the rest of the world. It ends up being that people just beleive whatever they want to believe, or what "feels" right, logic and science don't really enter into it at that point...
Stupid fox news....grumble...
Not that I'm saying anyone here is like a climate change denier/accepter-- I'm just saying having two dichotomous views can cause that dynamic.
Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (October 7, 2015 9:21 pm)
Offline
Oh, it is. We have two metas saying two different things. We all embrace the one whom support our own view and ignore the other. It's human nature.
Offline
nakahara wrote:
Hehehe... two doctors stand over a patient. One diagnoses apendicitis, the other one gallblader problems... they throw dice and finally settle on compromise - they would remove tonsils!
RIB SPREADER!!!!
Offline
I think the problem is that the scene was written by somebody without a medical background. You would think they would do their research, but they often don't. I bet that if you asked Steven Moffat to tell you exactly what happened, medically, he wouldn't be able to (I'm not trying to insult him, he more or less admits as much). Some of the things in the show I can only accept by thinking of it as a kind of alternative reality - a Sherlock-universe.
Anyway, I think what Steven Moffat has put in are more story/drama based elements, than medical elements - the symbolism of being shot in the heart, the parallel with Magnussen being shot in the head/brain, the cliche (sorry!) and drama of flatlining, the resurrection, etc.
Offline
Liberty wrote:
I think the problem is that the scene was written by somebody without a medical background. You would think they would do their research, but they often don't. I bet that if you asked Steven Moffat to tell you exactly what happened, medically, he wouldn't be able to (I'm not trying to insult him, he more or less admits as much). Some of the things in the show I can only accept by thinking of it as a kind of alternative reality - a Sherlock-universe.
Anyway, I think what Steven Moffat has put in are more story/drama based elements, than medical elements - the symbolism of being shot in the heart, the parallel with Magnussen being shot in the head/brain, the cliche (sorry!) and drama of flatlining, the resurrection, etc.
Moffat said something about having done medical research about that kind of shot and wound before writing the mind palace scene, and then - according to his own words - getting it mostly wrong, anyway.
Offline
So far, we have made Sherlock's mind palace an unreliable source, Medical research by experts is now suspect, and now Moffatt's writing ( when it comes to research) is slapdash and unreliable. All of this to vindicate Mary. Just sayin'.
The problem with this approach is that now-- we can't believe anything the show has to tell us, we can't even believe our own eyes. If facts are mutable and can be re-shaped to suit one's feelings, what use is fact? It's fact that Mary shot Sherlock. It's fact that he flatlined, and nearly died. It's fact that he was in the hospital for a long, long time due to his injury. It's fact that Mary lied about her past, and shot Sherlock to cover it up. And also that after that, she threatened him, and then stalked him to threaten him again.
But, maybe I only imagined those things... maybe it never happened... it was dream sequence!!
Errrrr......
Offline
I think you are overdramatizing this a bit.
1. Sherlock's mind palace has always been ureliable in that he is shown - from the very first episode - to sometimes be wrong. Secondly, he didn't have all the data when he thought himself (if that is what he did) to be murdered.
2. The medical research is not suspect. We have two different metas from two different medical experts with a different perspective. That is completely normal.
3. Moffat said himself, in his own words, that he probably got most of the medical facts wrong when he wrote the mind palace scene.
4. I can only speak for myself, but my point isn't to vindicate Mary, but I don't want to villify her more than I believe to be supported by facts (see points above). Especially considering we don't know all the facts yet, if we get more about Mary in S4 concerning this. To me it's about nuanced, not vindication.
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
The problem with this approach is that now-- we can't believe anything the show has to tell us, we can't even believe our own eyes. If facts are mutable and can be re-shaped to suit one's feelings, what use is fact? It's fact that Mary shot Sherlock. It's fact that he flatlined, and nearly died. It's fact that he was in the hospital for a long, long time due to his injury. It's fact that Mary lied about her past, and shot Sherlock to cover it up. And also that after that, she threatened him, and then stalked him to threaten him again.
Damn true.
Offline
Some things are facts, some things are speculations. That doesn't mean that the ones with a different opinion from yours are the one re-shaping facts to suit their own feelings. That is not a constructive way to debate these issues.
We are all intepreting what we see on screen depending on our background and our views. That is what we are discussing.
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
So far, we have made Sherlock's mind palace an unreliable source, Medical research by experts is now suspect, and now Moffatt's writing ( when it comes to research) is slapdash and unreliable. All of this to vindicate Mary. Just sayin'.
I agree. It seem that everything including the writing of Moffat is considered to be faulty as long as it is not flattering to Mary.
Offline
nakahara wrote:
I agree. It seem that everything including the writing of Moffat is considered to be faulty as long as it is not flattering to Mary.
I don't understand what posts you read to even get to such a conclusion. Moffat's writing is considered to be faulty when he says so with his own words.
Offline
In my opinion Moffat written Mary as a villain and the things we see on screen point to that conclusion.
Of course I can be proved false but until then, I´ll hold to my theory and my perception of HLV.
Offline
And that is fine and your right. Just please don't put words and wrong conclusions into the mouth of those who have a different opinion than you.
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
And that is fine and your right. Just please don't put words and wrong conclusions into the mouth of those who have a different opinion than you.
Believe it or not, but hyperbole is a very common rhetoric device....
Offline
It probably is, but I fail to see the relevance to my post. I am only refering to posts you wrote about how Moftiss writing is only considered faulty when it's to vindicate Mary. And you also "damned" agreed to posts about how those with a different opinion ""re-shaped" facts to suit their own feelings".
Exaggerating, ridiculing or making strawmen of other people's opinions are also very common rethorical devices/fallacies. Which made me remember why I originally decided to stay out of this thread. Constructive debate without use of rhetorical devices and fallacies seem difficult, especially in this thread.
Last edited by Vhanja (October 8, 2015 8:42 pm)
Offline
Yes, I´m in a conspiracy to target the post of others and twist them. My posts don´t actually reflect my opinions, they are only there to ridicule other members of the forum. I have no better work than that, I´m sorry. So I lurk in the shadows and when a particullary juicy post comes, I jump and attack it...
And you are not the least paranoid...
Last edited by nakahara (October 8, 2015 8:47 pm)
Offline
Speaking of fallacies and rhetorics...
This isn't constructive or fun, so I will leave this thread for now.
Last edited by Vhanja (October 8, 2015 8:52 pm)
Offline
Very nice words... I too will use this strategy next time I insult someone.
At least it´s educational, this thread.
Offline
Mod's note:
Please, ladies, may I remind you that opinions may differ but we should abstain from getting personal? We are still discussing a TV show here. I know this is the mosted heated topic ever but please calm down.