Roger Ebert presents a typical example of argumentation for the sake of wanting to be correct, as opposed to wanting to find out the truth. If you are somewhat of a rhetorician, you can make yourself seem correct on any given topic of discussion, providing that you twist or disregard the most compelling opposing arguments. Disregarding arguments like this is a big no-no if you are a professor writing a scientific report. Roger Ebert bring up many referenses in his article, and write in a way that somewhat resemble an academic report. However, Roger Ebert is a screen-writer, movie critic and blogger and certainly not a professor in the field of art. He has no real need to find out the truth, because his work will not be disputed. So Ebert is basically just expressing his opinion, which has just as little value as everyone elses. So the bottom line is:
I don't know what all the fuzz is about ![]()