So I DID watch this remix before class on Tuesday and hopefully it was evident in my discussion last class. I was watching everything is a remix while enjoying some good Final Fantasy X. Playing a video game did not distract me since all I was doing was grinding out some experience so I can leet.

Anyways throughout the Everythingisaremix video I was very entertained and sometimes confused. It was a very well researched film essay and the arguments are clear but sometimes problematic. As I said in class the arguments the author uses are problematic. I know every argument has holes and issues but in this case what bothered me was the way he argued his case. After his points he gave off this vibe that he was proving everyone wrong. He did not give enough credibility to the other side of the argument and whenever he did addressed it very superficially. His thesis that everything is a remix not only is applied to art but is applied to science and well basically EVERYTHING. I thought this was a bit ridiculous. I was more sympathetic to the idea that everything is a remix when applied to art. However, when he applies his argument to science I was a bit irritated.

One of the biggest debates in science is the very notion of how it evolves. Usually science is portrayed as much of our society is shown. One individual works upon something which another person expands and refines. This process repeats and evolution is improved over time and gradually. This view of science is similar to how Ferguson would like us to see the world. Everything is built upon something. However, another scientists/philosopher by Thomas Kuhn said science progresses in a completely different way. Basically what Kuhn said is that science progresses at times through paradigm shifts. These shifts represent completely different ways of looking at problems. This shift is original and does represent a remix of a previous idea. Kuhn believes science is innovative while Ferguson argues Everythingisaremix therefore working off previous ideas.