Just my thoughts on the recent series of posts at Uncommon Descent on Darwin, Eldredge and the fossil record. Click on the link if you want to know more!
It all started with this post from Denyse O’Leary which Lizzie picked up on here at TSZ replying to O’Leary’s claim that Stephen Meyer’s presentation of Louis Agassiz’s question:
Why, he [Agassiz] asked, does the fossil record always happen to be incomplete at the nodes connecting major branches of Darwin’s tree of life, but rarely—in the parlance of modern paleontology—at the “terminal branches” representing the major already known groups of organisms?
Was there any easy answer to Agassiz’s argument? If so, beyond his stated willingness to wait for future fossil discoveries, Darwin didn’t offer one.
To which O’Leary offers:
And no one else has either.
Lizzie points out:
Oh, yes, they have, Denyse. That’s what what punk eek was. But it also falls readily out of any simulation – you see rapid diversification into a new niche at a node, and thus few exemplars, followed by an increasingly gradual approach to a static optimum, and thus lots of exemplars. But I present an even more graphic response: when you chop down a tree, and saw it up into logs for your fire, what proportion of your logs include a node?
While mung the Merciless links to Lizzie’s post, it doesn’t draw much attention but Uncommon Descent blog owner and bankruptcy lawyer, Barry Arrington decides to pick up on the theme with a post entitled “Steve Meyer: Cambrian gaps not being filled in”; Dr. Nicholas Matzke, well-known evolutionary biologist and former public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, comments, linking to his article on the Cambrian Period at Panda’s Thumb. I just can’t help myself (having had my ability to comment at Uncommon descent recently restored due, I believe, to the intercession of mung the mendacious) jumping in to fight with the tar baby, starting at comment twelve.
It might be worth mentioning here my attitude to commenting at Uncommon Descent. Having had posting privileges restored, I decided I would comment on my own terms, as and when I had time and inclination, neither seeking nor avoiding “death-by-cop” and generally only when I noticed the more blatant errors and claims by the more credible habitués.
Barry Arrington then authored a follow-on post where he posted a number of quotes purporting to support his claim that the fossil record does not support gradual evolution.
Alan Fox: “The current record is certainly not incompatible with gradual evolution over vast periods of time.”
Again, leading Darwinists disagree:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.)
In passing, it is worth noting the typo in the quoted publication. The correct title of the book is The Myths of Human Evolutiuon not “Myth”! The book was published in 1982. The iconic transitional fossil, Tiktaalik roseae, was found in 2004. Unimpressed with the quotes, I commented
Nice selection from the Bumper Book of Quote-mines, Barry.
as it was fairly obvious that the quotes were all obtained from secondary sources. Barry took umbrage at my impugning his integrity and another commenter, William J. Murray, took up Barry’s cause in posting:
You owe Mr.Arrington an apology for claiming he was quote-mining when he was obviously not, and you should admit you were wrong about what the known fossil record actually reveals wrt the prediction made by Darwin.
My response:
Maybe WJM has a point. I was under the impression that Barry didn’t think evolutionary processes were the explanation (or sufficient explanation) for the Cambrian period and the proliferation of stem groups that first put in an appearance over that period. Of course Eldredge is fully committed to the view that evolutionary processes are sufficient. If Barry agrees with Eldredge then I am sincerely sorry for thinking otherwise and welcome Barry into the fold of Darwinism.
was not considered an adequate apology. It was not published and I am now, presumably as I haven’t bothered to post any further comments, persona non grata at Uncommon Descent.
However the quote-mine saga rolls on with Nick Matzke and also another commenter, Roy, (welcome to TSZ by the way) continuing to point out the obvious. Barry has no more read Eldredge’s original work The Myths of Evolution than I have flown to the Moon. This book is not available as a download so I have only managed to read the excerpts available via Google books that indicate it to be clear, well-written and aimed at high-school-level students. An essay by Niles Eldredge entitled Confessions of a Darwinist (PDF is here) makes it very clear that Eldredge’s views are very much in line with those of Charles Darwin.
The story continues at On Quote Mining and Breaking News!!!! Wesley R. Elsberry Solves 154 Year-Old Riddle of the Fossil Record; Awaits Call from Nobel Committe. The latest post is has the Kairosfocusesque title, Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”.
So, no apology from me to Barry Arrington.
ETA correct link to Eldredge
Personally, I prefer to use “naturalism” in the sense of studying the natures of observable things, ‘nature’ being that which makes a thing itself and not something else. By this definition, a ghost or a god, for example, if they can be observed to be distinct phenomena in some way, are natural objects and we can put a redundant notion like ‘supernatural’ to one side.
I have no idea why you see that as a problem. I don’t.
Neil Rickert,
Agreed; I don’t see that it’s a problem (for whom? on what basis?) that many natural scientists don’t hold metaphysical naturalism.
Grevory, Patrick and hotshoe are doing the old darwinian trick to change the meaning of the word evolution. They said: ” Evolution occurs in populations whenever there is heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success” where evolution stands for genetic variation over time, effect that nobody deny.
But when I say ToE needs a naturalistic origin of life, that evolution means the change from LUCA to a whale by ramdom mutation and natural selection.
They accuse us to do not understand what we are talking about, but they are who do not understand or do not want to understand.
So Blas, what is your definition of evolution?
I know that English isn’t your first language but do you really not understand that ‘evolution’ can mean both the process and the result of the process?
No, evolution does not need a naturalistic origin of life. And there is no change of meaning in saying that.
No, I’m not pulling a “darwinian trick” Blas. Sorry you don’t understand science, evolution in particular, nor written English – although your understanding of English is surely better than my understanding of whichever is your native language, I admit. But I’m not the one trying to accuse you of pulling a trick based solely on my misunderstanding of terms not in my native language … maybe you, Blas, should act less as if you know everything and more as if you were open to learning …
You may not be happy with the answer, but it is absolutely a fact that the Theory of Evolution – the big theory, the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the whole picture scientists have been working on for 160+ years – has not and never will require a naturalistic origin of life. Too bad for your preconceptions, but that’s always been true and still is true. The ToE has nothing to do with how the evolving entities got started in the first place but only how they change once they start reproducing with heritable variations. Simple, simple, simple. Poofed into existence by god, seeded by aliens, no matter what the “supernatural” or “natural” origin, evolution will take it from there.
Now if you ask me personally for my opinion about gods and aliens, I say there’s no evidence that they exist anywhere much less that they were twiddling the knobs to start life on our planet, but the ToE has nothing whatsoever to say about whether they kickstarted life here or not. Too bad if you don’t like that, that’s just how it is and you don’t get to change the meaning of the Theory of Evolution to suit yourself.
I think rather it’s that you have to make it matter.
You can say whatever you want, but you’ve got to support it.
You say “ToE needs a naturalistic origin of life” and you are wrong. It does not need any specific origin of life, but once there it’ll carry it on.
So no, you don’t appear to understand what you are talking about and furthermore you are unable to make it matter what you say as you cannot support your claim in any way.
Steve Schaffner,
Well, yes. There always seem to be exceptions in biology!
Blas:
Fine. But I don’t think anybody regards speciation as the thing to extrapolate. It’s genetic change over time, but not solely by some painstaking letter-by-letter amendment. You mentioned three ‘saltational’ mechanisms: eukaryogenesis, multicellularity and eukaryotic sex. There’s another: HGT, and debateably, large-scale genomic rearrangements and duplications. We could quibble about the applicability of ‘saltational’ to some of these, but the important point is that they interact in some surprising and fascinating ways, and each changes the game in some way. ‘Mark 1’ evolution gave us 2 billion years of prokaryotes. They’ve been varying that tedious theme for 2 billion years since. But eukaryotes have uncovered some previously undreamed-of niches (that’s niches, not riches), thanks to these interactions.
But …you will never find evolution convincing. So I do wonder how much point there is in discussing matters with people whose objective in posting is to tell you how unconvinced they are, and nothing-you-can-say-will-change-my-mind. Do you expect some long-term reward for exposing yourself to evolutionary thought and coming out unsinged?
Like others Gregory, I’m not sure why that’s a problem? I’m a naturalist in several senses. I’m a natural scientist, i.e. a methodological naturalist. I’m an ecologist, which is what professional naturalists tend to call themselves these days. I’m even a card-carrying member of a Naturalists’ Field Club. I’m not an “ideological” naturalist, however, whatever that means exactly.
Perhaps your problem is that you don’t think most of the commenters here accept that there are theistic natural scientists and that that is a valid position? I think you’ve had enough responses to correct you of that. Maybe you’re trying to pick a fight where one doesn’t exist?
Maybe things would be a little less confusing if we came up with some new terminology. Is “naturist” taken yet?
George,
Unfortunately, “naturist” already has an established meaning. Too bad
No tricks, Blas, just discussing the theory using the common meaning of words in that context.
If you are still claiming that modern evolutionary theory requires a naturalistic origin of life then yes, you do not understand what you are talking about in that particular case. You are simply wrong.
However, your statement that “evolution means the change from LUCA to a whale by ramdom mutation and natural selection” is not wrong (to a first approximation — there are other evolutionary mechanisms including neutral genetic drift involved). Previously we had this exchange:
I am still interested in hearing your answer.
LUCA to whale implies a direction.
Naturalism is one of those ill-defined words that we think we understand, but most would be hard pressed to define, and many use in somewhat different meanings. Your second definition is more like the definition of “scientism” – a word that is used almost exclusively in derogatory context.
I actually think that a definition given by Plantinga for philosophical naturalism is good enough for government work:
Of course, “God” and “supernatural entities” are yet more words with problematic meanings, but at least these are words that are already in wide circulation, and in my experience, the above definition corresponds pretty well with what most people mean by philosophical/metaphysical naturalism. It is a minimal definition. Many will add more of their own philosophical and even scientific opinions to that, such as ontological commitments (something about the world being composed of “matter and energy”). But those, I think, are optional.
As for me, philosophically I start with something like “methodological naturalism”: an acceptance of certain empiricist epistemic principles. The rejection of supernatural entities follows as a consequence.
SophistiCat,
I am irritated by the words “natural” and “supernatural”. I can recall exchanges with ID proponents where confusion would arise (I hesitate to say would be introduced!) over what the antonyms were. I much prefer the categories reality and imagination with adjectives real and imaginary.
I mention this at every opportunity but it doesn’t seem to catch on! 🙁
SophistiCat,
Yes, I think that Plantinga’s definition is good enough for me, too. I like to formulate metaphysical naturalism as the view that anything which has psychological properties must also have physical properties, so there aren’t any persons that aren’t also organisms (terrestrial or extra-terrestrial) or machines. I think that one gets slightly different ‘pictures’ if one starts off from basic physics, and tries to get to everything else from there, vs. starting off with a rich and sophisticated sensitivity to the complexity of animal life, and then just denying that the distinctive features of human life are explained in terms of a transcendence of biology.
Insofar as “methodological naturalism” is a vague umbrella for empiricism, pragmatism, Mill’s methods of induction, etc., OK. On that conception, someone who rejects methodological naturalism is someone who thinks that putative divine revelation is a reliable source of knowledge. But what exactly is wrong with divine revelation in his context?
If we’re going to avoid begging the question, it’s got to be something like, “because there is no way to test whether a putative divine revelation is an actual intervention into the laws of the universe, or a psychotic episode, or even a collective delusion”. The heart of the epistemology here can’t be just a matter of individual observation, since particular individuals witness acts of (putative) divine revelation with a certain regularity. Instead, the heart of the epistemology has got to be in publicly available testing, making sure that we’re fitting models to data and not the other way around, and so on.
But the rejection of supernatural entities doesn’t follow as a consequence of adopting that epistemology — at least, not if “following as a consequence” is taken as a logical claim — the furthest one could go here is to say that all attempts up to the present to vindicate claims about the supernatural through the reliable methods of empirical inquiry have not been successful — that’s it. Full stop. Because we can’t know the future. For all we know, some far-flung future physics (trying saying that five times fast!) could serve as the theoretical basis for a new set of experimental techniques that would vindicate certain claims about the supernatural.
As someone who pragmatically and provisionally accepts metaphysical naturalism, I am in effect making a bet that there won’t be any such far-flung future physics. If I turn out to be wrong, then OK, then I’m wrong. Here’s the slogan: if science consists of making a bet about what future experience will be like, metaphysics consists of making a bet about what future science will be like.
Alan Fox,
That would work for me, subject to certain stipulations turning on the notion of possibility.
Kantian Naturalist,
You’re over-thinking it KN. All possibility is imaginary. Only achievement is real. 😉
ETA smiley
I do think you’ve captured the essence here. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
I prefer: phenomena for which we have good predictive models and phenomena for which we don’t.
Yet.
from AtBC:
Quote (REC @ Dec. 11 2013,13:38)
Had to stop by the library for other reasons, but apparently, Barry was right. The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated*
Quote
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.
DOES not appear on pages 45-46. Not with ellipses. The words are just not there. There appears to be 1 and only 1 edition of the book.
*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don’t have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry’s behalf. And considering he references it as Myth_….
The other quote from the same pages:
Quote
Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46
Is quite mangled, and comes from a section titled: What are species? , where the authors discuss stability in the fossil record, within species. There is no sort of implication that there are not any transitional fossils, and the section isn’t dealing with changes between species, but rather the identity and seeming stability of some species. I think Lizzie dealt with this one?
It looks like a pretty standard evolutionary biology book, perhaps with the exception that chapter 2 beats up on creationism!
The first quotation seems to appear mostly on creationist websites. Or on websites discussing quote mining.
My bet is that something like it appears somewhere.
Google Books says 1984 rather than 1982.
There appears to be an article of the same title.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00360/abstract
Then there’s this from 1981
http://www.unz.org/Pub/CreationEvolution-1981q2-00017
Richardthughes,
Thanks for the heads-up, Rich, and thanks to REC for finding the time to check the facts on whether the quote produced by Barry Arrington was correct and in context.
Amazingly it appears to be neither!
Any thoughts, Barry?
Any thoughts, William?
Apparently it could be on page 48. And there must be at least two editions. 1982 and 1984.
Here’s the granddaddy of mines:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Stasis.html
petrushka,
Oh yes, I see. I hope REC borrowed the book from his library and posts the full context. It might be interesting to see what was left out.
Yes, that was always the nitpick. Mike Gene took me to task when I tried to define scientific endeavour as the search for reality, calling it “wishy-washy” and for the fact that reality tends to expand. So it is never possible to delineate reality. I take the pragmatic view. If it’s there, somewhere, it’s real. The Designer’s fingerprints would be real, if we could spot them.
Besides, I like the analogy with complex numbers, the plane where imaginary and real are orthogonal! 😉
REC:
So the defence there would be that it’s not fabrication if you didn’t do the fabricating! 😉
eta: I see that it was actually a page misattribution. Just mined, then.
This business of checking facts and correcting each other isn’t permitted, you know. We’re an echo chamber, you know.
[REC kindly alowed me to repost his comment at AtBC here]
TLDR version: the quote is in there, on another page, and to me, a VERY out of context quote-mine that uses a quote about change within a species against others about transitional fossils.
I am slightly hesitant to write this. On two accounts, It might be too charitable to Barry. First, the Barry-like thing to do would be to scan the two pages he cited, post them, and accuse him of fraud. Let him buy the book, read it, and prove it false when he gets to the citation, if he finds it.
Hell, he might learn something in the process.
I’m also more inclined to sit back and laugh at the remnants of ID than engage at this point. Barry et al. are not kind people on a search for truth. They don’t try to educate themselves. It was once interesting to debate, and educate there. But they now want “gotcha” moments, spin, and frequently seem out to draw blood. A few of them literally tried to have me fired in letters to my employer. I believe Barry’s underling TsErik in this recent exchange, when he says: “But don’t worry Nickie-boy, I’ve already sent out your exchanges to quite a few hungry eyes and there are many, many more. Your side of the story will be read, though you probably shouldn’t relish that thought. Perhaps even future employers would love to see how you conduct yourself.” This behavior doesn’t draw any comment there. I do not think they know their threats are minimized by the fact that they can’t actually harm Nick and me. They do mean it.
And what are we engaging with Barry about? Is it scholarly to pair a quote stripped of context, from a book written as I was learning to read (before genomics matured, before many key paleontological finds, before experimental tests of the Red Queen Hypothesis–key here) against a quote from a text that was 4 or 5 editions old before the US made it illegal for one human to own another? Replying gives him too much credit, makes it seem like we’re on the same level of scholarship–the second account of charity.
As for context:
Quote
Is found in: Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 48 in a section titled: “What are species?” where Eldredge and Tattersall aren’t considering transitional fossils. Note the words: “affecting all lineages” and “tremendous anatomical conservatism.” Makes more sense for species vs. the whole fossil record or transitional fossils? Yeah. Some species* show remarkable *apparent* conservation over time. The authors contrast this with Darwin’s expectation of universal inexorable progress, as per Victorian ideals of an expanding empire, the betterment of society, capital-P Progress.
The preceding sentences are:
Quote
That ALL lineages haven’t experienced gradual evolution in the fossil record does not establish the fossil record doesn’t, at times, show gradualism, as per Alan Fox’s suggestion that he was mocked for, and this section appears to make NO comment on the presence of absence of transitional species in the fossil record.
To establish quote-mining, let us compare Barry’s use of the quote:
Here, Barry pairs the quote (again cited as The Myth_ of Human Evolution) with a quote from Origin, Chapter 6:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli….just-in
Quote:
And again the same sort of pairing here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli….-482285
Quote:
Here Barry’s own words reveal what he thinks, as he uses the quote from Myths to mock Elsberry:
Quote
Transitional fossils and intermediates—paired with an interpretation of Darwin’s opinion on the phenotypic stability of a species. Apples and hamsters.
The book strongly supports evolution, free of Victorian, Creationist, and scientific mythologies. I’d encourage a second edition, aimed at teachers.
I’m sure this will be well-spun shortly. And a thousand other mis-quotes will replace it.
ETA: *Eldredge and Tattersall take some effort in laying out their definition of species, and consider the ability to discern closely related species in the fossil record.
[ETA formatting]
Having to sit through an argument that takes more that a couple sentences to develop seems to be beyond Barry’s capacity.
Perhaps that’s why he’s a bill collector and not a trial lawyer.
I also don’t much like these words, because a lot of the time people who use them don’t have a clear idea of what they mean. But, however muddled, the meaning is there, it’s just not easy to elucidate. I mean, these are not just some random noises that people insert into their speech: clearly, the words are meant to express something. And it doesn’t help to substitute your own strawman definitions, at least not if you are trying to have a dialogue.
Starting with basic physics (“matter and energy”) when defining naturalism is often problematic. For one thing, there aren’t that many people who can have an informed opinion about basic physics, as opposed to personhood, for example, which anyone can contemplate. Also, in linking naturalism with basic physics people make implicit philosophical commitments, e.g. to reductionism, often without even realizing that they are making a commitment, and without considering alternatives.
This sounds right.
No, I didn’t mean to say that rejection of supernatural follows from epistemology as a matter of logical necessity. It’s just that inference of supernatural is often made by way of magical thinking, or it is rooted in some strong metaphysical assumptions. Being skeptical of a priori metaphysics, and following rational and broadly empiricist epistemology tends to steer one away from what are usually considered supernatural beliefs.
SophistiCat,
Regarding claims of divine revelation (obviously”divine” becomes “imaginary” in my vocabulary and answers the question I am about to pose), who is there today who is making claims of direct divine revelation and not being dismissed as delusional or a charlatan? Neale Donald Walsch, perhaps? At least my daughter thinks I should read his books, the first one of which she has lent me. Can’t think of anyone else, offhand.
Anyway, it’s all moot unless there is reality/imagination crossover. If the designer doesn’t leave fingerprints I shall continue to consider the designer a figment of someone’s imagination.
BTW, I am agnostic. I don’t deny God, I just think the current versions on offer seem hemmed in by the limits of human imagination.
For me, any idea that does not admit support or contradiction by evidence is fantasy.
I enjoy fantasy, but don’t try to live in sky castles. Except in daydreams.
“It” (whatever ‘it’ is) must be capable of interacting with our senses in some way, however indirectly. And, crucially, with those of at least one other in the same manner. Otherwise, it’s a non-starter, not for ideological but for practical reasons. Our equipment is made of matter.
[eta: awaits ‘burden of proof’ claim on the latter point re: our mental equipment].
Richardthughes:
“The quote he used to pillory people with wasn’t mined, it was fabricated.”
This statement is false and libelous.
Alan Fox asks: “Any thoughts, Barry?”
Yes, Mr. Hughes should retain counsel.
Lizzy, I expect you to remove every reference to a fabricated quotation from your website. Immediately.
I am lot a lawyer, but I doubt that there is any libel there. There is no person named as the fabricator, and the discussion is pretty much taking it for granted that you copied it from somewhere else. There is no suggestion that you fabricated it.
I’m sure Barry knows there is no libel there. But he probably figures if he huffs and puffs and threatens to blow the house down, he might get his way.
Hey, isn’t that how all humans behave towards people they disagree with?
Barry is upset because this site has people who correct errors.
I’ve moved a few comments to Guano. One of those I moved was probably not guano material, but it commented on guano so I moved it to keep that part of the discussion together.
Regarding Barry Arrington’s demands, This is Dr Elizabeth Liddle’s web site and It is up to her to decide whether Arrington’s demands are reasonable and should be complied with. Meanwhile can I ask everyone to be circumspect in their comments.
Just to clarify, I see no accusation that Arrington himself fabricated a quote. The allegation is that he obtained the Eldredge quote from a secondary source, as the errors in the title and page reference indicate. And on not finding the quote on the indicated page, REC was under no obligation to search further, though he did and found the words on another page
I understand the words quoted are as they appear on the page (a different page to the one Arrington referenced). What is further alleged is the quote is taken out of context from the surrounding sentences to suggest a meaning that the author did not intend.
No one is assuming mens rea. just poor scholarship.
Barry Arrington,
3rd post down
REC:
Even ignoring the caveat, it is not stated that you fabricated it (any more than it was stated that you’d performed the original quote-mining). IANAL, but the case seems flimsy.
Amid all the sound and fury, one point stands out: Eldredge was wrong. Wrong, that is, about Darwin’s expectation on the fossil record, as far as it can be gleaned from his words on the matter. Darwin was well aware of the possibility of variable rate between lineages ( “Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree”) and therefore “Darwin’s prediction” and “the manner Darwin expected” do not appear supported. (Unless Eldredge made reference elsewhere to some other part of Darwin’s work to support those claims: for full disclosure note that I have not visited the primary source! 😉 )
Darwin and Eldredge have a different account of the pattern found in fossils – the former ascribed it to variable rate and imperfect preservation, the latter to the dynamics of speciation events.
I expect you to remove all libelous statements made about Lizzie on the blog you administer.
Actually, I don’t, because you have demonstrated yourself to be a blustering hypocrite.
Oh dear! Poor Barry just can’t help himself.
Pay attention to the punctuation…
Quoth Barry:
Bit of a problem for Barry, here, as the original post was:
Note that, if one retains the *qualification, then the statement turns out to be factually correct. Now when Richard quoted REC, he omitted the colon, but retained the asterisk and its explanatory footnote.
But when Barry quoted Richard/REC, he
a) omitted the all-important, truth-providing asterisk, and the footnote
b) inserted a period
It is clear that action a) constitutes quote-mining, while action (b)…well, err…
Remember, Barry is trying to refute the allegation that he quote-mines, and now manages to fabricate the allegation that he fabricates.
IDists score the most delectable own-goals
🙂
Not to be a nitpicker or anything like that, but should not the title of this thread be:
It certainly doesn’t appear, given the evidence presented, that you have had any kind of downfall Alan.
Robin,
That (minus “own”) was how I actually read the thread title when it first popped up!
Yes, by omitting the asterisk and the following :
“*Or comes from some other source/place in this book. I don’t have time to read the whole book right now, or go on a wild-goose-chase through the literature on Barry’s behalf.”
It would seem the full sentiment is not fairly represented via omission. is there a word for this concept?
I would like an apology from Mr. Arrington.