For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
One wonders how someone can in good conscience use a quote without knowing the surrounding context, and therefore they don’t know and can’t know if they are misrepresenting the overall views of the person they are quoting.
That this “self evident” fact might not be specifically mentioned in a specific definition does not really alter that.
Some quotes appear to have very obvious and straightforward meanings, even though most of us have learned the hard way that certainly may not be the case. Also, there is a kind of cognitive bias where one assumes certain sources would not misquote or misrepresent quotes; IOW, they have a niave trust in certain sources of authority that the source knows what it is talking about and did its due diligence, so they feel confident the quote is correct and in context.
There is also a rather standard human trait that con men rely on; many people don’t believe that someone would blatantly lie about something that is relatively easy to check out. Many people also deeply believe that something asserted by respected figure of authority, or by a consensus of authorities, that is of enormous impact, can’t be a blatant, out and out lie (if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance or we know they have vast stockpiles of WMD’s.)
It may be sloppy quoting, naively using a trusted 3rd party source, it might be an embarrassing lack of due diligence or it might just be being stupid, but unless there is a deliberate intention to deceive, it’s not quote-mining any more than it is lying.
Well, indeed!
Let’s try an example.
Someone with a blog, let’s call him Barry, publishes a stream of quotes to support a claim he is making. Someone else asks him where he got the quotes from as there are specific differences from the original texts and a book title is mis-spelled. Furthermore, there seems correlation between the mis-spellings and a secondary source.
What do you think happened next? 🙂
Alan,
William is right that a quote mine need not be taken from a secondary source. You can quote mine a primary source, and IDers and creationists do it frequently.
He is of course wrong about this, however:
OMagain,
It fits nicely with what William said on the afterlife thread:
If quote mining is “the best tactic”, it’s fine by William.
Oh sure! There always has to be a first time when someone actually lifts an out-of-context quote from a primary source.
Alan,
No, because the initial quote might include the necessary context while the secondary quote omits it. In that case it is the second person who is doing the quote mining, not the first.
The point is that quote mining can be done on either primary or secondary sources, contrary to your earlier assertion:
Point taken; I should have added a qualifier – let’s try “often”.
I did think of asking who was most at fault. The person who actually reads, say Dawkins, and publishes a selective quote for the first time, or all those who follow, lazily repeating the quote without ever checking the primary source. But I didn’t.
Alan,
Much better. Now I agree with you.
In this context, I would say that someone who unintentionally deceives due to laziness is less at fault than someone who deliberately quote mines.
In turn, laziness is more forgivable when the quotation comes from a reputable source that is generally reliable, and less forgivable when it comes from a questionable or unreliable source. Needless to say, creationism and ID are notorious for the large numbers of quote miners in their ranks.
Untrue. I’ve specifically stated that I strive to be honest in all my communication, that truthfully communicating is very important to me.
keiths said:
From Merriam-Webster:
“Unintentional deception” is an oxymoron.
No, I don’t think so.
You quote a dictionary definition of “deceit”, from which you attempt to deduce something about “deception”. I’m afraid that you have fallen victim to self-deception, even if this was not due to an intended deceit.
keiths:
William:
William,
Gregory already made the silly mistake of insisting that a word has only one meaning. Do you really want to follow in his august footsteps?
From Merriam-Webster:
And:
William, who should we believe — Merriam-Webster or Merriam-Webster?
William,
I responded here.
Yeah, there’s a helluva accusation: “OMG!! You unintentionally attempted to deceived me!”
Viewers, consider the Merriam-Webster example of deceive was:
Keiths did not provide the full definition of deception at Merriam Webster:
Under the “thesaurus” tab at merriam-webster for deception:
OED definition of deceive as a verb:
William,
You’re repeating Gregory’s error. Words can have more than one meaning. To show that “unintentional deception” is an oxymoron, you need to show that “unintentional” contradicts all meanings of “deception”.
You can’t, of course, and what’s amusing is that Merriam-Webster — the very source you quoted as an authority — proves you wrong.
Doubly amusing is the fact that after telling us this…
…you then turn around a quote a dictionary definition, which is the very epitome of something “that a consensus group of authority figures proclaim as ‘knowledge'”!
You’re a hoot, William. Richard must be laughing his ass off.
Why do you pick silly fights like this? It amuses the hell out of Richard, and I’m sure he’s grateful, but what’s in it for you?
I’m inclined to agree with William that “unintentional deception” is an oxymoron, rather like “accidental liar” (which is why I think the sometime commenter, mung, falls flat with his frequent “LIAR” outbursts.) Would it not be simpler for you to give an example of an “unintentional deception” that is not an oxymoron? (Extra points will be awarded if the example does not involve a carbuncle).
I’m afraid I draw a distinction between deception and lying, even if it doesn’t apply to what people do.
Appearances can deceive, but they cannot lie. A mirage can deceive you, but it cannot lie. A statement can be deceptive, but it cannot lie.
Figures don’t lie, but liars can deceive you with figures.
If a person deceives you, he lies, and it is intentional.
But a person can also make an unintentionally deceptive statement.
The word lie always implies intention. Deception may or may not, depending on context.
Of course “unintentional deception” is an oxymoron – i.e. a figure of speech that is the combination of two apparently contradictory words. Like “pianoforte”.
But our William appears to be making the mistake (credited to William F. Buckley…) of using ‘oxymoron’ as a fancy word for ‘contradiction’.
I confess that this is not the first time that WJM’s word usage (“belief” !! WTF?) has deceived me into thinking he is saying something he is not.
In keeping with the rules of this site, I am convinced that this deception was not intended, but was rather an example of, y’know, …
What happened to the naturalism thread? I wanted to thank KN for his thoughtful and comprehensive description of Sellars’ changing views on the manifest and scientific images, but when I came to the site to do so, the thread was gonzo.
Wow. The OP and all the comments appear to be gone.
In fact, all of KN’s OP’s have been deleted!
Although I obviously disagree with many of KN’s ‘ideas’, I do hope that nothing unfortunate has happened. He seemed stuck in an on-going contradiction that could not be escaped from without a conversion or transformation; “naturalism cannot be true” – while still claiming to be a ‘naturalist’ in his own pseudonym. KN’s repeated unwillingness to discuss worldview in a collaborative science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation may have played a role (unless of course it was just a site glitch).
Right. That explains your previous comment, which now resides in Guano. I’d say you could use some transformation yourself.
I deleted all the OPs I’d started in a fit of rage, and now that I’ve had a long walk and calmed myself down, I don’t care that they’ve been restored or not.
I’m done with TSZ, period. Forcing myself to endure Gregory’s constant abuse is not healthy for me.
I’m sorry to hear that.
I don’t think anybody else here is taking Gregory seriously. His “constant abuse” reflects badly on Gregory, but not on you.
The debate video starts playing automatically, even if you aren’t viewing the thread.
I’ve switched to using the copy on youtube. I think that fixes the problem.
KN,
Now that you’ve cooled down further, I suspect you recognize how outrageous and inappropriate your actions are — particularly since this isn’t the first time it’s happened.
I’ll be blunt. I have a pretty low opinion of Gregory, but your behavior is your responsibility, not his. If you’re reacting this angrily to one ham-fisted antagonist on the Internet, then I suspect there’s a deeper problem here that is begging for your attention. It’s not about Gregory — or Barry — or TSZ.
P.S. I actually hope you’ll continue commenting here, but I think your author privileges should be revoked, if they haven’t already been, and that any future OPs you write should be submitted via the moderators with the threads remaining under their control. It’s up to Lizzie, of course.
Indeed!
Seconded.
Seconded. I hope to see Kantian Naturalist back here, even if I don’t always have time to read all of his comments.
“How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours.”
Yes, so do I.
I see KN as having helped communication and understanding between philosophy and science (or, at least, the scientists at this site). I much appreciate his efforts.
I too would be sorry to see KN gone. But I understand his frustration. Personally, I choose not to read Gregory’s posts, and thus not let this execrable troll get under my skin. But I don’t understand why his posts aren’t routinely guano’ed. The moderators are quick to interfere when a poster’s good faith is impeached, and that’s fine. But there is another rule that is largely ignored:
Address the post, not the poster.
Like I said, I no longer read Gregory’s posts, but those that I did read never failed to breach this rule in the most flagrant and obnoxious manner, and it would seem that he hasn’t changed his behavior any.
I think I get targeted almost as much by gregory as anyone else. Something about heart trouble.Pretty squishy stuff coming from a philosopher.
Anyway, I simply ignore topics I don’t understand (and Gregory is correct in assuming I don’t understand his point of view). Sometimes it take a while for me to realize I have no hope of understanding or communicating with someone, but I have long since ceased to take it personally.
Alan,
Then you are repeating his error by assuming that a word can have only one meaning. I’ve given two definitions — from William’s own source, Merriam-Webster — that are perfectly compatible with my usage:
Alan:
I already did, when I used “unintentional deception” to describe the act of someone who parrots a quote mine without realizing that it is a quote mine. They may not intend to deceive, but deceive they do.
Also, never forget your friend Google: unintentional deception
You kill me Keith!
No, say, we are out rock-climbing together. We pause at a vertiginous crag to admire the view. You crane a little further forward and… whoops, you fall to your death. Did I give you a little push? Did I just sneeze and you were startled and slipped? I either killed you or I murdered you? I didn’t murder you unintentionally.
Alan,
Are you seriously arguing that if murder is always intentional, then deception must always be intentional?
By that logic, falling is always intentional, and I therefore committed suicide.
No, I’m arguing murder is always intentional by legal definition. Mens rea. And as I use the word, “to deceive” includes intent, the same mens rea. I certainly can unintentionally mislead. But this is a failure to communicate.
On the other hand, I overlooked that you might have jumped intentionally but feigned a fall so that your wife could still collect on the insurance. How would we ever establish that, I wonder?
ETA
I’m vaguely remembering a discussion a while ago at Uncommon descent that developed over a difference of usage in US and UK English. I recall it involved Mark Frank. A friend also regales me with a story of a failed space shot that involved collaboration between US and UK scientists. A computer program had a fatal error due to the different usage of “divide by” and “divide into”.
But I can’t paste this too often! I’ll let you have the last word.
And if Alan Fox uses the word that way, no one else is allowed to use it differently, including Merriam-Webster?
Just an observation.
In the prolonged absence of Lizzie, much of the discussion has developed a really angry tone. I’m not surprised to see people leave.
petrushka,
Yes I agree and it’s disappointing. I accept some blame for that; my buttons are easy to push.
Regarding Lizzie’s absence, I was in touch recently over altering role permissions and she is fine, just swamped with work and having “about 10 really important deadlines all simultaneous, and people keep adding to them!”
Douglas Adams
Hmmmm.
Does this make ANY sense to ANYBODY? I get that it’s supposed to be insulting, but it’s so, well, incoherent. Is English not Gregory’s first language or something?
I have to say this kind of thing makes me feel a little bad. (I mean I know “Gregory” wants me to feel bad, but I’m guessing not in the way of feeling sorry for him.) Would you like me to help you write your Walto insults, “Gregory”? I mean I really think I could do so much better. I’m guessing pretty much anybody could, but still.
Personally, I liked your “disrespectful” and “unworthy” line myself, but maybe that’s just me. It was so….loopy. I mean here was this guy complaining about insufficient moderation by calling me names! It was like Borges or something. Reminded me of the kind of stuff we all used to hear at Farmington State U in the Critical Theory Module of the Sontag School. Certainly much better than this “undeveloped thinkers and still hire a guy” biz.
But it’s like I was saying, we REAL anti-naturalists have to put up with a lot at this site. There are the “yay science!” types you get in droves around here, which I guess is to be expected. But then we also get the semi-anti-naturalist wannabes like this “Gregory” guy, who quote other semi-anti-naturalists like Charles Taylor (as if they were the real deal) and then also say a bunch of other stuff about Americans and reformed jews and insurance sales that doesn’t make sense in any known language.
It’s a lot to put up with I tell you!
Isn’t there some site somewhere where we REAL anti-naturalists can commune without these snipes from both naturalists and near-naturalists?!? Crimity.
Yep. Or as we say at our house:
Criminently!
My understanding is that Gregory is Canadian by birth (and not from Quebec).
I guess there are creationist sites.
Kitcher on soft atheism in the NY times
Anti-accomodationists should have their favorite relaxation technique handy.
The NY times login will come up if you are past your free articles limit.
Charles Taylor gets a shout out.