Re: So, Kant, or Dawkins, or whatever, how is what you did NOT lying?
- From: "VBM" <marilynmc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:14:11 -0700
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129323584.408443.234410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> VBM wrote:
>> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1129244346.342399.41600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > VBM wrote:
>> > > In a recent post, Kant/RichardDawkins, you posted a quote from Popper
>> > > in
>> > > which he expressed some doubts about evolution, but failed to include
>> the
>> > > later quote wherein he recanted that very statement.
>> > >
>> > > Now, how is this NOT lying?
>> >
>> > I wouldn't call it lying only because there is no indication of the
>> > state of mind of the poster. You need some indication of a person's
>> > state of mind in order to characterize a statement as a lie.
>> >
>> > However, it was clearly misleading.
>>
>> Ah, but see what I posted in another response. If not "lying", it is
>> still
>> fraudulent, in that it is a negligent misrepresentation which is
>> considered
>> fraud.
>
> I would agree that the o.p. is misleading, that it misrepresents
> Popper's philosophy, and that it is negligent.
>
> Still, to characterize an act as *lying* is an ethical (or moral)
> judgement that requires some indication of the person's state of mind.
> That state of mind could be indicated by, for example, repeatedly
> issuing a series of obviously incorrect statements, or repeating an
> untrue or misleading statement after its errors have been competently
> explained, etc.
I know that the Popper recantation has, indeed, been posted in this forum
before, but I agree that he may not have known it before he posted.
But still, I do not see a great difference in morality between intentionally
lying and negligently diseminating false information. Some, yes, but not
much. Here, it is a little less immoral because the original quote is
valid, but before you quote anyone, it is just common sense to check into
the person and the quote to see what others have said about it.
Further, now that he has been shown the recantation, morality would demand
that he come back and apologize for not doing a better investigation before
blindly posting a quote.
> I don't see the evidence of that here. Maybe this person is just
> ignorant. So I'll reserve that judgement until I see more evidence.
Well, ignorant yes, but that does not prevent him from making statements as
conclusions in spite of his ignorance. Anyone can be ignorant, that is not
a crime. But it is a different thing to toss out cut-and-paste after
cut-and-paste when the source of that information has been shown to be
faulty or misleading or just plain wrong, time after time. How can you
reasonably continue to use information from a source that has been proven to
be unreliable? It is assured that the guy who runs that website where he
gets all of his stuff has been told about Popper's recantation long since,
but that does not prevent him from continuing to post the first quote only.
And Kant knows this.
I think Kant crossed over into immoral a long time ago.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Avian Flu, ToE and ID
- Next by Date: Re: Avian Flu, ToE and ID
- Previous by thread: Re: So, Kant, or Dawkins, or whatever, how is what you did NOT lying?
- Next by thread: Re: charts supporting Forrest's testimony
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
