Re: ORIGINATING A FUTILE THEORY


*** wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 20:18:27 -0700, "catshark" <catshark101@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


*** wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 14:15:30 -0700, "catshark" <catshark101@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Al wrote:
Al wrote: Catbox, Why include this stuff?

Well, A'nL, because there are other people around who might not yet
know you are a troll and/or an idiot.

Don't paste stuff into my
paste stuff.

Sorry, I don't taking marching orders from the likes of you.

Tossing your fly in my ointment is as dishonest as it
gets.

I am a newbie. It appeared to me Al was quoting known authorities to
avoid criticism for making up ideas.

No, he pasted a bunch of quote mines that misrepresented what some
known authorities (some are not authorities) have said. For what
"quote mines" are, see:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html>


The one quote that was extended did not alter the essence of the
quote. It merely said, as I read it, that creationism could not be
falsified. So? How does it alter the quote saying Natural Evolution
could be falsified?

You do realize that being capable of being falsified (with some
qualifications about Popper's formulation) is considered a *good* thing
in science; in fact, an absolute requirement? As to the intent of the
full collection of quotes, why not go to the original site Al copied
this from (without attribution):

<http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut15.htm>


It sure makes your response weaker.

Why do you think so?

[...]

If Al is posting accurate statements, then I would accept them as
worth reading, if he is making up quotes and attributing them to
others, then he is a liar.

"Al is . . . making up quotes . . . he is a liar" is a perfectly
"accurate" statement of what you said (by your apparent definition).
Is that what you meant to say?


So, of you accuse him of merely taking selected quotes is one thing so
long as they are accurate.

*Selective* quotes, by definition, can't be accurate. If you quote
someone, the meaning of what that person said should only be that
person's selection, not yours. Either you fully represent that
person's thought or you are dishonest.

If you carry baggage toward Al and over
react, then as a stranger, not knowing the history/baggage, interpret
you as unfair.

If, once you know of the problem with quote mining, as you now do, you
don't bother to delve into the context, then you are unlikely to try to
understand any of the dispute. I can't stop you from engaging in
willful ignorance and will just move on in hopes that others are
interested in learning.


I was accused of selective quotes a couple of times, one having to do
with Darwin and a statement of how his theory could be falsified. I
read the fuller quote, but could not see how it altered the selection
I made. Thus, I was honest to my best understanding, but the other
fellow thought I was being dishonest.

Without knowing exactly how you are defining 'selectively quoting' I
can't be sure, but what did you do once you were accused? Did you
defend your reason for leaving part of the quote out? Did you insist
that it didn't matter if Darwin said something that seems to contradict
your interpretation of him?

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed
by a cloud of comforting convictions which
move with him like flies on a summer day.

- Bertrand Russell -

.

Loading