Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Yes, that is one of the standard “tricks” of evolutionists. If an advocate of ID (or creationism, for that matter) quotes an evolutionist criticizing the ToE, that is considered “quote mining” because the quoted scientist actually “believes” in the ToE. Apparently they consider the quoted scientist’s personal “beliefs” more important than a frank and honest statement.
I will agree that it is possible to quote someone “out of context,” and anti-evolutionists probably do it occasionally (as do evolutionists), but they don’t do it anywhere near as often as they are accused of it. In the vast majority of cases, the charge is a red herring.
DR Laughlin does not have a problem with ToE itself He has a problem with the way some people use ToE.
And how do you know that. You tried to speak for Isaac Newton earlier in this thread. Are you speaking for Prof. Laughlin now? Or do you know him personally?
Because Dr. Laughlin has quoted Pauli and said that people who abuse ToE are "Not even wrong."
I think you misunderstood Laughlin’s quote (which I posted earlier in this thread). He wrote:
“Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong.”
He was referring to “experimental shortcomings” that “are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong.”
He was not saying that the ToE is “not even wrong.”
When he uses the expression “not even wrong,” he does not mean “right.” He means “worse than wrong,” i.e., “meaningless.”
OK, let me try that one more time. Laughlin’s quote is a bit confusing. His use of the phrase “not even wrong” applies to “findings,” — not to the Darwinian ToE itself. And as I wrote above, his phrase “not even wrong” means “worse than wrong.”
So the bottom line is that, in taking that quote an an endorsement of the ToE, I think you misunderstood it on two counts.
Guns do not kill. People use guns to kill. The Theory of Evolution is not wrong. People who abuse the Theory of Evolution are wrong.
(YOU)”If you Google Dr. Laughlin's quote you will each and every reference to it is using it to support ID. (Every one except the stand alone reference on RussP's Great Quotes page and now RussP's repeat of the quote on FR).” (emphasis mine)
Do you (in this context) equate ‘endorsement’ with ‘support’? If you do, then I must inform you that I do not. We can offer a quote in support of a position, or some aspect of a position, without representing the quote as an endorsement of said position. You seem to implicitly acknowledge this fact when you exempt RussP’s use of the quote from your general observation about its use otherwise in all of Googleland. I must say that I am not ready to accept the idea that in all instances of the quote in Google are we to admit the term ‘support’ and the term ‘endorsement’ as having the same meaning, but neither is it worth the exhaustive effort of running down and analyzing every instance of the use of the good Professor’s quote. Nonetheless, I cannot help but note the irony of the fact that, by exempting RussP from your general citing of Google, you have fairly laid yourself open to the charge of taking him out of context.
I’ve pinged RussP in order to offer him the opportunity of correcting any misimpression I may have regarding his thoughts or attitudes respecting this issue.
No exhaustive efforts are required. Just use the Google searach term:
"the Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance" -gilder
Every reference to the quote comes from Gilder. Every reference except for RussP's references.
Do you (in this context) equate ‘endorsement’ with ‘support’?
Laughlin's quote does not endorse ID. Gilder uses (abuses) Laughlin's quote to support ID.
I’d be interested in knowing who you think “abuses” the ToE and how, if you care to tell us. Do you think, for example, that Richard Dawkins abuses it?
We are talking about people that Dr. Laughlin says abuse ToE, not people who I say abuse ToE. Quite frankly I do not know who, specifically, he is talking about.
Oh, good. A misapprehension entirely of my fault, I’m sure. I was under the impression there was a veritable Google sea of misapplied quotes of Dr. Laughlin’s out there, much like the wave after wave of broomsticks carrying buckets of water in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, each one (the quotes, not the broomsticks) requiring analysis of the context in which it was used, to determine whether or not it was a genuine instance of being out-of-context.
Speaking of which:
”Laughlin's quote does not endorse ID. Gilder uses (abuses) Laughlin's quote to support ID.”
Non-responsive, Sir. I asked, “Do you (in this context) equate ‘endorsement’ with ‘support’?” Just in case there is any confusion, that question was a request for clarification. Repeating an assertion does not clarify. It may well be that it fits your purpose to remain suitably vague. That is your prerogative, and that is fine. In either case I shall have had my answer.
Neither have you thrown any light on why you cite the use of Laughlin quotes on Google, which you condemn as abusive, but then explicitly exempt RussP’s use of the quote from that general category. If RussP is exempt, why are these other quotes included in your discussion with him?
Now it develops in your last message that the use of the quote you cite as being abusive comes not from all of Googleland but from but one person (Gilder). So, is it merely Gilder v RussP? Was there a wider context, which you’ve now chosen to narrow? As before, it is your prerogative to answer, just as it is my prerogative to raise these troublesome issues.
No. The words have different meanings. This is why I used two different words rather than one word. To further clarify my intended communication:
Dr Laughlin's quote neither supports nor endorses ID. Gilder abuses Dr. Laughlin's quote to both support and endorse ID.
explicitly exempt RussP’s use of the quote from that general category
I said that "each and every" Google reference to the quote uses the quote to support ID. The "each and every" would not be correct unless I exempted to the two Google references created by RussP.
I have exempted RussP because he has stated that he is not using Dr. Laughlin's quote to support or endorse ID. While he did bring up the quote in a thread about ID, I have to take him at his word. He said he is mearly quoting Dr. Laughlin because he read it somewhere and liked it. He said he read it somewhere other than from Gilder thus further dissociating himself from the use of the quote to support or endorse ID. Finally, his use of the quote on his web page does, indeed, stand alone and aside from any discussion of ID.
RussP: If my conclusion is not correct If you really are using the quote to endorse or support ID, please feel free to correct me. If RussP does say I am mistaken then I will revise my mistake and remove the RussP exclusion from the "each and every" statement about the Google references.
Fascinating interview and article!
I was using the Laughlin quote to criticize the Neo-Darwinian ToE. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether such criticism is equivalent to “supporting ID.”
I actually think it is. But that doesn’t mean that I misused the quote in any way. Am I only allowed to criticize the ToE if I am not supporting ID?!
You are using the quote to criticize the Neo-Darwin ToE. Dr. Laughlin's uses the quote to criticize people who abuse ToE. There is a significant difference.
Am I only allowed to criticize the ToE if I am not supporting ID?!
Certainly. Since you are citicizing the ToE do you have an alternative explaination for life that does not derive from ToE?
I show up on occasion. But most of these threads have fewer occasions for Calvin and Hobbes or bad puns, so I mostly stay quiet.
Did you see my ping to you about the Chinese cat that sprouted 'wings' wrt "hopeful monsters"?
Cheers!
Seems to me the humanities got left in the dust first.
Cheers!
I beg to differ; it tends to reflect poorly on them. Like the old joke about peeing on yourself while wearing dark pants--it gives you a warm feeling but nobody notices.
Only with that crowd, they're wearing light khaki.
Cheers!
Ever hear of the "correspondence principle" ?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.