Creationist dishonesty: the case of RS Scadding

[Jose Fly]

Other than Piltdown, I cannot think of any other deliberate frauds/hoaxes - and Piltdown seemed more of a hoax ON evolutionists, than by them. Mistakes? Sure. Unwarranted extrapolations? Yup. But outright fraud?

Usually just for the sake of argument I grant the creationist Piltdown Man, Haeckel's drawings, and archeoraptor. Of course I realize those last two come with some caveats, but I grant them in order to move the discussion forward. Then I challenge the creationist to pick any creationist webpage to link to so we can see if that one page has more than three falsehoods. They always do.

But agreed - any creationist site contains dozens to hundreds acts of at least misleading claims, at worst outright fraud/misrepresentation.

Yup, which I expect would give people cause to stop for a second and reconsider their position (if it's true, why the need to lie to support it). But here we are.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's not engage in false equivalency here.

What do you think is a false equivalence?

I'm sure there are some on the science side who behave unethically, but it's certainly not as pervasive as among creationists.

That's awfully general.
I wouldn't know.

For all the deliberate frauds in evolutionary biology that creationists love to cite, in reality a single creationist webpage contains more deliberate falsehoods than the entire history of evolutionary biology.

I agree in spirit about falsehoods.
But I don't leap to dishonesty (which is possible) as the motive.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you think is a false equivalence?

Equating between the level/amount of dishonesty between creationists and "ToE fans", as you seemed to do when you said "I see many posters here, even TOE fans, accuse others of dishonesty, when they commit the very same sins".

That's awfully general.
I wouldn't know.

Exactly. If you don't know (which is understandable if you don't participate in CvE debates), then you can't really say much about the relative levels of dishonest between the two groups.

I agree in spirit about falsehoods.
But I don't leap to dishonesty (which is possible) as the motive.

Oftentimes when a creationist links me to one of their websites and in my reply I point out several falsehoods on that site, I finish with, "So is the author extremely ignorant of the subject matter, or just plain dishonest? You decide." IMO, neither option speaks well of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Equating between the level/amount of dishonesty between creationists and "ToE fans", as you seemed to do when you said "I see many posters here, even TOE fans, accuse others of dishonesty, when they commit the very same sins".

I made no claim of equality.
Only that all groups suffer from the same human failings.
Would you argue that evolutionists (like me) are above bias induced error?

Exactly. If you don't know (which is understandable if you don't participate in CvE debates), then you can't really say much about the relative levels of dishonest between the two groups.

Oh, I've weighed in on TOE vs ID discussions.
But I disagree with you about dishonesty being the major source kbehind their claims.

Oftentimes when a creationist links me to one of their websites and in my reply I point out several falsehoods on that site, I finish with, "So is the author extremely ignorant of the subject matter, or just plain dishonest? You decide." IMO, neither option speaks well of them.

I try (not always successfully) to avoid being so harshly judgmental.

 

[Jose Fly]

I made no claim of equality.
Only that all groups suffer from the same human failings.

LOL....your second sentence contradicts the first.

Would you argue that evolutionists (like me) are above bias induced error?

Of course not, but again let's not draw false equivalencies. If I jaywalk, you can't equate between me and a serial killer on the basis that "we're both criminals" or that "we all fall short of the law at some point".

Oh, I've weighed in on TOE vs ID discussions.
But I disagree with you about dishonesty being the major source kbehind their claims.

So what do you think drives their behavior?

I try (not always successfully) to avoid being so harshly judgmental.

When someone lies to me and/or blatantly distorts something, I see nothing wrong with "being judgmental". I don't see why a person wouldn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL....your second sentence contradicts the first.

Oh, really?

Of course not....

Then you admit that I'm correct....after claiming a contradiction.

, but again let's not draw false equivalencies.

You should take your own advice.
You're seeing something which isn't there.

Some good advice...
Don't claim "False equivalency!" when no equivalency is claimed.
It only looks ridiculous to the one not claiming it.

...If I jaywalk, you can't equate between me and a serial killer on the basis that "we're both criminals" or that "we all fall short of the law at some point".

Your analogy isn't even remotely applicable.

So what do you think drives their behavior?

Primarily bias induced irrationality.

When someone lies to me and/or blatantly distorts something, I see nothing wrong with "being judgmental". I don't see why a person wouldn't.

Those who cry "Liar!" often do so out of petulance...frustration at
not getting admission of a win...knowing one has The Truth.
To presume dishonesty without evidence of intent to mislead is a mistake.

Dishonesty does happen, eg, catching a poster quoting another,
but altering the quote to intentionally change the meaning.
This is different from incorrectly paraphrasing, which can be
attributed to misunderstanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, really?

Yes. You started off saying you didn't equate between the two groups, and immediately followed that up by drawing and equivalency between them.

Then you admit that I'm correct....after claiming a contradiction.

Oh brother....you're doing exactly what I analogized to. "Evolutionists are not above bias and error" is as unlike "creationists are habitually and blatantly dishonest", as jaywalking is to murder.

Your analogy isn't even remotely applicable.

Oh yes it is.

Primarily bias induced irrationality.

So in your view the creationists who author dishonest webpages know the subject matter (so we can rule out ignorance), but are so biased and irrational that they are unable to recognize their own misrepresentations and falsehoods? Okay then, we can then add "completely irrational" to "ignorant" and "dishonest" as explanations to pick from. IOW, after identifying numerous misrepresentations and falsehoods in creationist material, we can finish with "So the author is either extremely ignorant of the subject matter, very dishonest, or completely biased and irrational."

EDIT: I guess we can replace "completely biased and irrational" with "delusional", which gives us "extremely ignorant, very dishonest, or delusional". Interesting.

Those who cry "Liar!" often do so out of petulence.
To presume dishonesty without evidence of intent to mislead is a mistake.

Likewise, overlooking blatant dishonesty out of some over the top sense of "fairness" is a mistake as well.

Dishonesty does happen, eg, catching a poster quoting another,
but altering the quote to intentionally change the meaning.
This is different from incorrectly paraphrasing, which can be
attributed to misunderstanding.

And if you'll recall, the former was exactly what I've been talking about. So it looks like we're in agreement.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. You started off saying you didn't equate between the two groups, and immediately followed that up by drawing and equivalency between them.

Where did I claim equivalency?

Ya know.....some people would say that your continuing with
this claim, even after having been informed of the error....is
(you know what's coming) .... "dishonest".
But I'm magnanimous, & allow for innocent bias driven error.

Oh brother....you're doing exactly what I analogized to. "Evolutionists are not above bias and error" is as unlike "creationists are habitually and blatantly dishonest", as jaywalking is to murder.

You misunderstand your own analogy.

Okay then, we can then add "completely irrational" to "ignorant" and "dishonest" as explanations to pick from.

Aha!
The beginnings of detente.

IOW, after identifying numerous misrepresentations and falsehoods in creationist material, we can finish with "So the author is either extremely ignorant of the subject matter, very dishonest, or completely biased and irrational."

EDIT: I guess we can replace "completely biased and irrational" with "delusional", which gives us "extremely ignorant, very dishonest, or delusional". Interesting.

Why do you feel called to insult them?
It serves no useful purpose.

Likewise, overlooking blatant dishonesty out of some over the top sense of "fairness" is a mistake as well.

Are you claiming that I overlook proven dishonesty?
I say that you're too quick to leap to that...a leap of faith, eh.

And if you'll recall, the former was exactly what I've been talking about. So it looks like we're in agreement.

I know anti-evolution types who are honest people, their
intellectual affliction notwithstanding. They're civil to the
opposition (eg, me)....which is worth emulating.

 

[Jose Fly]

Where did I claim equivalency?

Right here: "all groups suffer from the same human failings".

Ya know.....some people would say that your continuing with
this claim, even after having been informed of the error....is
(you know what's coming) .... "dishonest".
But I'm magnanimous, & allow for innocent bias driven error.

So? Others would say your pride is preventing you from owning your mistake.

You misunderstand your own analogy.

No, I don't.

Why do you feel called to insult them?
It serves no useful purpose.

Why do you feel called to excuse away their dishonesty? What purpose does that serve, other than further enabling the behavior?

Are you claiming that I overlook proven dishonesty?
I say that you're too quick to leap to that...a leap of faith, eh.

See above. You just stated that calling out dishonest behavior "serves no useful purpose".

I know anti-evolution types who are honest people

So do I.

They're civil to the opposition (eg, me)....which is worth emulating.

I agree. When someone is civil with me, I reciprocate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right here: "all groups suffer from the same human failings".
:
So? Others would say your pride is preventing you from owning your mistake.

One could say....
"Hebetude prevents you from seeing that claiming 2 groups
share a human trait doesn't mean they share it equally."
But I won't say such a rude thing.

Instead I'll only advise to let go of your anger & frustration with
creationists. Reason with them, knowing that you'll seldom
dissuade them from their beliefs. Be civil & friendly.
You might even become friends with some. I have.

 

[Jose Fly]

One could say....
"Hebetude prevents you from seeing that claiming 2 groups
share a human trait doesn't mean they share it equally."
But I won't say such a rude thing.

Hilariously passive aggressive.

Instead I'll only advise to let go of your anger & frustration with
creationists. Reason with them, knowing that you'll seldom
dissuade them from their beliefs. Be civil & friendly.
You might even become friends with some. I have.

Thanks for your input. FYI, I have no anger or frustration towards creationists. I am however fascinated by their behaviors, from a psychological/human behavior standpoint. And actually, I'm fascinated by many forms of extreme denialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hilariously passive aggressive.

Thanx!

Thanks for your input. FYI, I have no anger or frustration towards creationists.

Were that so, you wouldn't be so abusive towards them with easy accusations of dishonesty.

 

[Jose Fly]

Were that so, you wouldn't be so abusive towards them with easy accusations of dishonesty.

So if someone says something to me that's not true, I try and show them their error, and they ignore it and just repeat the falsehood....it's "abusive" for me to say "that's dishonest"?

Your approach reminds me of a supervisor we had in our office who went so far out of his way to "be fair", he ended up overlooking some real problems and enabling very destructive behavior. Basically, the two of you seem to be more interested in not offending anyone than being accurate and truthful.

 

[Revoltingest]

So if someone says something to me that's not true, I try and show them their error, and they ignore it and just repeat the falsehood....it's "abusive" for me to say "that's dishonest"?

Generally, yes.
Perhaps it's times to say instead...
"Let's agree to disagree."

Your approach reminds me of a supervisor we had in our office who went so far out of his way to "be fair", he ended up overlooking some real problems and enabling very destructive behavior. Basically, the two of you seem to be more interested in not offending anyone than being accurate and truthful.

The sharp eyed reader on RF will notice that I sometimes
offer harsh but constructive criticism when warranted.
But I advise against using one's having "the truth" as an
excuse intentionally offend. That changes no minds.

 

[Jose Fly]

Generally, yes.
Perhaps it's times to say instead...
"Let's agree to disagree."

Then you and I are going to disagree strongly on that.

But I advise against using one's having "the truth" as an
excuse intentionally offend. That changes no minds.

First, I don't buy into any sort of solipsism at all. Second, I'm not out to change minds. As I noted, I'm fascinated by denialist behaviors. When someone says "X doesn't exist", I'm fascinated at how they react when someone shows them X. Of course when the denialist just ignores the example and continues to repeat "X doesn't exist", I have no problem calling that out.

I have no interest in overlooking or excusing such behavior out of some sense of politeness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you and I are going to disagree strongly on that.

That is an almost perfect response.
Better would be...
"I change my mind. I now agree completely with you."

First, I don't buy into any sort of solipsism at all. Second, I'm not out to change minds. As I noted, I'm fascinated by denialist behaviors. When someone says "X doesn't exist", I'm fascinated at how they react when someone shows them X. Of course when the denialist just ignores the example and continues to repeat "X doesn't exist", I have no problem calling that out.

I have no interest in overlooking or excusing such behavior out of some sense of politeness.

OK.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is an almost perfect response.
Better would be...
"I change my mind. I now agree completely with you."

Nope. I have low tolerance for behaviors like mining quotes or making accusations against people even though they cannot back them up at all. And I have no problem calling such behaviors out. If the person doing those things is offended at being called dishonest, then they shouldn't engage in dishonest behaviors.

IOW, I do not agree with your enabling at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. I have low tolerance for behaviors like mining quotes or making accusations against people even though they cannot back them up at all. And I have no problem calling such behaviors out. If the person doing those things is offended at being called dishonest, then they shouldn't engage in dishonest behaviors.

IOW, I do not agree with your enabling at all.

To be civil when helping creationists understand their errors & evolution
isn't enabling. Nay, it's even more effective than being abusive, which
tends to make them even more entrenched in their views. But then, as
you said, you're not out to change minds. Our goals differ.

 

[Jose Fly]

To be civil when helping creationists understand their errors & evolution
isn't enabling.

I never said otherwise. Recall the example I gave where a creationist says "X doesn't exist". I fully agree that the first response should be a civil "here's X"; it's only when they deliberately ignore that and continue to repeat "X doesn't exist" that civility goes out the window.

Nay, it's even more effective than being abusive, which
tends to make them even more entrenched in their views.

You're a con man's dream. The three card monte dealer would love to have you there with him, chastising everyone who calls him dishonest.

But then, as you said, you're not out to change minds. Our goals differ.

Very true.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're a con man's dream.

Because I don't prematurely leapt to certainty based
upon presumption, prejudice or speculation? That
I'd consider & weight the possibilities? Nah.
Moreover, I've become even less trusting over time.
It's generous of you to alert me to my many flaws.