Re: I said what? (was "Astronomy" and "Earth" magazine's special origins issues)

Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Thu, 12 Mar 98 20:32:19 +0800

Loren

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:45:10 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote:

>>LH>Since you generally prefer to quote people at length rather than
>>>summarize their views, I wonder if -- in the future -- you'd do the
>>>same for my views. ;-) Three parts of that sentence with my name
>>>sound like mild misrepresentations to me.

>SJ>See above about "misrepresentations". You automatically assume a *moral*
>>fault (ie. "misrepresentations") on my part, rather than merely an
>>intellectual fault (ie. mistake).

LH>I wasn't assuming a moral fault. I'm sorry you got that impression;
>I apologize if others got that impression as well. I wanted to
>explain why I thought that one-sentence summary did not properly
>represent my actual views. I assumed there was a difference
>of interpretation. (Check the dictionary ... one of the definitions
>(not the one I meant) does describe the word as sometimes with intent
>to deceive.

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:20:28 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:

BH>What Loren said was "mild misrepresentations". There is no assumption
>of moral fault in this statement. A misrepresentation can be made
>deliberately, it can also be made by mistake.

Indeed, as you and Brian both agree, "misprepresent" does carry with it
a meaning (IMHO the primary meaning) of *deliberate* intention to *deceive*
in the representation of another's views. If evolutionists on this Reflector
want to regain their lost credibility (with me at least), they will need to
*consistently* stop using such loaded words that imply moral, rather than
merely intellectual, error or the part of their creationist opponents.

LH>Sorry. I guess I'll have to chose my words more carefully,
>too.)

Thank you for your apology, which I accept.

LH>As for the rest: Perhaps you don't see a difference between what I
>wrote and that one-sentence summary. I do. But the important thing is,
>I think others who read such a summary, not written by me but with my
>name attached, can easily come to wrong conclusions about my actual
>views. Hence the general request to everyone, when summarizing views
>not one's own, this problem can be mitigated by either leaving names
>off, or by using direct quotes.

You have not shown that my summary was not a faithful representation of
your views, and therefore I stand by what I wrote.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------