On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:49:37 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>>CC>>... Trying to get
>>>Stephen to quit misrepresnting Gould, Dawkins, myself, Susan, and anyone
>>>else who's handy may be a waste of time. In fact, even bothering to point
>>>these occurrences out to people may be a waste of time.
>SJ>>No "may" about it. It *is* a "a waste of time". It does not matter in the
>>slightest what Chris imagines my character to be.
>CC>It's not *primarily* about character. It's about the persistent and nearly
>uniform misrepresentation of your opponents' views and arguments.
I have given Chris twice now the opportunity to document even *one* intentional
"misrepresentation" of my "opponents' views and arguments" as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 21:02:34 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[..]
It is always possible that I have honestly misunderstood something that
Chris has written. The relevant part of Webster's Dictionary's definition of
"misrepresent" is: "1 : to give a false or misleading representation of
usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>"
(http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionary). Therefore it is technically
possible to misrepresent someone *unintentionally*. In such cases, all Chris
needs to do is clarify what he meant and if it was just a misunderstanding it
should be resolved.
But I take it that when Chris says I "misrepresent" what he says, he means
it is "with an intent to deceive or be unfair". But how Chris could possibly
know this is beyond me. In each instance he would need to show that:
1) I was representing the facts different from what they objectively were
(i.e. it is not a matter of our different metaphysical worldviews interpreting
the facts differently);
2) I was not *unintentionally* misrepresenting his position, (i.e. due to lack
of clarity in his explanation or my lack of understanding of it); and then,
3) I was *intentionally* intending in my own mind to represent falsely what
Chris had just written, and send my intentional misrepresentation to a
mailing list on which Chris himself is a member!
If Chris wants to make his claims that I am *intentionally* misrepresenting
what he says, then he would need to work through those steps from 1) to
3) proving each one of them to be true.
Until he does that, his claims of *intentional* "misrepresentation" are just
that: *claims*.
Of course if Chris was willing to do that, natural justice would mandate
that Chris himself could not be the `prosecution', `sole witness', `judge',
`jury' and `executioner' in such a `trial'!
until he works through steps 1) to 3) to prove his case, I am going keep
posting this challenge to him. In Australia we have a saying: "Put up, or
shut up"! I challenge Chris to either prove I am intentionally
misrepresenting him, or stop making the allegation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To date Chris has not "put up", so I suggest he "shut up"!
>CC>It only
>became a character issue after several *months* of people trying to get you
>to correct this obvious pattern of behavior. Let me try one more time by
>repeating: You *don't* do your case any good in the long run by such
>misrepresentations.
See above. I am happy to send the same offer to such "people" to
prove their case that I am *intentionally* misrepresenting them.
Until that case is proved, there is no "obvious pattern of behavior"
except in Chris' head! Just making allegations does not make them
so. This is no doubt what Bertvan means by " McCarthyism", which
the online Websters dictionary defines as: "a mid-20th century
political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements
held to be subversive and BY THE USE OF TACTICS INVOLVING
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON INDIVIDUALS BY MEANS OF WIDELY
PUBLICIZED INDISCRIMINATE ALLEGATIONS ESPECIALLY ON
THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CHARGES" (http://www.m-
w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary. My emphasis.)
>CC>If you deal with what people *actually* say (and clearly
>mean), you have a better chance than if you continue to present their views
>(and evolutionary theory) as something other than what they are. If they are
>so badly flawed as you claim, you should be able to refute them on their
>merits (or lack of merit) alone.
If Chris has any actual *evidence* that I "present their [evolutionists]
views (and evolutionary theory) as something other than what they
are" then of course he can jump right in an show that I have done
so, without indulging in ad hominems.
That he rarely (if ever) does this is itself evidence that that I do
*not* "present their [evolutionists] views (and evolutionary theory)
as something other than what they are".
>CC>If it's merely an unconscious bad habit,
>it's a *very* bad habit, and you need to become a lot more careful in your
>reading (and in your editing of quotations, etc.).
Again, if Chris has any *specific examples* of my "reading (and in"
my "editing of quotations" we can discuss those. The only case that
I can recall where my "editing of quotations" was discussed was in
Susan's "Why lie?" post, and I showed that my "editing of
quotations" was correct for the point I was trying to make.
The point again is that if my "editing of quotations" was incorrect,
the most effective remedy against it is to calmly and rationally show
where it is incorrect. That Chris and Susan don't do this, but instead
Indulging in ad hominems shows me that they don't have a case
which can stand up on its own merits.
>CC>You do not ultimately
>help your cause (unless it's something other than what you say it is) by
>emulating Johnson (who is also not helping his cause, if it's what he says
>it is).
I don't know what criteria Chris uses to claim that "Johnson...is also
not helping his cause". Johnson has sold over a quarter of a million
books and his cause in exposing the naturalistic philosophical
assumptions behind Darwinism is doing very nicely, thank you!
If Chris' criteria is that Johnson has not convinced committed
materialists like Chris, then that is not necessary to Johnson's
"cause". Johnson's aim is to awaken the 90% (or more) who are not
materialists to their illegitimate domination by the 10% (or less) who
are materialists.
>CC>If macroevolution, for example, does not occur, we will never find
>out from you or Johnson, because it'll be (at best) lost in the morass of
>misrepresentation.
Chris neatly reverses the burden of proof! It is not up to "Johnson"
to show that "macroevolution...does not occur" but up to
evolutionists to show that it *does* occur.
CC>Almost your sole method is attacking your opponent's views.
This is a *debate*. We are *supposed* to attack our opponent's
views. But at least I *do* attack my opponent's *views* rather than
indulging in personally attacking my opponents' personal character,
which Chris and his ilk do constantly.
CC>Fine. Attack
>*them*, not some jury-rigged weird modified version of them that you came up
>with because you didn't read carefully enough.
Again, I am happy to discuss any *specific examples. To date all
we have from Chris is just vague generalisations. One would think
that if Chris *had* any actual examples he would not hesitate to use
them.
Chris did not even claim that I had misquoted the Gould quote that
Susan wrongly latched on to in her "Why lie?" post until Susan
claimed it.
CC>If you attack straw men, the
>problem is that the *real* opposing views are ultimately left standing,
>because your argument was aimed at something else. When people realize that
>the argument or view you refuted was not the one your opponents actually
>hold, they'll think, "Hmmmm. Maybe these ideas aren't so bad after all.
>Stephen only refuted *that* idea, not the one Gould [or Dawkins, etc.]
>*actually* favors."
Precisely! So why would I do it?
And if I had done it, why wouldn't Chris have exposed it right away
and won the debate? That all Chris can do is indulge in vague
generalisation long after the alleged events, coupled with ad
hominems, is evidence that they never happened in the real world,
but only inside Chris's head.
If Chris has any *specific examples* of where I have attacked a
"straw men" instead of the "*real* opposing views" of "Gould [or
Dawkins, etc.]" let him post them, right away, with his reasons why
he claims they are "straw men".
In this also, Chris needs to "put up, or shut up"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we come to the origin(s) of life, both creationists and evolutionists
are forced into the role of speculators. Laboratory experiments conducted
with presumed primitive earth atmospheric conditions (methane, ammonia,
hydrogen, water) and various energy sources (electrical discharge,
ultraviolet radiation, high energy radiation, and heat) have yielded small
amounts of amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleic acid
precursors (the building blocks of genetic information and components of
the protein synthesizing machinery of contemporary cells). Certain
conditions have seen the formation of microspheres, which are chemically
complex entities surrounded by a double-layered membrane suggestive of
the gross structure of certain cellular components. Creationists have looked
forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from
simple chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made
life form could be created, this would not prove that natural life forms were
developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The scientist
understands this and plods on testing theories." (Stansfield W.D., "The
Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth
Printing, pp10-11)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------