Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cognisonance
    cognisonance

    JW literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the JW viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless. Sometimes indeed quotes in JW literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e. Carl Sagan’s quote, “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer” is indeed a flat out misquote).

    Most quotes though are not this blatant and are from authors who criticize some aspect of mainstream scientific thought on a matter. For example, JW publications will quote Gould or Eldredge who say that the idea of gradualism is not consistent with what is found in the fossil record. The JW literature then uses such quotes to attack evolution itself. The problem here is that the Gould and Eldredge are not saying evolution never happened, they are not saying phyletic gradualism (which is what they are contesting) is synonymous with Darwinism. The JW writers on the other hand use these quotes to cast doubt on the fossil record supporting the idea of evolution in general (or even specifically Darwinism). I would think that doing this, even while noting that Gould or Eldredge believe in evolution (even acknowledging they believe in an alternative to gradualism, punctuated equilibrium) is not sufficient background information to the average reader for him to see that the position the JW writers are making is a straw-man or red herring (becuase those two paleontologists are not contesting evolution in general, are not trying to debunk Darwinism even, just against the rate of evolution being strictly gradual).

    To me this smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps, though it’s not on purpose. Maybe the writers aren’t even cognizant they are making a logic fallacy (straw-man fallacies are surprisingly common and easy to make; people often miss the point of another’s argument when they are reasoning their own). However, these mistakes are prolific in JW literature about evolution, not merely isolated mistakes. I can only think of two possibilities to explain this, 1) the writers simply don’t know much about evolution to recognize when they are replacing one proposition with a superficially similar yet un-equivalent proposition (perhaps further complicated if they obtain most of their quotes from other creationist and Intellectual Design literature without doing the research and homework to vet out the veracity of the quote and argument that goes with it), or 2) they are aware, but think that the average scientific lay person (myself included) won’t be able to know the wiser, and thus the ends (casting doubt on evolution) justifies the means (misleading quotations and arguments).

    Nonetheless, I’ve come across a reply by other authors who have been accused of using misleading quotations. The following quote is not from a JW publication, and I’ll hold off crediting it for the moment (as I don’t want the source to affect anyone’s opinion), but it provides perhaps a third possibility of why/how people can feel that quoting out of context is either not 1) quoting out of context, or 2) even a problem per se:

    The second basic criticism of these reviewers is the charge that we supported our position by quotations taken out of context, and that these quotations are consequently misleading. To this we would only suggest that skeptical readers look up the references for themselves. We have been careful to give full documentation for every reference, for just this reason. We flatly reject the innuendo that we have tried to give the impression that the authorities cited agree with our basic position or even with the particular argument we are attempting to illustrate by each quotation. We are of course trying to show in each case that the actual scientific data can be interpreted just as well or better [with some other explanation]. Since it would be unrealistic to expect most readers to accept our description of the particular phenomenon under discussion simply on our own authority, we use instead the works of recognized [scientists] of the orthodox school. No implication is needed, unless explicitly so stated, concerning the beliefs of the particular writer quoted. We believe the quotation in each case speaks for itself concerning the issue at hand. This, of course, is standard procedure in scientific dialogue and argumentation. The latter would be quite impossible were writers expected to limit their citations to recognized authorities who already agreed with their position.

    I wonder if a similar rationale is what the JW writers might be using for the practice of quoting out of context (after all why provide a proper bibliography, if one is purposely trying to mislead). However, when it comes to this third possibility, is it really that much different than the first, assuming in good faith the authors are trying to be honest. Wouldn’t the arguments still amount to a straw-man or red herring? Ultimately, while not knowingly lying or misleading, the authors would still be presenting nonfactual and irrational arguments that miss the point. In any case, a recent yearbook talked about how well vetted and researched JW publications are to make sure everything presented is as factual as possible. I don’t understand how this can be the case when mistakes abound in material pertaining to evolution, as again, these mistakes are not the exception, but rather the rule.

    On the other hand, am I seeing this wrong perhaps? Are there situations where this third possibility holds true, that it would be rational, factual, and contextually sound to quote someone who does not agree with the point one is making? I’m trying, so far in vain, to think of situations (I'm trying to be objective as possible here). Nonetheless the quote I just shared has at least made me try to think about this question. I realize that discussing this subject matter here just opens me up to confirmation bias, but I think this question (and subject) deserves some consideration.

  • Knowsnothing
    Knowsnothing
    Are there situations where this third possibility holds true, that it would be rational, factual, and contextually sound to quote someone who does not agree with the point one is making?

    Here is what I think. As long as there is a disclaimer, as long as sources are given, then even if the conclusion the one using the quote/s arrives at is incorrect, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is an individual's duty to examine for theirself the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion.

    What Creationists (of whatever camp) try to do is use all the negatives or unknowns in the theory of evolution and try to sum it up to arrive at the conclusion that therefore, evolution is impossible. As an example, if one scientist believes in punctuated equilibrium and another believes in gradualism, the WT will happily quote what the first scientist perceives as a flaw in gradualism along with what the second believes is a flaw in punctuated equilibrium, thereby canceling out any possibility for evolution for the lay reader. As a more informed person would surmise, evolution doesn't rest soley on this two seemingly competing theories. There are many more options, and that might include the possibility that even both have occurred at different times in different species.

    Aside from your question, the consensus of biology, geology, anthropology, etc. converge at evolution, and so even though we have gaps in understanding does not mean that therefore, evolution is not true. The WT and Creationists alike try to pick out the unknowns or seeming inconsistencies without looking at the big picture, simply trying to confirm not only Special Creation, but along with it their peculiar flavor of it (WT sides with science on the Earth's age, yet deny evidence for humans existing long before A&E; YEC take the Genesis account literal word-for-word and arrive at the Earth only being a few thousand years old).

  • WalkingHome
    WalkingHome

    They don't just stop at misquoting outside sources. The last Watchtower, "Does God Care about Women?," has a little section on whether Paul forbid women to speak. It says that to discourage women from enthusiastically talking over a speaker during a public discourse, that Paul encouraged women to "question their husbands at home."

    What the half-quoted scripture actually says is:

    "As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation." (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

    So yes, he absolutely forbade women to speak, and misquoting the bible to try to prove the opposite of what it says - that's what's disgraceful.

    I learned a long time ago, that if I want to respect what they say in the magazines, I can't check any of their quotes. Even as an active JW, fact-checking always left me disappointed in the society.

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    Unless one is doing parody, I don't see how this is ever justified. And if one does this unintentionally, and it is brought to one's attention, I would think a printed apology would be in order.

  • glenster
    glenster

    You're wasting time confusing the credibility of the JWs followers with the
    cynical businessmen who run the operation. It's like wondering if Popoff
    accidentally thought Jesus spoke to him through the receiver in his ear, Geller
    mistakenly thought he had psychic powers, Farrakhan naively thought 9-11 truther
    claims pointed to the Jews as Satanic, and on and on....

    From Russell on out, Bible Students/JWs leaders have feigned extreme ex-
    clusiveness--that they're the special spokesmen for a literal 144,000, and that
    this is shown by the best evidence and reasoning supporting a dozen or so of
    their distinctive rules or relatively distinctive rules taught in a distinctive
    way.

    Unsurprisingly, this doesn't come naturally or mistakenly. Since these ideas
    are so distinctive, anywhere they'd research they'd find the more common infor-
    mation. They've mischaracterized opposing stances including by making research
    sources seem supportive that aren't. Various sections of my GTJ Brooklyn expose
    are about that including authors complaining that their books have been mis-
    represented that way.
    http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
    http://gtw6437.tripod.com/index.html

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Quoting someone in a way that makes them seem to be saying something they never intended is wrong.

    Quoting someone you disagree with to show that even they agree on some minor point is fine as long as that is clear.

    "Even so and so agrees that this is not a good basis for believing the position that he himself supports".

  • cognisonance
    cognisonance
    Here is what I think. As long as there is a disclaimer, as long as sources are given, then even if the conclusion the one using the quote/s arrives at is incorrect, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is an individual's duty to examine for theirself the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion.

    Yes it shouldn't be an issue and people shoud examine for themselves the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion. However, how many JWs do that? If I were to go to the elders with something like this what would happen?:

    Br. Elder, in the newest brochures about evoltuion vs. creation, one of them says the following:

    Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” 28

    The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge , a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.” 29

    To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

    Well, I looked up the reference from Eldredge and he wasn't saying the the fossil record documenting macroevolutionary change is a myth. Eldrege was not contesting Darwinism, or that evolution happened. In fact his own hypothesis (punctuated equilibrium) builds upon evolutinary theory, it doesn't tear it down. He was simply disagreeing with the pace of evolution. He knows that macroevolution happened and that many transitional fossils exist in the fossil record, just like the National Academy of Science referenced said as well. He's just saying that instead of these changes comming about gradually at a consistant pace, that for long periods of time most species remain stabe, but once environmental, ecological, or other stressing situations put pressure on a species they begin to change more rapidly.

    So instead of perhaps millions of years of gradual consistant-pace changes, it might be hundreds or thousands of years during the punctuated times instead. It's that latter time period that is said to have the rapid or sudden appearance of new species. Short by geological/evolutionary perspects, still long from a human point of view though. Additionally, such sudden time periods is along the lines of a single-celled protists changing in it's size of it's shell, being isolated from other populations, and now being considered a different species (UC Berkely's website has a great explaination about this, and it mentions that it doesn't have to be an either or situation as the fossil record supports punctuated in some species and graudualism in others). The type of change required to go from a fish to an amphibian (i.e. macroevolution), would take longer. How many transitional species were there and how quickly the changes happened is what the controversy is about.

    For example, the transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, such as Tiktaalik is dated to, I think, 375 million years ago, right between fish that didn't exibit transitional features 385 million years ago, and the first amphibians at around 365 million years ago. There's about a 20 million year window where such a change occured. In this time period we have other transitional fish/amphibian fossils. The graduism school of thought would be that the changes happened at a more or less gradual pace through many decended species similar to the transition fossils we find today, and that there are many more that didn't get preserved in the fossil record to fill in the "gaps." Those favoring punctuated equilibrium would think that perhaps there were not as many decended species in the transition, and that changes happened more rapidly in punctuated periods. As we find more fish/amphibian transitional fossils (and we are), it appears that gradualism can be a good explaination for the fish -> amphibian transition, in other species the punctuated equilibrium model might fit better (i.e. the single-celled protists mentioned before).

    In either case, the fossil record does indeed contain transitional fossils between fish and amphibians (as well as other classes). The controversy amoung scientists isn't that such a transition happened or not, but just simply is about the rate of change. So all this being the case, why are the brochure's authors using Eldredge to support their claim that macroevolution is a myth? Eldrege and others are not making any such claim. The fossil record is not showing macroevolution to be untrue either.

    Further, remember that article in the awake from 2003 that encourages us to not quote the bible out of context? It gives the following example:

    A THEATER critic for a newspaper once went to see a certain play. He did not much like it and afterward wrote: “If triviality is what you happen to be wanting, by all means go and see this play.” Later, the promoters of the play published an advertisement that featured a quote from the critic’s review. The quote was: “By all means go and see this play”! The advertisement accurately quoted the critic’s words, but it lifted them out of context and thus grossly misrepresented his view.
    That example illustrates how important the context of a statement can be. Taking words out of context can distort their meaning, just as Satan distorted the meaning of Scripture when he tried to mislead Jesus.

    Now if the promoters of the play put a footnote to the quote refering to the source, does that make what they did no longer misleading? If they added to the footnote that the critic did not like the play, would that make it no longer misleading? Cherry picking words (or parts of a concept) and using them in a way that distorts their meaning, is using a quote out of context. What is being done in the new brochure isn't much different than the play example. True it isn't changing the meaning of the original statement to mean the opposite, but it is distorting it's meaning to make it sound like macroevolution in the fossil record is not documented, that transitional fossils don't show macroevotionary change.

    So in conclusion, yes it shouldn't matter, but given the target audience of the brochure, again how many JWs are acutally going to dig deep like this? What's more likely to happen?

    1. Read the brochure and take it at face value and say, hmm... Yep! I guess the fossil record doesn't support evolution after all, see we even "caught" a staunch evolutionist admiting that it doesn't support it.
    2. Dig deep and look up all the references. Pay close attention to make sure no straw-man arguments are being used. Then, independetly verify the concepts (educate oneself about evolution) from other sources so as to use one's critical thinking skills to come to a well informed conclusion.

  • cognisonance
    cognisonance

    SlimFatBoy:

    Quoting someone in a way that makes them seem to be saying something they never intended is wrong.
    Quoting someone you disagree with to show that even they agree on some minor point is fine as long as that is clear.
    "Even so and so agrees that this is not a good basis for believing the position that he himself supports".

    Thanks for point this out. I agree that is a case where quoting someone (i.e. acutally using someones words against him) can be appropriate. Thanks for providing an example!

    Using a modified version of your quoted example, I think the following summary is what the average reader (even the author(s) perhaps) of the new brochure think they are doing with the quote:

    "Even Eldredge agrees that the fossil evidence is not a good basis for believing macro-evolution happens, although he believes in macro-evolution."

    When what acutally is the case when researching what he actually said and believes:

    "Even Eldredge agrees that the fossil evidence is not a good basis for believing all evolutionary change was consistantly gradual, although he believes in macro-evolution."

    They are starting with a position Eldredge is indeed supporting (the latter example), and altering the second half of the argument so that his original postion is changed to look like the one the JW writer(s) have. This is what makes it a strawman argument. This is why it is misleading. Am I wrong?

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    DITTO what SlimFatBoy said.

    Doc

  • Sapphy
    Sapphy

    If there was a statement by Authority A :"The evidence does not support the suposition that a global flood engulfed the earth 4500 years ago. However we can prove localised flooding in the fertile crescent was a common occurence during that time period."

    This is just about OK: Authority A states that evidence shows flooding happened in the Bible regions during the time period we estimate the global flood to have happened.

    This is not: Authority A says "... a global flood engulfed the earth 4500 years ago... we can prove ... flooding in the fertile crescent"

    Even though the second is an actual quote, it is dishonestly skewed to say the opposite of the original line.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit