The Watchtower, Scholar and Misrepresentation of Source References (page 3)

hopelesslystained

OH peeleze Scholar! you insult my inteligence! Show me just how much more foolish ilk you can spout!

I might have more sympathy for you, Scholar, if the WT hadn't done away with traditional references years ago. Why is that? My claim is that they don't value conventions of scholarship. Firstly, because there are not true scholars in the organization (claim based on lack of scholarship in the publications) and secondly, it is just another form self-standardization. Refusing the written convention of bibliography is an insult to humanity.

One example, the Creator book, is particularly odius. Where in this text is credit given to the Intelligent Design movement and all of it's productive authors? Evolution occurs, and yet I still believe that credit should be given for ID theory. Why are these ideas presented as novel or new? In the older Evolution book, frequent quotes were made from fundamentalist creationsits. I ask, why would quoting them give credence to the WT? If there arguments are sound, should I not give the credit to THEM and not the organization?

Spook

One additon:

The misuse of quotes is identical to the misuse of bible passages. The context of the quote is ignored for the denotation of the words as being fit for a topical purpose.

AlmostAtheist

The misuse of quotes is identical to the misuse of bible passages

Ouch! So obvious but I totally missed it. GOOD point.

I used to be in Scholar's position, having to defend every stupid thing the Watchtower did, find SOME way to make it right and good and "true". I'm so happy to be free of that malarkey, I want to sing it from the rooftops.

Dave

GetBusyLiving

I think Scholar needs to get laid.

GBL

barry

These posts are great Theile and Gentry are SDAs just like me. When I become a JW I will have all the information to confuse and confound the faithfull at the KH. They would have to accept my baggage that Ive been brought up an SDA and may know about these gentleman and there writings. I can just see the look on there faces priceless.

scholar

Spook

You inquire why the Society has not referred to the ID movement in the Creation book. The Society first made mention of one of the earlier founders of the movement, Michael Behe with his Darwin's Black Box in the Awake magazine soon after the book was published and some of the key arguments have appeared in the Creator book. When the Creation-Evolution book was first published there was no such thing as the ID movement as it has only recently appeared. No doubt the Society will refer to these ID proponents when appropriate.

scholar JW

AlanF

Neil, you are an incorrigible, disgusting, out and out, [edited] liar. You told nine lies in your post. How do you live with yourself?

: The Society when quoting from sources by direct quotation and attribures that reference is in accordance with academic conventions.

Lie # 1.

Aside from your atrocious and nearly unintelligible English, your claim is almost always wrong. Only occasionally does the Society give full and complete source references. Most often it simply says something like, "One author said blah blah blah," without giving even the author's name or work, much less page references. Often the Society will say something like, "Author Joe Shmoe said, 'blah blah blah'," but without giving the work or anything else. Or it might give the name of a book, but fail to mention the author or any other information by which a reader might check the reference.

Here are some examples of this horrible quotation practice:

The July 1, 2003 Watchtower said the following (page 29):

One author stated: "[blah blah blah]" . . . A century later, one author said: "[blah blah blah]"

Where are the references, Neil?

Whatsa matter? Cat got your tongue?

Here are some examples from the English version of the Creator book (Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?, WTB&TS, 1998):

The very first quotation in the book is incomplete. In Chapter One, on page 5, we find the following statement:

The book Paul Gaugin 1848-1930 -- The Primitive Sophisticate says: "[blah blah blah]"

The author is not given, nor are any other particulars of the book. So the citation is completely out of accord with academic conventions.

Is there any excuse for this lapse? Not at all. This is proved by the fact that the Italian version of the Creator book includes the author's name. We find the following statement:

"[blah blah blah]". -- Ingo F. Walther, Paul Gauguin 1848-1903 -- The Primitive Sophisticate.

Why does the Italian version contain the author's name, whereas the English version does not? Because by Italian law, a book containing quotations like the above cannot legally be published without usually citing at least the author and title. The Society's practice with the English, and most other language versions, would be illegal in Italy.

So the question remains, Why does the Society not automatically include the same information in all language versions as it is required to include in the Italian?

I think the reason is so obvious that it doesn't require my stating it.

Continuing in the same vein, the 2nd quotation in the Creator book goes like this:

. . . an editor of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "[blah blah blah]"

Where are the rest of the particulars of the quotation? Obviously, this is not cited according to normal academic conventions.

The 3rd quotation in the Creator book goes like this (page 6):

Albert Einstein once said: "[blah blah blah]"

The English version gives no further information, but the Italian version is footnoted as follows (page 6):

* Idee e opinioni: Come io vedo il mondo, trad. di F. Fortini, Fabbri Editori, Milano, 1996, p. 231.

The 4th quotation in the Creator book goes like this (page 7):

. . . Professor Freeman Dyson, who said: "[blah blah blah]"

Again no further particulars are given in the English version, but the Italian version is once again footnoted (page 7):

* Infinito in ogni direzione, trad. di A. Biasi Conte, Rizzoli, Milano, 1989, p. 270.

The rest of the Creator book continues in the same atrociously bad style of virtually incomplete citation of source references. The Society clearly adheres to no normal academic conventions of citation.

So what say you, Neil? How will you try to justify your lie? How will you try to justify the Society's horrendously poor quotation practices?

: Further, when a writer chooses to use another piece of reaearch or part thereof of that material, it does not mean that both parties are in agreement or that permission must or sought.

That's correct -- with the proviso that the source reference not be cited in such a way as to give the reader the impression that the cited author agrees with an argument that he clearly doesn't.

: There is a, intellectual fredom when it comes to direct quotations with only the caveat that the quoation is exact and that the source is attributed.

Lie #2.

I've already cited the Society's published example of how your claimed standard was used to completely misrepresent a theater critic's view: "The advertisement accurately quoted the critic?s words, but it lifted them out of context and thus grossly misrepresented his view."

Your lie, Neil, is in failing to acknowledge any of the Society's statements about this, that I quoted in my above post. Your intellectual dishonesty is further proved by your failure to acknowledge that the Society's admonitions about proper, honest quoting are correct.

: When it comes to paraphrasing or commenting on another piece of work then it is incumbent on the writer to understand or comprehend the other writer's viewpoint in that immediate and overall context.

Correct. That's precisely the point of the Society's words -- which you have simply ignored.

: This is necessary when the writer may have an opposite view or intention to the original piece.

Actually, you moron, simple good scholarship requires that a writer who quotes some source understand the source writer's viewpoint no matter if he agrees with it or not.

: However, it is often the case that the original writer may make honest admissions that are of use or value to another piece of work which differs considerably from the referenced work.

Correct, and there are plenty of examples in published literature of how to do this honestly.

But again, when the viewpoints conflict, the quoting author is under an obligation to ensure that he does not give readers the impression that the other author's viewpoint supports his own. To do otherwise is simply dishonest.

: In any event, accuracy in the use of other sources and attribution is mandatory whether by direct quotation or paraphrasing.

Correct.

Unfortunately, all of your correct statements are of no value, Neil, because you go ahead and misapply them. So your entire argument up to this point is nothing more than a diversion to try to lull stupid readers into thinking that you uphold proper academic standards -- when quite the opposite is true.

But this shows your hypocrisy, Neil, because you actually do know right from wrong in this -- you simply won't admit that the Society has done much wrong, even when your fucking nose is rubbed in it.

: It is then up to the reader to determine whether such use is appropriate.

Lie # 3.

As I have taken pains to explain, most readers don't have the resources, time or interest to verify all quotations. Readers rightly assume that an author holds to honest academic standards, and therefore they tend to trust an author. Therefore, readers should not have to verify quotations. If they do, then it's obvious that the author cannot be trusted.

What you're doing, Neil, is the academic equivalent of proclaiming, Let the buyer beware!

I have never seen such egregious examples of academic dishonesty as your arguments, Neil.

: In all of my years of reading WT publications I have never found a single case of misrepresentation.

Lie # 4.

I've given you three detailed examples in these most recent threads:

1. The Society's misrepresentation of Edwin Thiele's views.

2. The Society's misrepresenting evolutionist Richard Lewontin as supporting the notion of a supreme creator.

3. The Society's multi-faceted misrepresentation of the claims of a young-earth creationist as being the views of the editors of a magazine, and of that popular magazine as being a scientific journal.

And of course, I've posted a link to my extensive essay on the 1985 Creation book, which documents more than 100 examples of misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and just plain stupidity (driven by a desire that untrue things be true). I've also documented plenty of outright misrepresentations in various threads connected with chronology.

So, Neil, if you still claim that you've never found a single case of misrepresentation, readers must wonder what you mean. Clearly, you've seen examples. But perhaps you're trying to capitalize on the word "found". Perhaps you mean that you've never taken it upon yourself to go searching for misrepresentation, and so in the sense that you never looked, you never found one. But that's a clear attempt by you to lie to readers. And that's what I know you're doing.

: Your comments about the alleged misrepresentation of thiele are wrong. The immediate context is as follows:

Sigh. We've been through this again and again, Neil. Why do you repeat old lies?

This is lie # 5.

: Ptolemy was not an historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography. As E. R. Thiele states: "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes not historical purposes. He did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of Babylon or Persia..."

The immediate context is not limited to the words immediately preceding the words in question. The immediate context also comprises the the subtitled section "Ptolemy's canon" in the Aid book. In this immediate context, the entire point of quoting Thiele was to discredit the reliability of Ptolemy's Canon.

Webster's Dictionary defines "context" as "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning" and "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs". This is entirely in line with the Society's statements, which I quoted in my previous post, that not just the immediate context must always be taken into account, but the overall or background context.

The fact that you've entirely ignored all this is lie # 6.

: So, in this limited context

Lie # 7.

You still want to disregard the overall context of Thiele's book. According to the Society's written instructions, this is dishonest.

: the Society's comments and the fact that Thiele's admission

Lie # 8.

Thiele made no "admission". Saying that Thiele made an admission implies that he needed to admit that he wrote something wrong, or had to correct something. He most certainly did not. As I have explained many times -- and which you stupidly continue to ignore -- Thiele simply expanded on and clarified a theme already introduced early in his book.

: appeared in an Appendix rules out any misrepresentation.

Lie # 9.

It is obvious to all readers, and it would be equally obvious to any honest college professor, that the Society misrepresented Thiele by making it appear, in the Aid book, that he agreed with its overall claim that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable. The fact that I challenged you to present this stuff to one of your supposed college professors proves something very telling: You don't want to take a chance on getting confirmation from a non-apostate source that the Society lies.

AlanF

scholar pretendus said to spook:

: You inquire why the Society has not referred to the ID movement in the Creation book.

Um, it was the Creator book.

: The Society first made mention of one of the earlier founders of the movement, Michael Behe with his Darwin's Black Box in the Awake magazine soon after the book was published and some of the key arguments have appeared in the Creator book.

That's the whole point of spook's complaint, you lying moron. The Creator book uses the arguments of the ID movement without attribution. It pretends to its JW audience that the ideas are entirely the product of research by JWs on the Bethel staff. This is thoroughly dishonest.

: No doubt the Society will refer to these ID proponents when appropriate.

Not likely. Their purpose in mentioning these people to enhance their claims by the "argument from authority". Behe is always cited as a biochemist or the like, never as a proponent of the ID movement. Why not make it clear that Behe is such a proponenent? I think the reason is obvious.

When Behe is cited, sometimes the Society says that he "admits" of some fault in evolutionary ideas, or that he's a sort of evolutionist in Catholic clothing, which completely masks the fact that Behe, being a prominent member of the ID movement, is also an ardent creationist. So again it's obvious why the Society doesn't want to give its readers full information on Behe, or at least, admit to having full information.

The Society never even credits the founder of the self-styled "ID Movement", Phillip Johnson, with that founding. This proves that WTS leaders don't want JWs to know about a rival.

AlanF

AlmostAtheist

by Italian law, a book containing quotations like the above cannot legally be published without usually citing at least the author and title. The Society's practice with the English, and most other language versions, would be illegal in Italy.
So the question remains, Why does the Society not automatically include the same information in all language versions as it is required to include in the Italian?
I think the reason is so obvious that it doesn't require my stating it.

Oh, that's lovely. I had no idea about the Italian law. It would of course be EASIER to make one version that contained all the same citation information, then translate it for everybody, rather than to make separate versions for countries where laws about citations were more stringent. Going back and adding reference data later after already having said, "One biochemist stated..." would be difficult. It's so obvious that the Watchtower simply doesn't want anyone to check. "Move along, move along, read the next chapter..."

Thanks for this, Alan.

Dave

The Watchtower, Scholar and Misrepresentation of Source References

Share this