2nd Watson Letter just found!'

[Guest]

Hello Madame,

Could we agree Dr. Peterson and his colleagues deliberately prevaricate?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Doctor Scratch]

Beastie:

How do the authors account for lying? I mean, how does selectively telling the truth figure into the neurologists' studies? It almost seems as if these studies render the notion of lying a moot point---i.e., that it would be impossible to ascribe deception, obfuscation, and lying to any kind of conscious choice on the part of the liar. It could always be chalked up to "messiness" in our mental wiring. In other words: Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily "lying" about his relationship with Miss Lewinski---it's just that his memory was "fuzzy." You know what I mean? Where do we draw the line?

[_SoHo]

"Where do we draw the line?"

When the recounting of the facts is motivated by a particular objective that is more important to the recounter than the facts themselves.

[_beastie]

Could we agree Dr. Peterson and his colleagues deliberately prevaricate?

I don’t know about DCP, but I do know that there have been cases where I felt personally persuaded that certain apologists had flat-out lied or seriously mislead people in a deliberate manner. However, I try to reserve that judgment for times when there is adequate evidence to rule out the brain’s messiness. For example, when Sorenson claimed that certain footnotes said things they did not say, that was a lie or else such serious incompetence that he ought not to be published. He should have been looking right at the source and would have seen that it did not say what he was claiming it said. There have been one or two other incidents like this, but most of the time I truly believe there is no evidence to support the accusation that they’re flat-out lying. Hamblin’s reference does not meet that standard, because he called it a “correspondence” and did not claim in his text that it was signed by Watson and written to Hamblin. It’s in his later accountings he makes those claims, which could be attributed to faulty memory.

How do the authors account for lying? I mean, how does selectively telling the truth figure into the neurologists' studies? It almost seems as if these studies render the notion of lying a moot point---i.e., that it would be impossible to ascribe deception, obfuscation, and lying to any kind of conscious choice on the part of the liar. It could always be chalked up to "messiness" in our mental wiring. In other words: Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily "lying" about his relationship with Miss Lewinski---it's just that his memory was "fuzzy." You know what I mean? Where do we draw the line?

The line is drawn when they consciously are aware that they are not stating the truth. Bill Clinton’s memory wasn’t hazy – he was being deliberately misleading, while trying not to flat-out lie, and I do agree that apologists sometimes do that.

[Guest]

Beastie: The line is drawn when they consciously are aware that they are not stating the truth. Bill Clinton’s memory wasn’t hazy – he was being deliberately misleading, while trying not to flat-out lie, and I do agree that apologists sometimes do that.

SoHo: I disagree. Those deliberately misleading (which I believe to be a large group of mopos) may be further across the line, but the line can be drawn where one is more focused on the point one hopes to make than the facts or recountings used to support the facts. When one starts with the ultimate point to the detriment of the accuracy of the supporting facts, the line has been crossed.

[_beastie]

SoHo: I disagree. Those deliberately misleading (which I believe to be a large group of mopos) may be further from the line, but the line can be drawn where one is more focused on the point one hopes to make than the facts or recountings used to support the facts. When one starts with the ultimate point to the detriment of the accuracy of the supporting facts, the line has been crossed.

That certainly is an example of fallacious reasoning, but I don't see how it's an example of out-right lying.

[_SoHo]

SoHo: I disagree. Those deliberately misleading (which I believe to be a large group of mopos) may be further from the line, but the line can be drawn where one is more focused on the point one hopes to make than the facts or recountings used to support the facts. When one starts with the ultimate point to the detriment of the accuracy of the supporting facts, the line has been crossed.

That certainly is an example of fallacious reasoning, but I don't see how it's an example of out-right lying.

I beg your pardon? If I assert that something happened, and claim no fuzziness at the time I do so without any effort to check myself, and I do so because I am motivated by what that something represents more than ensuring that my recollection is accurate, I am crossing a line.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hamblin’s reference does not meet that standard, because he called it a “correspondence” and did not claim in his text that it was signed by Watson and written to Hamblin. It’s in his later accountings he makes those claims, which could be attributed to faulty memory.

On the other hand, Beastie, Hamblin absolutely *was* deviating from scholarly standards of citation. I noted in an earlier post that, depending on the documentation style, the type of correspondence needs to be listed. In other words, saying "correspondence" doesn't cut it. The reader needs to be told that the source was a letter. DCP has said elsewhere that they rely on the Chicago Manuel of Style for their citations, which means that Hamblin blew it. Here's a site (from CUNY) which gives an example of the proper means of citation:

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/hi ... tnote.html

How to footnote a letter written to you:

13 John Blank, personal letter, 12 February 1994.

(emphasis added)

If Sorenson's sloppy footnote is rendered a "problem," in your view, then how can we excuse Hamblin's blunder here? Is it simply a matter of content? And if so, don't we also have to fault Hamblin for failing to acknowledge what appear to be changes to the text?

The line is drawn when they consciously are aware that they are not stating the truth. Bill Clinton’s memory wasn’t hazy – he was being deliberately misleading, while trying not to flat-out lie, and I do agree that apologists sometimes do that.

Such as calling a personal letter a "correspondence"? I think that this vagueness is a really big problem in this case. Hamblin is trained as a historian, and in that discipline, sources are *extremely* important. It is practically a breach of the tenets of the profession to list sources in so vague a manner. I think it is very much like the case with Sorenson: we can credit this vagueness either to Hamblin's utter incompetence, or to the fact that he was deliberately trying to deceive.

[_SoHo]

"Such as calling a personal letter a "correspondence"? I think that this vagueness is a really big problem in this case. Hamblin is trained as a historian, and in that discipline, sources are *extremely* important. It is practically a breach of the tenets of the profession to list sources in so vague a manner. I think it is very much like the case with Sorenson: we can credit this vagueness either to Hamblin's utter incompetence, or to the fact that he was deliberately trying to deceive."

Bingo. Better stated than my point - but that's the crux of it. When one allows oneself to be fuzzy - especially in such a context - as a means of affirming a particular, beneficial position, one is deceiving.

Edit: If one makes an unqualified statement about a set of facts, without being certain or, in a scholarly context, double-checking anyway, and the primary motivation is to advance the statement (because it is beneficial), that is not honest.

Q: Who wrote the letter?
A: I think it was Watson.

versus

Q: Who wrote the letter?
A: Watson.

[_beastie]

A quick reply, I really need to go do something else (I'll come back for more detail later)

People whose memories are misleading them are usually unaware that their memories are misleading them. They would not describe their memories as hazy or uncertain. They don't feel hazy or uncertain. That does not mean the memories - which feel accurate and detailed - are correct. See my earlier post about the Challenger experiment. Those people were completely convined their incorrect memories were, in fact, correct - even when faced with their own handwriting recording something different.