13 Responses to “Brayton Spreads Misinformation”

1. cthomas Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 7:31 pm

   Hey, Mike. Clicking through the links here it looks like what happened is that someone named "Orac" collected several links of people talking about Dawkins, and specifically flagged the fact that you were somewhat more circumspect about the Dawkins/eugenics matter than some of the others he was quoting. Ed Brayton collected the names but did not expressly repeat the "more circumspect" qualification. Nonetheless, he did link to the "Orac" piece that discussed your view more fully. And Brayton didn't really single you out, but just listed you as part of a larger group that he says collectively took the approach. Maybe he should have worded that sentence a bit more carefully, but do you really think it amounts to spreading misinformation and putting words in your mouth given the full context here?

Comment by cthomas — December 14, 2006 @ 7:31 pm

2. Bradford Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 11:11 pm

   Maybe he should have worded that sentence a bit more carefully, but do you really think it amounts to spreading misinformation and putting words in your mouth given the full context here?

   Here is Orac's quote of Gene:

   It's a typical example of Dawkins and his "consciousness-raising." Let's talk about religious people as child abusers. Let's discuss whether religion is the root of all evil. Now, it's let's discuss whether eugenics is really bad. The new Anti-Religion Movement is off and running.

   And here is Brayton's characterization- Gene said:

   "have Dawkins preparing the ovens for the unfit and infirm."

   Wording a bit more carefully? They are two distinct statements having differing meanings. False attribution and exageration are hallmarks of misinformation and putting words in another's mouth.

Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 11:11 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 10:29 am

   Hi cthomas,

   You write:
   

   Hey, Mike. Clicking through the links here it looks like what happened is that someone named "Orac" collected several links of people talking about Dawkins, and specifically flagged the fact that you were somewhat more circumspect about the Dawkins/eugenics matter than some of the others he was quoting.

   Actually, before introducing me, Orac comments on someone else, noting:

   Ah, yes, the old "atheists are inherently immoral and nihilistic" canard taken to a truly idiotic "atheism leads to necrophilia" extreme. I didn't expect any better from Vox, and, as predictable as he is, he didn't disappoint in using Dawkins as a jumping off point for such silliness. I only posted his response for amusement value, given how extreme it is, although I will address the issues brought up by Dawkins before this post is over.

   He then introduces my comment with the following editorial:

   MikeGene over at Telic Thoughts is a little more circumspect, but not much:

   Circumspect "“ "watchful and discreet; cautious; prudent"

   In other words, it looks like Orac is representing me as someone who makes the same point as Vox Day except that I use a teeny tiny more caution. In other words, Orac misrepresents me.

   Ed Brayton collected the names but did not expressly repeat the "more circumspect" qualification.

   Why did he fail to mention that?

   Nonetheless, he did link to the "Orac" piece that discussed your view more fully.

   Where did Orac discuss my views more fully? Feel free to cite my claim and then cut-n-paste where Orac discusses that claim.

   So we at TT can now see how misinformation is born and spread. Orac interprets my post in the light of other posts and projects their complaints into my mouth. He uncritically lumps things together for unknown reasons. Along comes Brayton, who uncritically passes it on, presumably because it conforms nicely to his own stereotypes. Brayton is effectively passing on gossip.

   And Brayton didn't really single you out, but just listed you as part of a larger group that he says collectively took the approach.

   Sure. I'd say he swallowed the error because it fit his stereotypes.

   Maybe he should have worded that sentence a bit more carefully, but do you really think it amounts to spreading misinformation and putting words in your mouth given the full context here?

   Of course. Brayton specifically mentions me, claiming that people like me "have Dawkins preparing the ovens for the unfit and infirm." This is false. This is misrepresentation. He uses his blog to spread false claims about me and misrepresents me. The full context you mention suggests only that Brayton's misrepresentation was born of sloppy thinking/reading. This is not surprising, given that Brayton also relies on his stereotypes to represent me as part of "the anti-evolution crowd."

Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 10:29 am

4. cthomas Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 3:30 pm

   Mike, you make some fair points. I admit that it's probably easier for me to be philosophical when it's not my views being stretched. But "Orac" did quote the statement you made in full, thus allowing his or her readers to assess what you had said for themselves. When Ed Brayton summarized Orac he admittedly should have been more careful, but at the same time I think that his "preparing the ovens" statement reads like intentional hyperbole. Readers wouldn't literally assume that the group Brayton was talking about were making that literal charge against Dawkins.

   And your post about Dawkins on eugenics did carry a tone of condemnation. At a literal level you merely stated the indisputable fact that Dawkins is now proposing that we "discuss whether eugenics is really bad." But I at least read the subtext as being that this was a bad thing, along the lines of the previous examples you cited (religious parents are child abusers, religion as root of evil).

   I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on any of this. You've made some excellent points about stereotyping in the past that I have applauded (sitting here at my desk, not publicly). I just think that it may not be a hanging offense to lump critics of Dawkins together and characterize them collectively in a slightly exaggerated way.

   Regards,

   CThomas

Comment by cthomas — December 15, 2006 @ 3:30 pm

5. Guts Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

   But I at least read the subtext as being that this was a bad thing, along the lines of the previous examples you cited (religious parents are child abusers, religion as root of evil).

   I read it as Gene pointing out how Dawkins is spreading more "seeds", or as Mike and Dawkins put it, "consciousness raising", by getting people to talk seriously about blasphemous subjects. It's part of his war against religion.

Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 3:54 pm

6. Ed Brayton Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

   Having gone back and reread what I wrote, what Orac wrote and what MikeGene wrote, I have to admit that Mike is correct. I should not have lumped him in with the others. I think his post about Dawkins and eugenics doesn't make a lot of sense, but he did not, as some of the others did, try to paint Dawkins as trying to bring back the eugenics movement, nor did he try to scare up the Hitler Zombie. My apologies for painting with far too broad a brush on this one.

Comment by Ed Brayton — December 15, 2006 @ 4:58 pm

7. MikeGene Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

   Thanks, Ed. That is all that I was looking for.

   BTW, Dawkins article comes across as a whine to me. He writes:

   I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

   Instead of complaining, why doesn't the prolific writer himself write about eugenics, asking his questions and providing his answers? I mean, it's not like he is too busy defending his colleagues at Oxford from the animal rights extremists, now is it?

Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

8. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

   Ed,

   Though we're on opposite sides of the debate, I think you're a decent guy. I salute you sir.

   Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 15, 2006 @ 5:39 pm

9. Doug Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 6:26 pm

   That's a very respectable thing to do, Ed. Your honesty is commendable.

Comment by Doug — December 15, 2006 @ 6:26 pm

10. Ed Brayton Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Mike-

    As I understand, it wasn't an article or a letter at all. It was written as the foreword to a book that does address those questions. Thus, it seems more appropriate to me. I haven't read the book though.

Comment by Ed Brayton — December 15, 2006 @ 6:57 pm

11. macht Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    For the record, Wesley J. Smith retracted what he wrote about Dawkins (before Orac made his post). I'm sure you still disagree with him but he doesn't paint Dawkins in that way either.

Comment by macht — December 15, 2006 @ 7:07 pm

12. MikeGene Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    Hi Ed,

    That's what I hear. For the record, Dawkins short writing first appeared in some newspaper (that I linked to in the original blog) and the article used the same title as my blog (something I cut and pasted).

    It will be interesting to see the book that Dawkins wrote a forward for.

Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

13. MikeGene Says:
    December 16th, 2006 at 12:59 am

    Hey Ed,

    I saw your apology on your blog. Your clarification/apology here in the comments section was enough for me. But I do appreciate it. Thanks.

Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 12:59 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.