Responding to Brayton on Karen Armstrong's fabricated quote
by KrauzeIn my post, "Lying liars and the goofs they make", I demonstrated the inconsistency of many ID critics, who make the most uncharitable interpretations to label ID supporters as "liars", while they bend over backwards to avoid making the same accusation of people who agree with them. A recent example was provided by reporter Karen Armstrong. In an opinion piece in British The Guardian she put an embarrassing quote in the mouth of ID supporter Paul Nelson, which he had never said. To his credit, ID critic Nick Matzke exposed the fabricated quote over at The Panda's Thumb, but couldn't get too worked up about it, suggesting that Karen Armstrong had merely "Goofed Big Time." The tone quickly changed once ID supporter Robert Crowther commented on the story, writing that there was an urban legend "being helped along by Darwinists". ID critics replied that it was Matzke who had exposed the fabricated quote, and wasted no time accusing Crowther of telling a "baldfaced lie", to quote Ed Brayton.
Brayton has now posted a response, explaining why critics were so reluctant to use the "Liar!" stamp on Karen Armstrong. Brayton constructs what he calls "at least a minimally plausible explanation that would lead one to conclude sloppiness rather than dishonesty": Maybe Karen Armstrong simply got the quote from someone else and repeated it without checking it. Nick Matzke, the guy who originally exposed the mess, doesn't consider this quite as plausible:
The "Armstrong got the quote from someone else" hypothesis is IMO fairly unlikely, because of the fact that the quote only got one single solitary hit on the web on July 31, the day the Guardian article came out.
Of course, Matzke has his own "minimally plausible" explanations, which to me sound more like the "I was just cleaning up some dust marks" excuse a Reuters photographer recently offered, after having been caught photoshopping his pictures:
Maybe she wrote down the quote with "Paul" on the notecard - referring to apostle Paul - and then six months later came across the card again and assumed it was Paul Nelson and not the Apostle Paul. Another possibility is that some intervening passage in a draft was deleted, linking Paul Nelson and the spurious quote. These are far-fetched, perhaps, but stranger things have happened.
Yeah, stranger things have happened, and we should always give someone the benefit of the doubt, right? So why the reluctance to extend the same benefits to Crowther the ID supporter? After all, we can also construct such a "minimally plausible explanation" that doesn't require calling him a liar: When I first read his post, I didn't read him as referring to Matzke, but to Karen Armstrong and those spreading her article around. If we ignore Matzke's lone post at The Panda's Thumb for a minute, Armstrong's article, containing the fabricated quote, was indeed being spread around the blogosphere. A search on Technorati for "Karen Armstrong" + Bush shows 442 blog posts discussing the article, and to that comes the thousands of people who read The Guardian. As fellow Telician Mike Gene said, "Paul Nelson is probably going to be running into people who are going to be asking him about his 'cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors' comments for years."
Brayton doesn't think Karen Armstrong should be called a Darwinist, as she "has nothing at all to do with evolutionary biology, she is a religion scholar." But that such a definition can be constructed is irrelevant, as an accusation of lying hinges on what Crowther thought. From reading what is written at Evolution News & Views (and indeed much of what the DI puts out), it's my impression that they use "Darwinist" as synonym for "those that disagree with us", just like many ID critics use "creationist" for "those that are friendly towards intelligent design".
This is a perfectly plausible explanation, not nearly as "out there" as the reasons Matzke and Brayton gave to why they didn't want to call Karen Armstron a liar. Yet they think that Crowther is a bald-faced liar, while Armstrong should be given the benefit of the doubt. Go figure.
Update: Commenter Pez takes a closer look at some of the sites that helped spread Karen Armstrong's article around.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I've said some negative things on this topic, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I think it's truly admirable and a sign of significant personal integrity that you folks at Telic Thoughts keep your comments open even to strongly critical commenters. It may not seem that way at times, but I do respect you for this.
Cheers.
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 8, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
August 8th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Hi Mark,
Thank you, I appreciate your kind words. But, our open comment section is really just a cleverly-designed ruse to get the evil atheistic Darwinists such as yourself to keep coming back for the daily shot of the ole' ID propaganda. Soon, the theocracy will be at hand.
Oops, did I just say that out loud?
Comment by Krauze — August 8, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
August 8th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
A very clever ruse indeed. I hope it catches on.
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 8, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
August 8th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Crowther says the "urban myth" is being "helped along by Darwinists," but doesn't elaborate. How is it being "helped along by Darwinists?" He names no names, provides no substantiation and builds no case. I think everyone understands that Crowther's (and the DI's) business is spin, and any opportunity to slam "Darwinists," with or without justification, mustn't be missed.
Baldfaced lie? Bald assertion? Who cares"”it's the "wedge" at work!
Comment by takuan — August 8, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
August 8th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Here's a little thought experiment.
Let's imagine that James Kennedy has an op-ed piece in the WSJ. Let's say that he is writing about some atheist conspiracy and buried inside is the following comment.
Unfortunately for Kennedy, he would have goofed!
How do you think the "pro-science" blogosphere would have reacted?
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Hi Takuan,
"Crowther says the "urban myth" is being "helped along by Darwinists," but doesn't elaborate. How is it being "helped along by Darwinists?""
I'm not an expert on Crowther's motivations (and neither is Ed Brayton or PZ Myers), but as I read it, he was talking about those who uncritically spread Karen Armstrong's article around.
Which do you think is worse? Writing a blog post without supporting all of your claims, or writing an opinion piece in widely-read newspaper, putting embarrassing words into someone else's mouth?
Comment by Krauze — August 9, 2006 @ 7:41 am
August 9th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Mike, don't make a big flap about this. Obviously someone out there believes that stuff. That's all that really matters.
Comment by Krauze — August 9, 2006 @ 7:42 am
August 9th, 2006 at 8:36 am
I don't know how Nick would feel, but I personally would think that such a misstatement would call for a published correction/retraction, just as it does in Karen Armstrong's case, and that continued failure to publish a retraction would raise serious questions about the integrity and reliability of the source, just as it does in Armstrong's case.
Not everyone would agree that it is "embarrassing" to express the belief that science is harmed by making accommodations to religion, just as not everyone would agree that it is embarrassing to express a belief that many in Israel will be converted after the Rapture and during the Tribulation, to become effective warriors for Jesus. The principal harm, as I see it, is to the credibility of the person misattributing the quotes. But untruth, whether by lie or by error, demands correction regardless.
What if Bill Dembski were the first to report the the Kennedy "quote" as bogus, and Matzke wrote to Kennedy's organization, citing Dembski's exposure of the misstatement, and then Ed Brayton reported the incident as a story about ID supporters working to build an urban legend prejudiced against Matzke? What would the ID community have to say about Brayton's post under those circumstances? If someone from the ID side called Brayton a liar, how would other ID'ers react to this accusation?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 9, 2006 @ 8:36 am
August 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Hi Mark,
"What if Bill Dembski were the first to report the the Kennedy "quote" as bogus, and Matzke wrote to Kennedy's organization, citing Dembski's exposure of the misstatement, and then Ed Brayton reported the incident as a story about ID supporters working to build an urban legend prejudiced against Matzke?"
As Dembski doesn't speak for all ID supporters, let's try to eliminate him from the picture: Imagine that the article had been linked and discussed in hundreds of posts, none of which had protested the bogus quote. If Nick himself had uncovered the bogus quote, would he then be able to tell the story of "ID supporters working to build an urban legend" Would anyone criticize him if he did?
Now, let's say that one ID supporter had spoken out against the article. Would this change the answers to the above questions?
Comment by Krauze — August 9, 2006 @ 9:14 am
August 9th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Those are good questions, Krauze. What criticisms would people raise about the "urban legend" claim, and who would raise them?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 9, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Hi Mark,
"What criticisms would people raise about the "urban legend" claim, and who would raise them?"
You tell me.
Comment by Krauze — August 9, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
The brouhaha over Crowther's choice of words is a product of the choice that so many on both sides (not TT I hasten to add) have made to carry on the debate about ID and evolution in a culture war mode thus excusing any antagonist to interpret whatever his opponent says in the worst light possible.
It's obvious to me that when Crowther says "helped along by Darwinists" he means the larger body of opinion that thinks (or act as if it thinks) that only hucksters, yokels, fundamentalists, and/or theocrats would ever take ID seriously. The Guardian, who published Armstrong's article is part and parcel of that body of opinion. If you don't believe me just go to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm..."> and read the comment board below it. Crowther didn't necessarily mean anybody particular over at NCSE or PT, and it's the take no prisoners attitude on both sides that caused Brayton and co. to leap eagerly at the opportunity to take offense.
Reading the rhetoric on the Guardian board I still wish Crowther had chosen his language more carefully and not given Brayton et al. the excuse to call him a liar, but it's not as if there weren't a lot of "Darwinists" who were ready and eager to believe that what Armstrong wrote about Paul Nelson was true.
Comment by jrw — August 9, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
August 9th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
So has there been a retraction or apology by anybody to anybody about anything that was said in this subject, yet? Probably not. So let me be the first. I jokingly suggested that Paul Nelson said what Karen Armstrong said he said, when the two were involved in a beer-drinking contest. I hereby retract my suggestion, and apologize to Paul and Karen. And I'm willing to buy a pitcher of beer for the two of them.
Comment by Bilbo — August 9, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 1:05 am
I don't believe you. If you actually read the comments on Armstrong's Guardian piece, you see:
(1) Two comments that note the Paul Nelson quote is spurious and point people to my post, and
(2) No discussion of Paul Nelson otherwise.
This does not support the "Crowther was referring to liberals in general when he wrote 'Darwinists'" hypothesis, nor the "liberals/Darwinists actually are promoting the quote" hypothesis.
I think it is more likely that Crowther simply assumed those evil Darwinists were spreading the bogus Paul Nelson quote around, and he actually did no checking of any kind. Like I said before, this is not baldfaced lying, it is instinctive PR spin where you just assume the opposition is doing X without checking if they really are doing X.
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 10, 2006 @ 1:05 am
August 10th, 2006 at 1:22 am
You're assuming Crowther may not have gotten wind of what really happened. He will often try to contact the offending agency and demand a correction. If they brushed him off, he would thus have reason to think something was a bit out of kilter. Many reporters he's dealt with will later apologize, send a letter, or something. Especially in a matter like this, the newspaper is ethically obligated to try to make a correction.
Thanks by the way for not being complicit with Ed Brayton's smearing of Rob Crowther. No wonder IDers like you more than any of the other Pandas.
Salvador
PS
Nick, I'm not an administrator at UD, but do you know for a fact whether you were banned from there or not? If I ever say something relating to you or your organization at UD pertaining to matters of fact that is not correct (i.e. a quoation by you), I hope you'll bring it to my attention there. Thus I'd appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2006 @ 1:22 am
August 10th, 2006 at 4:45 am
The first step is admitting that Crowther was not lying.
The next is to admit that he was offering an honest opinion, or (gasp!) telling the truth.
Three sites that carried the story (helping it along) also said:
1. This,
2. this,
, this,
,
and 3. this,
.
Not too hard to call these "Darwinists".
Comment by Pez — August 10, 2006 @ 4:45 am
August 10th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Nick Matzke said:
You are missing my point. What the comment board does reveal is utter revulsion and fear towards ID as part of a visceral fear of anything that could plausibly or semi-plausibly be connected to George W. Bush.
Take commenter M. Martin for instance, who's not too far below the bottom of Armstrong's article:
Read through the comment board and I thnk you'll find that sort of sentiment typical to those who comment on ID specifically and those comments are left unopposed by those who agree with the general thrust of Armstrong's article. I don't think it's too wild a supposition to assume the editorial board of the Guardian is in pretty close agreement with its readership on these questions however more tactfully it might express itself on them. My point again being that when Crowther says Darwinists he means that people like commenter MMartin, the editorial board of the Guardian and the climate of discussion that they help create prepare the ground for falsehoods like Armstrong's to propagate.
Don't read an unmitigated defense of Crowther into my post either. He would have done much better to put "some" or even "many" before the word "Darwinist," or if he wanted to be really scrupulous he could have said "Darwinists in the journalistic community." So I agree he was spinning, indeed by instinct as you say, but both sides do that. I don't like it myself, but I in no way see this as an especially egregious instance of it nor a serious misrepresentation of the matter at hand.
Comment by jrw — August 10, 2006 @ 10:41 am
August 10th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Hi Jrw,
"So I agree he was spinning, indeed by instinct as you say, but both sides do that."
Indeed. As for all his complaints about Crowther assuming that "the opposition is doing X without checking if they really are doing X", what was it Nick wrote in his own post about this?
Now, Nick might say that he was merely predicting what could happen, whereas Crowther was speaking about something that had happened. But the fact of the matter is that Nick was also putting his spin on the situation, giving his readers a negative image of what that the opposition would "undoubtedly" do.
Besides, despite Nick's attempt to change the subject, what's at issue isn't whether Crowther was engaging in some spin - the accusations from Nick's own colleagues are that Crowther is a bald-faced liar. Now, it's nice that he himself doesn't go that far, but if Telic Thoughts hadn't started writing about this, does anyone really believe Nick would be on Brayton's or Myers' blogs, saying, "Sorry guys, but I must disagree with you on calling Crowther a liar, and here are my reasons why"
Comment by Krauze — August 10, 2006 @ 11:04 am
August 10th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Having assisted Rob with some news stories, I know first hand it is very likely he will contact the source. Often he'll say, "Salvador, I want to speak with the reporter you were in contact with who said that, can you give me the contact info."
In otherwords, Crowther makes a point of getting the media to report things accurately, that's his job. If he's not hearing back from the Guardian and hearing retractions and apologies, he might suppose the story is being helped along or that journalistic standards are so lax that this sort of serious misinformation is ignored.
I've been at DI functions and seen the hatred in the reporters faces. On one occassion a reporter angrily made a derogatory remark to another reporter while I was in the middle of a conversation. She did not realize that I was an IDer, and thus was now somewhat privy to how "fairly" they'll report things. It gave me a glimpse of the kind of hack jobs these guys are willing to perpetrate in the press. Sure enough, a few months later the hack job in a prestigous publication appears by this same reporter!
It does not raise ones confidence in the main stream media.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2006 @ 11:58 am
August 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I've not been banned at UD, rather, everyone I know who has tried to post critical comments gets them deleted by DaveScot and others. So what's the point of posting there?
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 10, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Well, despite various attempted replies to my points, no one has actually posted an instance of somebody (besides Armstrong) promoting the Paul Nelson quote as something he actually said — neither before nor after Rob Crowther's complaint about the Darwinists, although only instances before Crowther's post would support his assertion. Various liberals etc. expressing their general feelings about ID, even if emotional, hysterical, whatever, are not germane to establishing the point of whether anyone actually passed on Armstrong's bogus quote of Paul Nelson.
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 10, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Nick,
Passing on the story passes on the quote. Passing it on without correction, apology, update or retraction passes it on as something Paul Nelson said. To imagine otherwise is illogical.
As has been demonstrated, Crowther told the truth when he said that the story was helped along by Darwinists. (He didn't say all Darwinists, and he didn't say only Darwinists.)
Thanks to your efforts, and these (protracted) discussions, there will be enough of a rebuttal of the quote in the literature that it won't be useful in the future, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of Crowther's original commentary.
As he noted in that original post:
As much as we are chatting about the inaccuracy we are but a fraction of the people to whom this story will be presented.
The vast majority will never read the controversy over the quote but will now have an opinion of what ID philosophers think -and say. Some anit-IDists (see my previous post) think that's as it should be, and, in a karmic way, only fair.
Along those lines, how many people are now going to be remembering that Crowther told a "bald-faced lie" when what he really did was truthfully give his version of events?
Comment by Pez — August 10, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
ps,
At least two of my three examples existed on July 31 (the third I can't tell about, as the July 31 date on it may only be from the original Guardian piece) verifiably before Crowther's Aug. 2 piece.
Why do you keep searching for ways to make this truth a lie?
Comment by Pez — August 10, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Nick Matzke said:
That's not the issue even though Pez has shown us evidence that "Darwinists" were spreading the meme before Crowther's statement. The question at bar is whether Crowther lied, seriously misrepresented the situation, or went completely over the top rhetorically. Given the article's publisher, writer, and predominant readership the answer to the first two is a clear no. Given the mud so many on both sides sling at each other all the time the answer to the third ought to be clear no as well.
I'm not a big Crowther fan, but I don't see what's to be held against him here.
Comment by jrw — August 10, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
So far, despite my apology, and offer of a free pitcher of beer, I've had no takers.
Comment by Bilbo — August 10, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Nick,
Have you heard any wind of a retraction. Is Armstrong's delay in responding to your querries unusual?
And by the way, thanks for your work in setting the record straight with Paul Nelson. You win the prize for being the UDers favorite panda. Well, actually you're tied with PZ, but he gets the vote because he's so fun to quote, not because we like him.
Salvador
PS
With respect to you posting on threads I start at UD, I will do my utmost to welcome you with respect and courtesy, and I will admonish others as well. The management structure of that place has changed recently. Andrea for example posted there recently as well as Jack Krebs. Consider the olive branch extended to you.
If I say something wrong, espcially if it's related to you or the NCSE, I would much rather nip it in the bud, and what better place to set the record straight. So, although I don't expect you'll be a regular at UD, I'm opening a diplomatic channel to you. I can't however speak for the threads opened by the other contributors there. They have the moderation privilegeds over their threads, but I do have some control over threads I start.
Thank you for responding to my question.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Whoa, Nellie!
Pez says,
"Passing on the story passes on the quote."
Who's passing on the quote? Who? I've read through the "examples" Pez excerpted. None of them refer to Armstrong at all, nor do any of them attribute the quote in question to Paul Nelson. (Since one of the "examples" was published last year, I don't know how it possibly could have, so go figure!)
Is the horse dead yet? Can we go drink beer?
Comment by takuan — August 10, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
I do not have, and have not been able to find, an email address or other contact information for Karen Armstrong. She may not use email for all I know, for someone over 60 who has been an writer since the early 1980s this would not necessarily be unusual. I and several others sent email and webpage comments to the Guardian, but have received no reply, so we have no idea if any human eyes at the Guardian have actually read any of this.
You say the management has changed at Uncommon Descent, who all are the moderators now?
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 10, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Sorry Takuan,
The comment on this thread is basically a repeat, re-emphasizing a point which seemed to be ignored, of this one.
That original comment links to and shows the "passing on of the story" where the comment to which you've referred satisfies the "Darwinist" condition.
Comment by Pez — August 10, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Nick,
Thank you for your response regarding Armstrong. At UD the chiefs are Bill Dembski and Denyse O'Leary assisted by Joel Borofsky as reported here, at least. If you post on threads outside of those I start, you can count on all 3 plus the thread starter and site administrators being able to moderate posts.
I would recommend you save some of your posts, just in case. I will lobby to get you a fair hearing on threads I start if you show up. However, be aware I can be over-ruled, and I have little say outside of threads I start.
As far as which posts I delete, if someone carelessly misrepresents or misquotes me or the words of someone at UD, I consider myself under no obligation to give a fallacious post any air time.
If it's an opinion that is offered in good faith and in a civil manner. I'll let it stand. We need a little drama after all at UD so as to attract visitors.
Though I have disagreed with you many times, I think you play fairer than most. I do recall one time when someone said something ill of you at UD, Bill promptly chastised him and demanded a bit more civility in referring to you. I guess Bill must like you.
Regarding DaveScot, I don't know. You can probably gather, I try to keep my nose out of such issues. Ignorance in such matters is bliss.
In general, I think keeping a certain degree of open channels is good. I can't imagine you'd really like to be a regular participant on my threads, but hey, if you want to and we have some good debates, why not (especially if I win fair and square).
Tell you what, Nick, I'm going to post something that will probably provoke some interest pertaining to my appearance on international TV this Sunday. I'll free the floor up for people, including you, to ask me polite questions on that thread. How does that sound?
And again, I thank you for setting the record straight on Paul Nelson. That was really decent of you.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 10, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Hi Nick,
You write:
I would find that highly unusual. Armstrong is plugged into the academic community. Not only is she an instructor at London's prestigious Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism," but she is a fellow at the Westar Institute.
She gives seminars at various universities (see here, here, here, and here for a few examples).
It's difficult for me to imagine an academic these days coordinating such visits and speeches all over the phone (or by snail mail). In fact, it would seem that someone in Armstrong's position would have to go out of her way to refuse to use e-mail.
What's more, Armstrong has written an article and FAQ for BeliefNet.Com. I'm not sure how that works. Does she send in a snail mail version and someone at BeliefNet.Com types it up for her? For that matter, how did she get the Guardian op-ed to the Guardian? Did she snail mail a hard copy and someone at the Guardian typed it up for her?
Whatever the e-mail situation, it is clear to me that Armstrong got her quote off the Internet. Somebody copy-and-pasted those comments from the David's Tent web page, as the match is almost perfect.
Armstrong:
David's Tent:
It's weird. The only change is that Armstrong (or someone) capitalized "end-time." Other than that, Planet Earth remains capitalized and hyphens remain between long-term, cutting-edge, and end-time.
But the strangest thing about the Armstrong excerpt (and intro) is its familiarity with the ID movement. As many have noticed, Armstrong is not a player in the ID-evolution debates. In fact, I can't find any articles where she shows any familiarity with the ID personalities or arguments, yet she picks out Paul Nelson of all the mainstream ID players. She even refers to Nelson as an "ID theorist", which is the type of lingo ID-evo players use. Let's just say that academics who are not plugged into the ID-evo debate aren't very likely to think of people like Paul Nelson or Philip Johnson as "sober ID theorists."
So the whole situation is very odd. It has been almost two weeks since Armstrong widely disseminated this misinformation and there has been no acknowledgement, no retraction, no apology, and no explanation. Just silence.
I think we will eventually reach a point where Armstrong's continued silence itself becomes a matter of ethics.
Comment by MikeGene — August 10, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
August 11th, 2006 at 2:01 am
According to legend, Stephen Jay Gould banged out his writing on a typewriter until the day he died a few years ago. Obviously they had had computers and email at Harvard for probably 20 years at that point. People, writers especially, get a routine and stick with it. For all we know Armstrong could prefer writing longhand and has a secretary do the typing as well as scheduling etc. for her various trips.
I would agree this doesn't seem too likely to us internet junkies in the modern age, but we have zero knowledge to go on. One of my senior relatives decreed recently that she would only check email once a week, because she didn't want to waste time. All we actually know is that Armstrong has one very botched reference to an internet website in that essay — and this in itself might be evidence of Armstrong having only occasional contact with the internet.
So I wouldn't jump to conclusions on what Armstrong knows and doesn't. Certainly the Guardian should issue a correction, and they should have a good enough editorial/letters/complaints edition that either the emails or the DI complaints got to somebody who can put out a correction — but who knows, maybe they are swamped with thousand of emails and letters, most of which are never read. Or, sometimes I've seen newspapers where a correction is issued in the printed newspaper, but never makes it on the website because it is not a standard article.
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 11, 2006 @ 2:01 am
August 11th, 2006 at 2:18 am
I'm not; I just said that I would find it highly unusual.
Maybe this is just a good example of Ivory Tower Elitism, where Armstrong can preach to the masses via The Guardian, yet remains insulated from the effects of her words.
In the meantime, as we agree, Armstrong needs to retract. And she now owes an explanation for failing to retract 2 weeks after the op-ed piece.
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2006 @ 2:18 am
August 11th, 2006 at 3:57 am
As for Nick's explanation that Karen Armstrong
was just trying to remove dust marks from the photogot Paul Nelson mixed up with Paul the Apostle, have anyone else noticed that the "David's Tent" webpage doesn't even attribute those words to Paul the Apostle? He's only mentioned later in the article, and then only as encouraging people to "intercede for Israel, but also to reach out to Jewish people with the message of Yeshua." Why on earth would Armstrong write down the quote on a notecard, attributing it to "Paul", as opposed to "Ezekiel" or "Isiah"Comment by Krauze — August 11, 2006 @ 3:57 am
August 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I too think it's unlikely Armstrong is unaware of the issue. I have been checking the Guardian's comment page regularly, as well at its Corrections and clarifications blurb. Searches on both (since I've missed days here and there) show no correction or retraction.
Armstrong says she gets death threats and hate mail and such, so I can certainly understand why she would want to keep her contact info under wraps. She is a public speaker, however, represented by The Lavin Agency. As with book authors who you can contact via their publisher, a message to Armstrong can be sent through the agency. Their email is: info@thelavinagency.com and Here is their Karen Armstrong page.
I should think the agency would be concerned about something as serious as this because it can impact their client's credibility, even if the bogus citation isn't a big deal (or even noticed) in Britain.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2006 @ 10:18 am
August 11th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
That wasn't exactly what I meant to say. All you need is some association of "Paul" and the quote, on some secondary display like a notecard or webpage search, to help along the fallible human mind to produce a boneheaded, sloppy mistake like this. If she wrote "Paul N." for some reason — abbreviating "Paul note" perhaps — we get even closer. It's not going to make a lot of logical sense, but errors don't have to. Someone would not logically write "cdesign proponentsists", after all.
I may be keyed up on this topic having payed a lot of attention to how creationist misquotes or false quotes come about. The chain of mistakes, assumptions, and copying from secondary sources that eventuates in a given convenient "proof quote" can be quite amazing sometimes. E.g. the spontaneous generation of this fake Clarence Darrow quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 11, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
August 11th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Well, if the offer of a free pitcher of beer can't lure her out of seclusion, I don't know what will.
Comment by Bilbo — August 11, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
August 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Nick,
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot get my mind around the mistake-hypothesis that you are suggesting. How about providing a somewhat detailed hypothetical scenario that better explains what you are trying to say.
Also, I was wondering if there is anyone reading this blog who has ever made the mistake of taking embarrassing words off one obscure web page and putting them into the mouth of another person. Anyone?
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
August 11th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
I did 4 years ago, and that was when I was still a newbie on the ID/creation/evolution scene. It was during a talk I gave at GMU, September 2002. I used this creationist mis-quote that can be found in the talk-origins quote mine project The Quote Mine Project :
At the time I naively trusted that a pastor (David Moore) would work to accurately quote someone. He after all was a pastor!!! Nope, he apparently copied it from someone else whom he trusted!!! And I copied what he said from an audio tape of a talk he was giving. Because I was hasty in preparing my materials, I took a shortcut of a second-hand quote, fully trusting the process which got it too me. Some time later, while reading Talk Origins, I discovered my error and that of many others. Since then I grew to have an intense distrust of YEC literature with the notable exception of people like Walter Brown, Barry Setterfield,A.E. Wilder-Smith, and Paul Nelson.
What is distressing about Armstrong is she should know better. It took me less than a year to learn what not to do. If she is quoting a secondary source which she can not verify, she should simply say, "……according to unconfirmed sources." And thus cover herself. But such statements are for breaking news, not for well-thought out, pre-meditated opinions!
Salvador
PS
That misquote on my part was a year before I joined ISCID and ARN and had the experience of debating the other side. One quickly learns in the process of debating critics versus preaching to the choir one will be forced to much higher standard of reporting and scholarship.
Thus, I'll often dump unrefined ideas on the net to get editorial feedback form critics. Bill Dembski does this all the time as well.
Since those days in 2002, and having learned the art of cross checking with the critics. I'd like to think I've ironed out the problems of such mis-quotations.
For the record, a large body YEC materials are horrible!!! Gasp.
ID literature in contrast is much more accurate.
In the past, one merely needed to cite real errors of fact in YEC literature to discredit it.
In contrast, when critics descend on ID literature, I see them having to put words in the mouth of the author to build a case.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 11, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
August 12th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Hi Salvador,
In your case, you simply passed on a bogus quote and as Ed Brayton noted, we've all done this at some point in our lives. The situation with Armstrong would only be analogous if the David's Tent web page had put those sentences in quotation marks and attributed them to Paul Nelson. Just as your mistake was to trust the pastor, Armstrong's mistake would have been in trusting the authors of that web page. But that is not what happened.
Comment by MikeGene — August 12, 2006 @ 1:00 am
August 12th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Is it possible that someone else is responsible for the misquote, and then passed it on to Armstrong, either in a private e-mail or in person?
And has there been a retraction, yet?
Comment by Bilbo — August 12, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
August 12th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hi, Bilbo. Yes, it is possible that someone else gave Armstrong the misquote. Though it's still sloppy scholarship not to verify if your claim to fame is being an "expert" on religious fundamentalism. Only Armstrong - and whoever gave her the misquote, if that is what happened - know. There has been no retraction as of today.
Comment by Joy — August 12, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
August 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
You know, I think most of us are just plain curious HOW the misquote came about, retraction or not.
Comment by Bilbo — August 15, 2006 @ 8:12 pm