The agit prop, spreading lie/slander well-poisoning game

_{kairosfocus

December 15, 2017

Agitprop, Free Speech, governance, Media, Politics, rhetoric, Selective Hyperskepticism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Just now, I responded to a point JM made in the current James Tour thread. I think the comment chain is worth headlining:

KF, 14: >> why debate someone when instead:

[a] you can ignore, marginalise and rob of publicity?

[b] you can caricature, smear, slander and poison the well?

[c] you dominate institutions and are utterly ruthless in imposing a crooked yardstick as the standard for straightness and accuracy?

(If you doubt me, see the Wiki article on ID. Resemblance to current trends in discussing political issues, policy alternatives and personalities is NOT coincidence.)>>

D, 15: >>you have described very accurately the pathetic situation in this world.

Facing the strong arguments of a scientist like Dr Tour, the still dominant voices in academia just circle the wagons, but that won’t keep them from defeat anyway at the end of the day. It’s just a matter of time.>>

JM, 16: >>“It’s not a lie, if you believe it…”- George Costanza>>

KF, 17: >>it’s not so simple. There is an epistemic duty of responsible warrant before believing or propagating a claim. For, to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope of profiting from what was said or suggested being taken as truth. You can first lie to yourself, then spread deception to others, based on a self-serving belief. That’s how agit prop operators get the politics of personal destruction by slanderous accusation to work: people BELIEVE smears (without carrying out reasonable and responsible tests for truth and fairness on such destructive claims) and spread them — which BTW I am betting we are going to see a lot more of in coming months. Major media houses, I am looking straight at you. This dirty game goes beyond merely being in honestly acquired error, having done duty to truth, fairness and right.>>

I fear, we are going to see things getting uglier and uglier as truth and fairness are increasingly trashed in pursuit of advantage in cases where shifting public opinion counts. Wiki’s hatchet job on ID is just one case in point. END

Comments

PPS: Here is the US National Science Teachers' Association in a July 2000 Board declaration:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [--> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
kairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

harry, the contrasting clips on ID above give an illustration of just how desperate ever so many are in our day. For just one instance, I suggest to the Wikipedians that the very wiki page in question is yet another addition to the literally trillions of cases of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, which demonstrate that reliably, such comes from intelligently directed configuration, aka design. So, the claim that the design inference lacks empirical evidence is patently false, but if people are misled about it by a dominant reference site then a false impression can be spread. The issue is, the agenda that drives men to do that. KF PS: And, Lewontin lets the cat out of the bag on that agenda:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . ] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

"you raise an old debate." True... which you and many others have never been able to to provide sound and logical evidence for your calims to be true... You claims insult the God of justice but that is not my judgment... thank God... Have a nice life!J-Mac_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

JM, you raise an old debate. Though this is not a thread about theology much less exegesis, and this blog is not about theology, it is worth a pause to give some balance. In C1, the Sadducees and Pharisees had disputes on the matter:
Matt 22:23 On that day some Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection [of the dead], came to Him and asked Him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, leaving no children, his brother as next of kin shall [d]marry his widow, and raise children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. 26 The second also [died childless], and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 So in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” 29 But Jesus replied to them, “You are all wrong because you know neither the Scriptures [which teach the resurrection] nor the power of God [for He is able to raise the dead]. 30 For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are like angels in heaven [who do not marry nor produce children]. 31 But as to the resurrection of the dead—have you not read [in the Scripture] what God said to you: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. [AMP]
This should help to give some balance to those willing to accept it. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

JM, no critique of you was intended, the issue was the statement which needed to be set in a more sound context. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

BTW: My favourite "truth" promoted on this blog is the "truth" of the immortality of the soul, which obviously automatically leads to other "truths", such as eternal hell fire, limbo, purgatory etc; "The concept of the soul’s supposed immortality was first taught in ancient Egypt and Babylon. “The belief that the soul continues in existence after the dissolution of the body is…speculation…nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture…The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended” ( Jewish Encyclopedia, 1941, Vol. 6, “Immortality of the Soul,” pp. 564, 566). Secular history reveals that the concept of the immortality of the soul is an ancient belief embraced by many pagan religions. But it’s not a biblical teaching and is not found in either the Old or New Testaments. Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the “immortal soul” separate at death. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments on ancient Israel’s view of the soul: “We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament” (1960, Vol. 2, “Death,” p. 812). Early Christianity was influenced and corrupted by Greek philosophies as it spread through the Greek and Roman world. By A.D. 200 the doctrine of the immortality of the soul became a controversy among Christian believers. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: “Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen’s acceptance of Plato’s doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind ( nous ) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul ( psyche ) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward” (1992, “Soul,” p. 1037). Secular history reveals that the concept of the immortality of the soul is an ancient belief embraced by many pagan religions. But it’s not a biblical teaching and is not found in either the Old or New Testaments." https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/what-happens-after-death/the-history-of-the-immortal-soul-teachingJ-Mac_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ I will let the readers judge what my comment was all about...J-Mac_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

harry, the days ahead don't look encouraging for them at all. Every new discovery is pushing their pseudoscientific ideas deeper down the trash bin.Dionisio_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

I fear, we are going to see things getting uglier and uglier as truth and fairness are increasingly trashed in pursuit of advantage in cases where shifting public opinion counts.
They are desperate. The more the truth gets out the more outrageous their tactics become, which causes more people to doubt them, which makes them more desperate ... They are in a death spiral. The truth has power of its own and the Truth is the ultimate source of all power. They are spiraling down the toilet, but yes, they will resort to uglier and more vicious tactics on the way down.harry_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

PS, Did a search lookup: "George Louis Costanza is a character in the American television sitcom Seinfeld, played by Jason Alexander. He has variously been described as a "brain-damaged, short, stocky, slow-witted, ugly, old, bald man" and "Lord of the Idiots". George and Jerry were junior high school friends and remained friends afterwards."kairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

DS, sadly, yes. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

F/N: This definition and discussion of lying is long gone from Wiki's lead page on the subject:
To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .
KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, ‘ent got a clue, and it actually works just as well.
True, and I can't disagree with this:
people BELIEVE smears (without carrying out reasonable and responsible tests for truth and fairness on such destructive claims) and spread them
It appears that people are very gullible and easy to manipulate these days.daveS_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

DS, 'ent got a clue, and it actually works just as well. I assume he is a humourist or the like? There is honestly arrived at sincerity and there is irresponsible malicious belief that feeds gossip, slander and agit prop. KFkairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Let's think about the increasing trend of agit-prop, media manipulation, slander and well-poisoning connected to ID and to other important concerns. PS: Current Wiki lead for ID article:
Intelligent design From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about a form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1][2] though it has been found to be pseudoscience.[3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[7][8][9] . . .
Let's see how many ways this speaks with utter disregard for readily accessible truth to promote its obvious ideological agenda, lies and smears, making utter mockery of Wiki's boasted of neutral point of view . . . By contrast, here is the New World Encyclopedia lead:
Intelligent design Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Ideas of Some Leading ID Theorists 2.1 Michael J. Behe 2.2 William A. Dembski 2.3 Stephen C. Meyer 2.4 Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards 3 Some Aspects of the Controversy 3.1 Philosophy 3.2 Science 3.3 Education 3.4 Theology 4 Notes and references 5 Selected Bibliography 5.1 Pro-ID Books 5.2 Anti-ID Books 6 External links 6.1 Pro-ID Internet Sites 6.2 Anti-ID Internet Sites 7 Credits ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy . . .
PPS: This same pattern obtains for ever so many other issues, online or traditional media houses, PR campaigns and personalities. and yes, other cases in connexion with the trend of our civilisation over the cliff are on-topic, but please restrain from flame wars and the like, or the problem of ever increasing tangents. PPPS: I see I was firsted.kairosfocus_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

KF, I'm guessing that J-Mac's comment was in jest (or meant ironically). Do you know who George Costanza is?daveS_{December 15, 2017
December
12
Dec
15
15
2017
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply