AronRa's Double Standard

[Welshidiot]

All of this non-sense is deserving of another video. I will respond to all of your comments in it and post the video here.

I haven't had time to address the recent allegations yet, but this is definitely the most appropriate forum for that. Can someone here tell me what exactly it is that I was supposedly dishonest about?

His position is that you are a "liar" or "lying" by the same standard you use to declare Behe to be a "liar" or "lying", and that Behe is not a "liar" or "lying" by the same standard that you declare yourself to have been honest (about that religious decline chart)... Or something like that. Definitely the latter (Behe is not a liar just as much as you aren't), and probably the former (that you are a liar just as much as Behe is)

EDIT: to be fair, it's slightly more nuanced than that. He claims you set up a definition of "lie" as "purposefully not telling the truth" as a way to claim you did not lie when you used that chart; however with that definition of lie, even if he grants you that Behe was wrong, you must prove that Behe wasn't just ignorant (i.e., that Behe really was intentionally saying a not-true thing, and not just misinformed or wrong).

I think what Borrofburi is trying to say is:

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Thank You for actually addressing my claim. If, in practice, AronRa tends not to mean "intention to deceive" then why would he demand the same standard from creationist? See where the double standard comes in? My point is that if AronRa wants to say most creationist intend to deceive, then prove how they meet that standard. Just because he failed to show this does not mean Behe didn't lie. There are other reasons to believe Behe didn't lie. But what I point out in my video is AronRa's dishonest tactics in this case, and until he addresses it one way or another, one has to start questioning if AronRa is being honest about his other claims.

The emphasis is mine...

DiscipleTube1, can you please proofread the quoted text above and see if you intended to say exactly this? I'm having a hard time understanding this paragraph. In particular, I'm confused by the juxtaposition of the two sentences in bold. Did you actually mean to say those things? It looks like you unintentionally used a double negative...

I must say, I can actually agree with many of your criticisms of AronRa. Some of his claims are temporally misleading and he appears to occasionally attack a straw man himself...

One thing I would like you to clear up for me is that, in your original video (that started this whole thread) you claim that "I can show many quotes of evolutionists' presuppositions to back up my claim." What is this claim, exactly? I'm guessing that this claim was made in the YouTube comments rather than in any video you've made. While I was able to watch these videos, I simply don't have time to peruse the YouTube comments for your discussion with AronRa. I, like the both of you, have familial obligations that take up the vast majority of my time...


I have two criticisms of you that were immediately obvious to me...

First, you have shown to my satisfaction that Behe was trying to be "careful" in his testimony at the Dover trial and that he failed in his care at least once. However, there was a very important moment where Behe failed in his care and that was his original assertion that "The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." That's a strong statement and the trial showed that he wasn't in a position to make said statement. One might infer that Behe knows that he can't possibly know all the literature out there and thus should have qualified his statement yet it is made unequivocably in his book. I don't want to speak for AronRa but I think this is the kind of dishonesty to which he is referring...

Secondly, you refute the characterization that Behe ever said that the articles presented in the trial were "not good enough" and it's true that he didn't use those words. It's even true that he took great care to specifically claim "it's not that they aren't good enough." However, if you read the transcripts then you can see that, in context, when Rothschild asks whether they're "good enough," he's asking whether they are good enough to rebut Behe's claim and this is something that Behe is clearly denying. That's what AronRa meant in his video when he said that "he essentially said 'it's not that they're not good enough, it's just that they're not good enough.'" This is also what the Judge was saying and you can take his use of quotes around "good enough" to be scare quotes...

Thank you...

 

[AronRa]

I must say, I can actually agree with many of your criticisms of AronRa. Some of his claims are temporally misleading and he appears to occasionally attack a straw man himself...

That is disturbing. I try very hard to make sure I am attacking the position my opponant actually holds, and I mean to do so clearly and unambiguously. I can only hope that I was misunderstood, and I will try to be even more clear in the future.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two. Looking forward to your response Aron

 

[borrofburi]

Most of us here prefer words to videos... I don't have time to watch 10 minutes of video, and even though I read slower than most people, I still read faster than you speak. Also really complicated thoughts don't work well in videos (unless the complications can be ameliorated by charts and graphics and images).

 

[lrkun]

Well, it's shameless self-promotion for the threadstarter. Hehe

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two.

I really do not understand why you are unable to respond to us through text. I encourage you to post the transcript of your video here since it seems you are going to make a video now. I really feel that my response, as well as Gunboat Diplomat's, can be handled through text on this forum since we both responded through text on this forum. Posting messages on this forum is also a lot quicker than editing a video. Therefore, seeing as how you are pressed for time, I really do not understand why you would not just respond with a post.

Again, do what you think is fit for your needs. I am just saying that I think you are wasting a lot of your time.

 

[AronRa]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two. Looking forward to your response Aron

A video would be an inappropriate way to respond. This is the proper forum for that. It takes me more than a week just to read through personal messages. I don't have time to watch videos anymore, not even from the few people I subscribe to. Most of the time, I'm in an environment where YouTube is blocked anyway. So before I can respond to you, I have to read what other people post about thier interpretation of whatever you said. So if you expect me to reply, post your argument here, and I will be happy to do so. If your criticism is legitimate, others here will take your side over mine, and that will be more effective than your video ever could be. Post your replies to this conversation in this conversation.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Please note that I've learned to use indexed video URL's so now my video links take you directly to the relevant part of the video!

I must say, I can actually agree with many of your criticisms of AronRa. Some of his claims are temporally misleading and he appears to occasionally attack a straw man himself...

That is disturbing. I try very hard to make sure I am attacking the position my opponant actually holds, and I mean to do so clearly and unambiguously. I can only hope that I was misunderstood, and I will try to be even more clear in the future.

I'm sorry, in retrospect, I should probably have been a little more explicit when agreeing with any criticisms of you...

It's important for you to know that, like the both of you, I don't have a whole lot of time (certainly not enough to make any videos, despite being an amateur video editor myself!) so I couldn't verify all of DiscipleTube1's claims about you. Instead, I chose just one more or less at random. It was the claim that you temporally transposed two quotes and built a false relationship between them like so:

Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more articles discussing the evolution of the immune system?

A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had time to look through these fifty articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system.

Once he realized he would have to concede error... he then went on to boldly proclaim...

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

When I watched your video, I was surprised to see that his claim is true! The latter Dover quote did occur in the transcript before the former one...

While it's true that, despite being shown the body of work he hadn't read, Behe still clung to the notion that no explanation could exist, the actual examples you showed weren't temporally correct. You had built a relationship that was false...

The strawman that you made was pointed out here, where you show a mined quote that DiscipleTube1 had not made in any of these videos. Again, if he cited this quote in the YouTube comments, please understand that I don't have time to peruse them and I am basing the entirety of my opinion on these videos...

It appears you may have to take even greater care in creating your videos, which is a pity because you appear to not have the time to make the few videos that you do!

Thank you...

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two. Looking forward to your response Aron

I was looking forward to your response except that you seem to prefer to spend your time making videos instead!

I must concur with the rest of the thread: I don't understand your obsession with videos. You could have simply and quickly responded to both AronRa and myself but instead you are choosing to waste your time and mine making a video and making me watch yet another one. I watched all the other videos already. Is that not good enough for you?

 

[Moggy]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two. Looking forward to your response Aron

I was looking forward to your response except that you seem to prefer to spend your time making videos instead!

I must concur with the rest of the thread: I don't understand your obsession with videos. You could have simply and quickly responded to both AronRa and myself but instead you are choosing to waste your time and mine making a video and making me watch yet another one. I watched all the other videos already. Is that not good enough for you?

DiscipleTube1 's obsession is clearly to garner high status among You Tube YECs by "taking down" a major You Tube Atheist as publicly as possible. A YT video obviously trumps this venue in that regard. You may not have the time or inclination to watch, but his "bros" will sit and watch in rapt attention.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I was hoping to get the video done some time today but now I have class... my week is busy so it may be a day or two. Looking forward to your response Aron

A video would be an inappropriate way to respond. This is the proper forum for that. It takes me more than a week just to read through personal messages. I don't have time to watch videos anymore, not even from the few people I subscribe to. Most of the time, I'm in an environment where YouTube is blocked anyway. So before I can respond to you, I have to read what other people post about thier interpretation of whatever you said. So if you expect me to reply, post your argument here, and I will be happy to do so. If your criticism is legitimate, others here will take your side over mine, and that will be more effective than your video ever could be. Post your replies to this conversation in this conversation.

Have you been able to watch the video yet? My argument is made there. If you have watched it already why do you need to wait to respond? If you want to have a conversation about this, that's fine. But my video is the first part of that conversation. I'm not going to put my whole video in text for you. If you're saying you want the rest of this conversation to be here, I guess that's fine, seeing as you have trouble getting access to youtube.

I have to say that based on your comments here and on other post and videos, I get the sense that you really do have a desire to be acutely accurate in what you propose. I think you failed in this case in a number of areas, but that doesn't mean everything you advocate is inaccurate. What I am asking, I guess, is this: What do you think about the claims in my video. If you were just mistaken on your video I will accept that. Nobody is perfect. But I think what my video brings up, needs an explanation from YOU.


TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO RESPONDED TO ME: I will just answer each of you one by one when I have time. I will try to do them in order. I underestimated the time it was going to take for all this let alone make a video, he_who_is_nobody, you were right about that. But I will try to answer everyone.

 

[AronRa]

In order to properly respond to your accusations here, I would have to watch three different videos, take notes of each, and re-read much of the court transcripts to make sure that any juxtaposition was kept in context. Did it read the same thing backwards as forwards? Was the out-of-sequence line paraphrased? etc. It's been a year and I don't remember doing that, so I certainly don't remember why I did it. Maybe I did it on purpose? If so, why? It will take a while to review the information to work all that out.

By this evening, I should have finished the long overdue final video of the 'Falsifying Phylogeny' series. After that, I will have a bit more time, as I don't have any other pending projects until I get back from Ireland. In the meantime, I am interested in discussing this here where I can get impressions & criticisms from my own peers.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

In order to properly respond to your accusations here, I would have to watch three different videos, take notes of each, and re-read much of the court transcripts to make sure that any juxtaposition was kept in context. Did it read the same thing backwards as forwards? Was the out-of-sequence line paraphrased? etc. It's been a year and I don't remember doing that, so I certainly don't remember why I did it. Maybe I did it on purpose? If so, why? It will take a while to review the information to work all that out.

By this evening, I should have finished the long overdue final video of the 'Falsifying Phylogeny' series. After that, I will have a bit more time, as I don't have any other pending projects until I get back from Ireland. In the meantime, I am interested in discussing this here where I can get impressions & criticisms from my own peers.

Fair enough. I will continue answering your peers and patiently await your response.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

At 4:46 of your video, DiscipleTube1, you make a statement about how AronRa is just as incompetent as Behe because AronRa used a chart from New Zealand and not from the U.S. However, as is clear from the other thread you posted this video in, and this video from AronRa, he was mistaken in using that chart as a backdrop for his statement, but his information did not come from that chart. Many other studies show atheism on the rise, including the article that Equestions cites. Go back and read through the other thread and you will see that pointed out as plain as day.

I was unaware that AronRa admitted the mistake until after I made the video. I now understand that his position is that the information is still correct but the chart was wrong. I wouldn't say that I was trying to say AronRa was "just as incompetent" as Behe. On the contrary, I'm not sure that either were being incompetent in this case. I am only trying to ask why AronRa would ridicule Behe for something he has done too. I haven't read the articles that AronRa cites yet, but I never really believed that AronRa was wrong about atheism rising in America. I wasn't focusing on the validity of the information, just the fact that he google searched it. It seemed ironic to me that AronRa would go after Behe for "essentially google searching for relevant titles", even though Behe didn't, and despite the fact he does do it himself (google searches, not google "title" searches). Just as a side note, but I believe AronRa only admits that the chart and his data both show an increase in atheism but not that they both show the same degree of increase, but I may be wrong about that.

Moving on from there. I do understand your criticisms of AronRa moving quotes around. However, as you can see from this post made in the other thread, reading the quotes in order does not really remove the point AronRa was making.

It is true that Behe still says "they DO NOT address the question that I pose" even after he admits he hadn't read them, so I can see how you could argue that AronRa's point is the same, despite the switched quote. However, as my video explains, when asked about the veracity of the articles he says that ONCE, and admits he is "UNAWARE", "STRONGLY DOUBTS", "QUITE SKEPTICAL" on THREE different occasions. He also explains that he feels he doesn't have to go back and read every single article on the subject because the most recent should bring you up to speed on the earlier results. Remember that the charge is that Behe had a "deliberate intent to deceive". I don't know how someone could conclude that with Behe's inconsistent answers. All of this is explained in the video. So no I don't agree that posting the transcripts on the other thread hurts my case, but is the very thing that makes my case.

However, let me give you the benefit of the doubt and I will agree that AronRa was dishonest in this video. This would do nothing to take away any of the credibility from his science videos because they are based on empirical evidence. Attacking the messager does not hurt the message and the credibility of the message is what matters in science, not the credibility of the messager.

I have doubts about much of the "empirical" evidence in AronRa's videos. But this is not the subject of my video or this conversation. If it is "empirical" evidence then you're right; the claims I make in the video would not take away those "empirical facts". What is confusing to me is that I don't recall saying that they would. I did say:

until he addresses it one way or another, one has to start questioning if AronRa is being honest about his other claims.

However I'm not sure thats the same thing. I imagine AronRa would say that you should always question him, and he would openly invite it. That's great. However I think that you and AronRa both would look a little deeper into the claims of someone who has proven to use dishonest tactics to make a point in the past, and still others of you wouldn't even look into the claims of others, whether they're proven dishonest or not. I am talking of course about Inferno who posted the transcripts I mention above. He doesn't even bother to watch my video. Would you say he... how did Irkun put it?... oh yes... "made up [his] mind even if the evidence says otherwise"?

 

[Memeticemetic]

I must say, Disciple, the main reason it seems to me many of us haven't watched your video is because the question simply isn't interesting. Most, if not all, of us have looked extensively into Behe's claims in general and found them severely lacking in even the rudiments of making a case for his position. Whether or not he's dishonest or lying doesn't interest me when Aron says it, or when you rebut it.

Far more interesting to me would be for you to unpack the scare quotes you put around "empirical" in reference to Aron's videos. This tells me you have objections that, while I'm fairly certain are quite unfounded, may at least prove interesting. And, who knows, if they're actually grounded in sound reasoning and evidence may serve to make creationists of us all. Take a shot, all you have to lose is your dignity. And dignity is highly overrated in my book anyway.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I must say, Disciple, the main reason it seems to me many of us haven't watched your video is because the question simply isn't interesting.

It's one thing to have that opinion, the answer is simple; don't post. But it's quite another to post about this video without ever watching it... hmmm... that sounds eerily familiar... oh yes, it sounds very similar to the mantra of many evolutionist claiming Behe made claims about something he never read.

Most, if not all, of us have looked extensively into Behe's claims in general and found them severely lacking in even the rudiments of making a case for his position. Whether or not he's dishonest or lying doesn't interest me when Aron says it, or when you rebut it.

I disagree, but good for you. Maybe we'll have that discussion another day, but right now we're talking about the claims I made in the video.

Far more interesting to me would be for you to unpack the scare quotes you put around "empirical" in reference to Aron's videos. This tells me you have objections that, while I'm fairly certain are quite unfounded, may at least prove interesting. And, who knows, if they're actually grounded in sound reasoning and evidence may serve to make creationists of us all. Take a shot, all you have to lose is your dignity. And dignity is highly overrated in my book anyway.

Maybe I will another day, but I will be honest, I'm not ready for that yet, especially going up against a master debater like AronRa. I've seen his debates, and I know my current limitations. But I am confident that Behe does not meet AronRa's standard of a lie, at least in the context of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. If this isn't interesting to you or others... well everyone is free to move on.

 

[lrkun]

It's one thing to have that opinion, the answer is simple; don't post. But it's quite another to post about this video without ever watching it... hmmm... that sounds eerily familiar... oh yes, it sounds very similar to the mantra of many evolutionist claiming Behe made claims about something he never read.

It's a fact and not a claim because behe admitted to it in the case. Read it before making any video related to Behe and his lies.

I disagree, but good for you. Maybe we'll have that discussion another day, but right now we're talking about the claims I made in the video.

:mrgreen:

Maybe I will another day, but I will be honest, I'm not ready for that yet, especially going up against a master debater like AronRa. I've seen his debates, and I know my current limitations. But I am confident that Behe does not meet AronRa's standard of a lie, at least in the context of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. If this isn't interesting to you or others... well everyone is free to move on.

Behe does in the context of that case only if you'll read it and seeing that you disagree, I doubt that you read the case in full text.

Edited to correct who I quoted.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Disclaimer: the opinions made in this message are made based on the viewing of DiscipleTube1's video post here in. I have not re-viewed AronRa's original reply, or the original video from DiscipleTube1, which started this.

I was unaware that AronRa admitted the mistake until after I made the video. I now understand that his position is that the information is still correct but the chart was wrong. I wouldn't say that I was trying to say AronRa was "just as incompetent" as Behe. On the contrary, I'm not sure that either were being incompetent in this case. I am only trying to ask why AronRa would ridicule Behe for something he has done too.

First off, the chart is not wrong, it is correct in New Zealand. AronRa used the wrong chart when throwing together the slideshow for his video. The information he had to support this statement did not come from that chart. Remember that AronRa's videos are essentially essays that he than reads allowed in front of a moving background. It is hard to get things to line up some times and sometimes mistakes are made with pictures. I know, I have dabbled in movie making.

Second, there is a big difference when someone Google searches for general statistics (i.e. statistics about atheism and religion) and conducting a literature search for relevant peer-reviewed articles.

I haven't read the articles that AronRa cites yet, but I never really believed that AronRa was wrong about atheism rising in America. I wasn't focusing on the validity of the information, just the fact that he google searched it. It seemed ironic to me that AronRa would go after Behe for "essentially google searching for relevant titles", even though Behe didn't, and despite the fact he does do it himself (google searches, not google "title" searches). Just as a side note, but I believe AronRa only admits that the chart and his data both show an increase in atheism but not that they both show the same degree of increase, but I may be wrong about that.

So you think it is ironic that someone on YouTube would Google search some of their information for a video, or do you think it is ironic that an expert witness in a court case, which will have repercussions for years to come, would only Google search for his information? I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. I see that there is a different standard, but do you not think that the different standard is necessary? Otherwise, anyone with access to the Ethernet can be an expert witness in any high-class court case about our education system.

Conducting a relevant search for information in a scientific context is far different from conducting general research for, let us say, a YouTube video. One major difference is that you read articles and if they are not exactly what you wanted them to be, you go back and read the citations they have or you read the other works from the authors. This is why Behe is thought to be incompetent, at worse, and generally a lazy scholar, at best. He read eight articles, concluded that none of them answered his question, and stopped researching. Now whether he did that out of laziness or incompetents is another question, but either way, this demonstrates that Behe has very poor scholarly skills.

It is true that Behe still says "they DO NOT address the question that I pose" even after he admits he hadn't read them, so I can see how you could argue that AronRa's point is the same, despite the switched quote. However, as my video explains, when asked about the veracity of the articles he says that ONCE, and admits he is "UNAWARE", "STRONGLY DOUBTS", "QUITE SKEPTICAL" on THREE different occasions. He also explains that he feels he doesn't have to go back and read every single article on the subject because the most recent should bring you up to speed on the earlier results. Remember that the charge is that Behe had a "deliberate intent to deceive". I don't know how someone could conclude that with Behe's inconsistent answers. All of this is explained in the video. So no I don't agree that posting the transcripts on the other thread hurts my case, but is the very thing that makes my case.

This gets to the heart of your video. I am going to do something that might shock many people here and agree with you. I do not think Behe was lying, I think he was just ignorant of the facts. As Robert J. Hanlon says, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I do not think Behe was being dishonest, anymore than I think ThePuppyTurtle was being dishonest in his "debate" and debate discussion thread. Both are just ignorant of the facts. Therefore, when Behe took to the stand and testified, I do believe he was honest, which is why he acted the way he did when the lawyer "owned" him on the stand, just as everyone here owned ThePuppyTurtle in the debate discussion thread and other threads he posted.

In this respect, I have to disagree with AronRa when he states that the only way to defend creationism is with dishonesty. Because, I believe one can also defend it with general ignorance, just like Behe at the Dover Trial and ThePuppyTurtle here.

I have doubts about much of the "empirical" evidence in AronRa's videos. But this is not the subject of my video or this conversation. If it is "empirical" evidence then you're right; the claims I make in the video would not take away those "empirical facts". What is confusing to me is that I don't recall saying that they would. I did say:

until he addresses it one way or another, one has to start questioning if AronRa is being honest about his other claims.

However I'm not sure thats the same thing. I imagine AronRa would say that you should always question him, and he would openly invite it. That's great. However I think that you and AronRa both would look a little deeper into the claims of someone who has proven to use dishonest tactics to make a point in the past, and still others of you wouldn't even look into the claims of others, whether they're proven dishonest or not. I am talking of course about Inferno who posted the transcripts I mention above. He doesn't even bother to watch my video. Would you say he... how did Irkut put it?... oh yes... "made up [his] mind even if the evidence says otherwise"?

Well since this is a can of worms you do not wish to open at this time, and this could derail this thread, I will just drop this subject from our discussion. I hope to one day have this discussion with you though.

Furthermore, I do again agree with you, that it is unfair that many of the messages here where made without anyone watching your video. However, I will not speak for any of them. If they choose to do that, that is their choice, no matter how bad it makes them look in a public forum. In addition, there are still comments from Gunboat Diplomat and lrkun, which you have not addressed here. Both of them have watched and addressed your video.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

Haven't forgot anybody. Just waiting to have the time