Merged Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham/Science smack-down!/What Bill Nye Doesn't Know

[RecoveringYuppy]

And you've failed, quite horribly, at disputing even that.

I've cited two sources to back it up. You've supplied none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_liar

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t (see def 3)

No, and you still seem to be having a fair bit of difficulty comprehending what the wikipedia article on pathological lying that you referenced actually describes.

I don't care. As I've explained more than once I cited the article to give the fairest possible treatment of your claim. It refutes the claim you made.

You can't seriously believe my original sentence that included the word pathological was meant to be a clinical diagnosis can you? I cited it for the one point of yours I was trying to confirm.

You can hold me to that full definition when I become stupd enough to try to clinically diagnose someone.

Likely so, for the first two. For the third, "was" would be more appropriate, much as they seemed to be reasonably truthful there with the admissions like ID being on par with astrology by Behe. The attempted funding of the books dodge didn't look like it came from a person who's generally considered a creationist leader, at last check, I think, incidentally. "Walt Brown" or, if convention is followed, "at Walt Brown," is an odd addition, though, given that that's a specific politician and thus significantly categorically different than the others. Frankly, a politician being a liar isn't exactly breaking stereotype, regardless.

Walt Brown the creationist. And I didn't say everyone at the Dover trial. I was referring to the issue I mentioned earlier ("the funding of the books dodge").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)

 

[Aridas]

I've cited two sources to back it up. You've supplied none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_liar

Amusing. I cited the exact same source and explained a bit about why your claim was wrong, using what the article actually said. I could have gone into a fair bit more depth, but frankly, there was no need. I was actually the first one of us to link it, no less.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t (see def 3)

In short, you're trying to retreat to a version loose enough that there's no difference between lying and simply being wrong. By that definition, you are indisputably a liar.

I don't care.

You don't care that the source that you brought up doesn't support your position when actually read?

As I've explained more than once I cited the article to give the fairest possible treatment of your claim. It refutes the claim you made.

Your reading comprehension is questionable, then. As I demonstrated, it actually supports my claim. Fairly directly and unambiguously, no less, when taken as a whole, rather than when cherry picked. Still, if you are happy with there being no difference between wrong and being a liar, like you seem to be with the definition that you're trying to use, the matter can be left at you being a liar.

You can't seriously believe my original sentence that included the word pathological was meant to be a clinical diagnosis can you? I cited it for the one point of yours I was trying to confirm.

...Seriously? I didn't. Then, you proceeded to then reference the wikipedia article in an attempt to refute my statement, and have had your attempt refuted, given that the wiki states things like -

Lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally/willfully making a false statement.

Statements that fully agree with what I said.

You can hold me to that full definition when I become stupd enough to try to clinically diagnose someone.

Your case that lying doesn't require knowingly making false statements, however, has rested on that article, until now, when you're retreating to the position that being wrong and lying are the same thing.

Anyways, I think that's enough responding on this topic to you, unless you've got something new that's worth responding to.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Just for the record, there is definitely a difference between simply being wrong and being a liar. I said so and in fact I said that the overwhelming majority of creationists are simply wrong and not lying.

 

[PossumPie]

Just for the record, there is definitely a difference between simply being wrong and being a liar. I said so and in fact I said that the overwhelming majority of creationists are simply wrong and not lying.

I grew up with Creationists friends and family...They are not liars, just so grossly wrong that if is negligence. The urban legends they tell to support the theory have all been proven false years ago, but they retell them so much that they believe them. proof that men walked with dinosaurs...disproven- not hominid tracks. Ica stones showing men with dinosaurs...proven to be fake. Made by farmers to sell to the gullible. Dinosaur bones dug up with tissue attached and red blood cells inside. A HUGE over-exaggeration of the possibility of some heme molecules present.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I saw this earlier today. Got a laugh out of it.

 

[xtifr]

What about the concept of lying to yourself? It's a fairly common expression, but if you can't be lying if you actually believe what you're saying, then surely it's impossible?

I think there's a difference between not knowing something and actively refusing to know something; between not being aware of the evidence, and blindly rejecting it.

I think that once you cross over into something that can reasonably be called intellectual dishonesty, then it's not unreasonable to say you're lying even if you yourself are one of the people you're lying to.

 

[Roboramma]

Just for the record, there is definitely a difference between simply being wrong and being a liar. I said so and in fact I said that the overwhelming majority of creationists are simply wrong and not lying.

Would you mind clarifying by explicitly stating the difference between lying and simply being wrong?

 

[Orphia Nay]

I saw this earlier today. Got a laugh out of it.

Hahahaha, very good! Thanks for that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What about the concept of lying to yourself? It's a fairly common expression, but if you can't be lying if you actually believe what you're saying, then surely it's impossible?

There are also cases where you can lie with the truth. Lying by omission (leaving out contrary evidence) is lying. Also if you intend to deceive someone but accidentally, inadvertently or unknowingly tell the truth while doing so, you'd still be a liar by some definitions.

Would you mind clarifying by explicitly stating the difference between lying and simply being wrong?

There isn't a single "the difference". But all sources I've seen require some difference and typically a major difference. Examples: Knowing intent to deceive, magnitude of damage of the untruth, disregard for such damage, magnitude of contradiction to objective facts, knowingly misrepresenting the other side, willful ignorance, advancing an agenda, consistent pattern of telling untruths.

Like a lot of words in English, it's not precise. Start with "wrong" at one end of the spectrum, then advance through "untruth", "fib", "prevaricate", "lie" depending on the importance of the compounding factor(s).

If you need precision to convey why exactly you think someone is lying, don't use a single word. Explain it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Can't edit last post, but here is a NETA:

"Simply wrong" can be when the person being wrong was never exposed to the correct information. Even more so when they have no ability to evaluate the subject. Also when no reasonable person would confuse them with being a publisher with some duty to fact check. And some might said not to be lying simply because they never say their misinformation out loud.

BTW Some creationists might also fall in the category of telling "Noble lies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Noble_lie