Lying vs. simply being wrong

Gonna play peacekeeper here for a second. It seems the most common attack I see in the whole 9/11 debate is to accuse one's opponent of "lying". BOTH sides do it. I've been called a liar a number of times by the folks at Pilots for Truth, and seen Truthers call lots of other debunkers liars.

But, I see all to much of it here, too. Our own skeptics accusing our visiting Truthers of lying. Sometimes it's not even provoked.

I just want to stress for BOTH sides here exactly what constitutes a "lie". A lie is not simply being wrong. If you ask a layman what the largest desert in the world is, he would probably reply with "the Sahara". The correct answer is, technically speaking, Antarctica. Is he lying? No. Nobody would say that he's lying. He's an innocent victim of a popular stereotype of what constitutes a "desert" (i.e. it has to be hot).

Do you see my point? There's a difference between a genuine LIE and being wrong, misinformed, or deluded. In order for a statement to qualify as a genuine lie, it must meet the following criteria:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.


That said, I'm sure there have been genuine lies among the Truth Movement. For instance, the assertion that Ben Chertoff and Mike Chertoff are cousins raises a red flag. But, not everyone who makes that argument is necessarily "lying"--most of them are just parrots repeating whatever Alex Jones tells them to. In which case, the only real liar would be Jones himself. To accuse the average Truther peon of actively lying just isn't right. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're forgetful, maybe they place too much trust in the Truther ringleaders, and maybe they're deluding themselves. But I doubt very many of them are genuine liars. So if you're going to make such an accusation, please provide proof.

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false? Or, is he just (assuming the conspiracy theory is correct) simply wrong about things? If you're going to accuse any of us of being liars, please provide proof.

Let's be civil, folks.

I actually think very few truthers are liars.

IE:

Dylan, Bermass, Jones, Fetzer, P'doh

The list goes on

A more common tactic I see is when a debunker claims that someone is wrong, the truther takes that to mean the truther thinks that person is not just wrong, but lying.

They don't seem to understand that it is possible for someone to be wrong without lying.

1337m4n said:

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false?
Let's be civil, folks.

Click to expand...

Good post.

But, I firmly believe that many truthers really DO think Mark (and others) are knowingly lying and part of some disinfo campaign.

And, if they believe it, they're not lying. They're simply deluded.

1337m4n said:

Gonna play peacekeeper here for a second. It seems the most common attack I see in the whole 9/11 debate is to accuse one's opponent of "lying". BOTH sides do it. I've been called a liar a number of times by the folks at Pilots for Truth, and seen Truthers call lots of other debunkers liars.

But, I see all to much of it here, too. Our own skeptics accusing our visiting Truthers of lying. Sometimes it's not even provoked.

I just want to stress for BOTH sides here exactly what constitutes a "lie". A lie is not simply being wrong. If you ask a layman what the largest desert in the world is, he would probably reply with "the Sahara". The correct answer is, technically speaking, Antarctica. Is he lying? No. Nobody would say that he's lying. He's an innocent victim of a popular stereotype of what constitutes a "desert" (i.e. it has to be hot).

Do you see my point? There's a difference between a genuine LIE and being wrong, misinformed, or deluded. In order for a statement to qualify as a genuine lie, it must meet the following criteria:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.


That said, I'm sure there have been genuine lies among the Truth Movement. For instance, the assertion that Ben Chertoff and Mike Chertoff are cousins raises a red flag. But, not everyone who makes that argument is necessarily "lying"

Click to expand...

yes, they are. Parroting positions ad infinitum is lying, if you do no research

1337m4n said:

--most of them are just parrots repeating whatever Alex Jones tells them to. In which case, the only real liar would be Jones himself. To accuse the average Truther peon of actively lying just isn't right. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're forgetful, maybe they place too much trust in the Truther ringleaders, and maybe they're deluding themselves. But I doubt very many of them are genuine liars. So if you're going to make such an accusation, please provide proof.

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false? Or, is he just (assuming the conspiracy theory is correct) simply wrong about things? If you're going to accuse any of us of being liars, please provide proof.

Let's be civil, folks.

Click to expand...

5. If you have been directed to factual data which contradicts your statement, and/or you have refused to evaluate any data contrary to your position, or you are simply spouting off without performing any research, then points 3 and 4 above become moot (not Mute!), and you are a liar.

If you make a claim, and that claim is refuted. Then you ignore the refutation and repeat the claim stating that it is something you already proved, then you are lying.

That is what I see troofers do over and over and over again. They completely ignore all counter points and repeat what they've said, either in another thread or later on in the same thread.

That is lying. If you've done nothing to counter points raised against you, you are not wrong, you are a lier when you repeat those points.

1337m4n said:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

Click to expand...

Yup.

1337m4n said:

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

Click to expand...

Nope. The person need only know that the statement being made is not the truth. One does not need to know the truth of every matter in order to recognize falsehood. I do not, for example, know the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart, but I do know that any claim I might make that she is in my closet is not true.

Indeed, this seems to be the bulwark behind which our CT friends hide from reality: they do not know the truth of some matters therefore anything can be presented in its stead.

1337m4n said:

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

Click to expand...

Again, nope (see above). The person making the statement must be consciously aware of the falsity of the statement at the moment he makes it.

1337m4n said:

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.

Click to expand...

1, 2, & 3 above would seem to make this redundant.

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Those in 9/11 truth try to lead you to believe something that is not true. Liars. They meet the definition.

They are wrong and liars. They present ideas that are wrong, false. They do this on purpose to mislead other. They call it spreading the truth. Liars.

beachnut said:

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Click to expand...

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

Seems to me that this is a semantic debate on intellectual dishonesty vs. lying. If I claim that WTC7 fell in 6 seconds, even though I know it was actually more like 18, but I qualify my statement by saying "I don't count from when the penthouse fell", am I lying? I know it's intellectually dishonest, but is it a lie?

defaultdotxbe said:

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

Click to expand...

I have a broad definition of liar for 9/11 truth. The more I read what a lie is, the more the liars of 9/11 truth fit. They are doing it on purpose to spread the "truth".

I agree my definition is sarcastically applied, I thought most truthers would rather be called a liar than dumber than dirt doltish ignoramus. (beam weapons? dustification? nukes? no planes? etc, etc, etc.)

I think the difference is between being purposely dishonest and being deluded. I'd imagine the bulk of CT'ers, confronted with evidence that totally destroys their argument, can convince themselves said evidence exists in a vaccuum, and because it's a cog in some great conspiracy it isn't a great leap to assume it was specifically planted there to aid in the cover up. This particular one makes that even easier for lots of them consciously and subconsciously because it plays right into pre-existing feelings on the current administration and war which nobody really likes a whole lot.

It's still dishonesty, but because it starts out as self-dishonesty it's not so much out-and-out lying as it is pure delusion.

The LIARS, on the other hand, know they're dishing out crap. Whether they do it to be self-aggrandizing, to further an agenda, or to make a few bucks... they in no way believe what they're shovelling. It's no different from any other con, and the more people they can get to fall for it the better.

The real issue, however, is whether one is any worse than the other. And as far as perception goes, I'd have to say "no." Willful or not, they're fostering lies which hurt the country as well as the victims and heroes of 9/11. And I have no more respect nor any less distain for a dunderhead than I do for a con artist.

ETA: Holy crap . I certainly live up to my custom title a lot.

defaultdotxbe said:

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

Click to expand...

Seems fair enough to me.

I think that we get stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, and lying confused at times.

beachnut said:

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Those in 9/11 truth try to lead you to believe something that is not true. Liars. They meet the definition.

They are wrong and liars. They present ideas that are wrong, false. They do this on purpose to mislead other. They call it spreading the truth. Liars.

Click to expand...

Lying is not synonymous with ignorance, Beachnut.
All truthers are not liars. Your assessment is grossly over-simplified.

I'm sure you have said things that are false in your time, i wouldn't call that grounds to label you a liar.

Hyperviolet said:

I'm sure you have said things that are false in your time, i wouldn't call that grounds to label you a liar.

Click to expand...

Everyone has been wrong. But once you've been shown glaring evidence you COULD VERY WELL BE wrong, to continue to bleat your same argument without changing it at does have liar overtones.

While many twoofers lie, I think most of them repeat long-debunked claims simply because they're so paranoid that they trust only themselves and fellow twoofers.

This mindset acts as a constant barrier between them and truth since all opposing engineers, demolition pros and witnesses are instantly dismissed as pawns of the establishment.

So in other words, it's usually not a case of twoofers lying so much as it is twoofers just being paranoid and really, really stupid.

Drudgewire said:

Everyone has been wrong. But once you've been shown glaring evidence you COULD VERY WELL BE wrong, to continue to bleat your same argument without changing it at does have liar overtones.

Click to expand...

It just gets lost on this forum sometimes.
It really does.


This forum is full of intellectual people, others aren't quite blessed with the ability to differentiate between good and bad sources, between truths and falsehoods. These people don't understand something technical like the NIST report. What they do 'understand' is that WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. That actually makes sense to them, believe it or not.

I wouldn't call a creationist a liar for not believing in evolution and the evidence for it. Would you?
In that case, I would say my vocabulary is worryingly limited should I choose such a word to articulate my thoughts.

Look at Mikey Metz, he honestly believed what he was saying. He could go to bed with a clear head knowing he was fighting for what he believed was real.
He luckily could see the errors in his thinking.
Not everyone has that ability. Beachnut's assessment that every truther is a liar is inaccurate.

Hyperviolet said:

I wouldn't call a creationist a liar for not believing in evolution and the evidence for it. Would you?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Conversely, someone trying to debate the pros of intelligent design and claiming it's not a religious issue might as well have his pants on fire.

So I'd go so far as to say not all people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are liars. But as far as those who come to the JREF to spout their nonsense, GET THE REAL ANSWER HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATTER, and then in the next breath continue to push the same gibberish with nothing more than a couple of latin words or the old standby "strawman?" Well, that may not make them liars...

...but for the life of me I can't find a better word for it.

Drudgewire said:

Not at all. Conversely, someone trying to debate the pros of intelligent design and claiming it's not a religious issue might as well have his pants on fire.

So I'd go so far as to say not all people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are liars. But as far as those who come to the JREF to spout their nonsense, GET THE REAL ANSWER HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATTER, and then in the next breath continue to push the same gibberish with nothing more than a couple of latin words or the old standby "strawman?" Well, that may not make them liars...

...but for the life of me I can't find a better word for it.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, Drudgewire.

However, that's my contention: To say all truthers are liars is inaccurate.

Hyperviolet said:

I agree with that your saying, Drudgewire.

However, that's my contention: To say all truthers are liars is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we're not on the same paragraph exactly, but at least on the same page.

Architect said:

Seems fair enough to me.

I think that we get stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, and lying confused at times.

Click to expand...

I have never had that problem.

Drudgewire said:

Yeah, we're not on the same paragraph exactly, but at least on the same page.

Click to expand...

Maybe the same paragraph, but not the same sentence heh.

1337m4n said:

In order for a statement to qualify as a genuine lie, it must meet the following criteria:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.

Click to expand...

No, the foregoing is not an accurate definition of a lie. As Metullus pointed out above, a person need not know the actual truth in order to tell a lie. A person need only know of the falsity of what he is saying in order for it to constitute a lie. Thus, your points #2, 3, and 4 do not properly follow from #1, and the totality of your definition is faulty.

I would also add that willful blindness - such that one actively refuses to consider any data or information that could potentially cause one to have to reconsider the veracity of one's statement - can be just as dishonest as telling a deliberate lie because it can render one's "innocent" misrepresentation into a "deliberate" misrepresentation. I.e. It is no less dishonest to tell a falsehood without express knowledge of its falsity if one deliberately closes one's eyes and ears to available knowledge in order to be able to maintain the facade of "innocent" misrepresentation.

In other words, when one knows that there is a risk that a statement one makes is not true, but deliberately closes his eyes and ears to available information with which to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statement, it is still dishonest.

As I set out above, I disagree with your definition of what constitutes a lie. However, I agree with you that the word "liar" could certainly be used with less frequency.

1337m4n said:

Let's be civil, folks.

Click to expand...

A call for civility is never a bad thing.

And just to muddy the waters further, one can identify a statement as a lie, without necessarily accusing the person relating it of being a liar. But in the heat of argument, it will likely be interpreted in the worst possible light.

I would tend to agree for the most part with LashL and Hyperviolet's thoughts here. In my view, for someone to be a "Liar" they have to knowingly make false statements. If you honestly believe that the information you are presenting is true, you're not lying, no matter how mistaken you might be. If you have every reason to doubt the veracity of your position, but persist in believing, you might be an idiot, but not a liar.

Well, here is my take on it. Most of them are either terminally stupid or egregious liars, quite likely a mix of the two. There are a few decent and honest people who have been convinced that something is amiss and who have a bias to distrust the government in anything and who moreover are so honest themselves that they cannot imagine that anybody would lie to them about something like this.

It seems to me that "dishonest" is a very accurate description to describe many in the Truth Movement; either deliberate dishonesty (i.e. a lie, or at least knowlingly misleading) or intellectual dishonesty (a failure to apply sufficient rigour to the arguments being presented). In many cases the reason for the latter does appear to be due - at least in part - to a lack of education and understanding about the issues at hand.

It's a good thing I'm perfect, so it is....


ETA: As I mused this over later, I realised that the description which our institute would use to describe Gage's comments would be "reckless conduct" or possibly "bringing the profession into disrepute". As if architects' own in-house fighting could be any more disreputable.....

Those who deliberately introduce a falsehood into the public forum are liars.

This would take in Bunel, AJones, Bollyn, D.B. Smith and all white nationalists.

Those who resist any logical explanation and can present no countering evidence are probably quite stupid.

Those who earnestly believe the woo-woo, on the basis that they have seen no evidence to the contrary are just ignorant.

If their ignorance is not ammendable by reasoned presentation of factual evidence, they are not only ignorant, but stupid and/or nuts.

I don't think that anybody would disagree with that.

I personally would expand the definition to include those who make true statements while not believing them. It comes down to the intention to deceive rather than any particular objective measure of the truth value of the statements.

What I find dishonest about truthers is the practice, not of lying, but of deliberately concealing the substance of what they're trying to say. There's a perfect example in Kenneth Kuttler's letter to JON-ES in May that illustrates this.

Kuttler is ostensibly calculating collapse times for the Twin Towers with various assumptions and comparing them to the actual collapse times. He starts by estimating the actual collapse times. In his estimates he twice refers to a video in which the collapse finishes 12 seconds after a particular stage in the collapse. He doesn't say how far into the collapse that stage occurred. His time for comparison, therefore, is greater than 12 seconds, but he never gives an actual value; he therefore leaves the reader with the mistaken impression that 12 seconds was the collapse time. He then goes on to calculate a collapse time with momentum transfer only, and having done so comments that it is shorter than 9 seconds, which he takes as the "official" collapse time from the NIST report. The end result of this is that Kuttler has carefully avoided stating any falsehood, but has contrived to leave the reader with the impression that the collapse time was less than it should have been.

In many ways this is even more dishonest than simply lying. Including a false statement could be interpreted as a mistake, but deliberately concealing one's own conclusions and misrepresenting one's own work, to the point that it's internally inconsistent but appears not to be, is not subject to that interpretation. It's subtle and hard to spot sometimes, but it's deeply dishonest and it's far from rare.

Dave

TjW said:

And just to muddy the waters further, one can identify a statement as a lie, without necessarily accusing the person relating it of being a liar.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing how one can do that.

I'm guessing you see it like this:

Person A tells a lie. They know it is false, but they attempt to pass it off as truth.
Person B believes A, and reiterates the statement, believing it to be truth.

I'm guessing (as I said) that your position is that the statement as given by Person B is still a lie, even though B is not a liar.

My position would be that this cannot be so.

If we take person C, who came to the same conclusion as B, simply through (say) faulty reasoning, rather than being lied to, then would they be relating a lie? If so....how? Does "untrue" become "lie" simply because someone, somewhere, at some point has related the statement as a lie?

Unless this is the case, then we have a situation where C can say something untrue and it not be a lie, whereas should B say it, it is a lie....despite both of them saying the same thing and both of them believing it to be true.

It would be correct to say to B that their statement is false and that they were lied to, but it would not be correct to say that B's statement is a lie.

But I'm still only guessing on your position....I'd be far more interested in hearing you explain how you see it

Minadin said:

I would tend to agree for the most part with LashL and Hyperviolet's thoughts here. In my view, for someone to be a "Liar" they have to knowingly make false statements. If you honestly believe that the information you are presenting is true, you're not lying, no matter how mistaken you might be. If you have every reason to doubt the veracity of your position, but persist in believing, you might be an idiot, but not a liar.

Click to expand...

At what point does willful ignorance turn into a lie?

A : "Einstein never got a Ph.D."
B : "Yes, he did, in 1905."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. From the University of Zurich. Here's Wikipedia's take on it."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the New York Times obituary that lists it."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's a copy of his dissertation from the Zurich library."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's a certified copy of his actual diploma."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the actual diploma which I borrowed from his heirs."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the official attested statement from the University of Zurich with notarial seal."

Did A tell any lies in that exchange?

bonkey said:

I'd be interested in hearing how one can do that.

I'm guessing you see it like this:

Person A tells a lie. They know it is false, but they attempt to pass it off as truth.
Person B believes A, and reiterates the statement, believing it to be truth.

I'm guessing (as I said) that your position is that the statement as given by Person B is still a lie, even though B is not a liar.

My position would be that this cannot be so.

If we take person C, who came to the same conclusion as B, simply through (say) faulty reasoning, rather than being lied to, then would they be relating a lie? If so....how? Does "untrue" become "lie" simply because someone, somewhere, at some point has related the statement as a lie?

Unless this is the case, then we have a situation where C can say something untrue and it not be a lie, whereas should B say it, it is a lie....despite both of them saying the same thing and both of them believing it to be true.

Click to expand...

Yep.

bonkey said:

It would be correct to say to B that their statement is false and that they were lied to, but it would not be correct to say that B's statement is a lie.

But I'm still only guessing on your position....I'd be far more interested in hearing you explain how you see it

Click to expand...

Having once been told, a lie is still a lie. It's still a deliberate untruth, whether the person repeating it believes it or not.
Do I have a way of absolutely determining whether I am speaking to a B or a C? No.

Dave Rogers said:

What I find dishonest about truthers is the practice, not of lying, but of deliberately concealing the substance of what they're trying to say. ...
In many ways this is even more dishonest than simply lying. Including a false statement could be interpreted as a mistake, but deliberately concealing one's own conclusions and misrepresenting one's own work, to the point that it's internally inconsistent but appears not to be, is not subject to that interpretation. It's subtle and hard to spot sometimes, but it's deeply dishonest and it's far from rare.

Click to expand...

I find that the use of clipped quotes can be so close to dishonesty as to equate to lying. When they post quotes from a fireman describing explosions, but clip the portion where he describes what he concludes caused the explosions, that's obviously dishonest. Sometimes "..." can be a lie.

However, since it's rare that they go to the original sources, the original lie (or "lie" if you prefer) is often hidden in the mists of time.

Metullus said:

Yup.

Nope. The person need only know that the statement being made is not the truth. One does not need to know the truth of every matter in order to recognize falsehood. I do not, for example, know the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart, but I do know that any claim I might make that she is in my closet is not true.

Indeed, this seems to be the bulwark behind which our CT friends hide from reality: they do not know the truth of some matters therefore anything can be presented in its stead.

Again, nope (see above). The person making the statement must be consciously aware of the falsity of the statement at the moment he makes it.

1, 2, & 3 above would seem to make this redundant.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with Metullus on this one, l337.

beachnut said:

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Those in 9/11 truth try to lead you to believe something that is not true. Liars. They meet the definition.

They are wrong and liars. They present ideas that are wrong, false. They do this on purpose to mislead other. They call it spreading the truth. Liars.

Click to expand...

I'm just guessing here, but I am fairly sure you do not trust the Troofers.

beachnut said:

I have a broad definition of liar for 9/11 truth. The more I read what a lie is, the more the liars of 9/11 truth fit. They are doing it on purpose to spread the "truth".

I agree my definition is sarcastically applied, I thought most truthers would rather be called a liar than dumber than dirt doltish ignoramus. (beam weapons? dustification? nukes? no planes? etc, etc, etc.)

Click to expand...

I prefer "ignorant, infinitissimal nematodes engorged with fetid fecal material which they propel vomitously upon their surroundings" because I prefer being polite to them, whatever their character flaws.

TjW said:

Having once been told, a lie is still a lie. It's still a deliberate untruth, whether the person repeating it believes it or not.
Do I have a way of absolutely determining whether I am speaking to a B or a C? No.

Click to expand...

Only if you have the capacity to understand what you are being told. A truther is lied to by the likes of Ross in regards to physics, so he parrots the claim, even if though he is incapable of understanding what Ross is saying. So when someone proves Ross wrong, it has no meaning to the truther because he did not understand the information to begin with. Therefore, the individual falls back on the position of believing Ross because that is what he wants to believe. The truther is not lying, he just does not understand.

Others fall into the cateegory that someone described above - delusional. They have their own beliefs and you will never be able to convince them how wrong they really are.