posted
So there's a new pro-intelligent design movie coming out, with Ben Stein apparently at the head of it, called Expelled. Which is fine. I'm almost sure I won't agree with any of its points, but I'll definitely go see it and do my best to keep an open mind.
Apparently PZ Myers, liberal, scientist and atheist blogger, was interviewed for it. But they got his interview in a very sleazy way. It seems the associate producer indicated that Myers would be interviewed for a much more neutral documentary.
quote: I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility … not that that will matter. I suspect their audience will not question whatever mangling of the video that they carry out, and the subterfuges used to make it will not be brought up.
So my question, I guess, is how ethical is this style of reporting? Granted, it could have been that the first film Myers was interviewed for was legit, only to be modified after the fact do to new people involved or new funding or something along those lines. But to me, it just smells a little fishy.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: About as ethical as Borat.
I'd personally say that it sounds even less ethical. Borat was only meant to be a humorous video. This one, on the other hand, is meant to be a key component in a public relations push. Not only that, but it is pushing a view that this guy is opposed to.
In my mind, at least, it is a lot more sleazy to do an interview under false pretenses when you are planning to advocate a position that the interviewee is opposed to.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a hard question. When National Geographic lied to the North Korean government so that they could smuggle a film crew into the country and give outsiders a real look at how North Koreans live, not a single warning bell sounded while watching it.
I definitely think editing what is actually said in such a way as to slant or completely redirect what an interviewee says is never justifiable unless you are doing it purely for comedic purposes. (Colbert's Challenge being a good example of this.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because, by definition, anybody that disagrees with you can't be intelligent?
I'm pretty sure MC has respected the intelligence of people who disagree with him many of times on this site. I'm not sure why you think this criticism of him is justified.
Do you agree with lying to people to trick them into being in your documentary? That sounds pretty dumb to me, but maybe you have a different view.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because, by definition, anybody that disagrees with you can't be intelligent?
I'm pretty sure MC has respected the intelligence of people who disagree with him many of times on this site. I'm not sure why you think this criticism of him is justified.
Do you agree with lying to people to trick them into being in your documentary? That sounds pretty dumb to me, but maybe you have a different view.
To be fair, I don't think this is Ben Stein's documentary. They're paying him, and he may agree with the premise, but he shouldn't necessarily be blamed for any unethical actions of the film's makers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I misunderstood this part as indicating that he was in charge of the project:
quote:So there's a new pro-intelligent design movie coming out, with Ben Stein apparently at the head of it
Ultimately, I think you do bear a responsibility to what you lend you name to. But then again, if you are going to do a pro-creationist documentary, I think you'd be hard pressed to find honest people to work with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you agree with lying to people to trick them into being in your documentary? That sounds pretty dumb to me, but maybe you have a different view.
It sounds wrong to me, but not indicative of a lack of intelligence, which is what MC was saying he has.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum, Someone using editing to make the point they want regardless of the interviewees intent. I've never heard of that happening before.
I agree it sucks, but it happens on all sides of every argument on almost every level, from my local paper all the way up to national media. I think most people realize when they are being handed a load of manure.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with lots of intelligent people.
I think the things Ben Stein said in the trailer don't sound intelligent or at least intellectually honest. I think resorting to trickery to make your point shows a serious flaw in the ability to make the point without trickery.
I also believe that intelligent design is complete and utter rubbish, and the idea that it should be taught in schools is appalling. Teach whatever faith you want in church, but don't pretend it's good science.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think most people realize when they are being handed a load of manure.
I think that if people realized it enough that it didn't work, we wouldn't be fed manure like this anymore. However, we are, and I think that's because it works.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds wrong to me, but not indicative of a lack of intelligence, which is what MC was saying he has.
It sounds like a, at the very least, poorly considered move, as it is bound to come out and expose the dishonesty of your movement yet again. That falls well within the colloquial use of saying somethign was stupid.
---
However, even granting that this wasn't necessarily an appropriate use of lack of intelligence, I don't understand how you can justify claiming that MC believes that anyone who disagrees with him isn't intelligent. Could you explain how, despite the evidence given by his participation in this forum that he does respect the intelligence of many people who disagree with him, you feel this is an accurate accusation?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I'm not going to play that game with you. My conversation with you is over.
---
MightyCow, if I misunderstood you, and you weren't saying that anybody who agrees with intelligent design cannot be an intelligent person, I'd appreciate being corrected.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what game is invovled in having to stand behind the things you say. To me, that's generally called integrity and I don't really regard it a game. I'm sorry if you do.
---
edit: Actually, you know, I'm not happy with that response, but I'll leave it up, although I'd like to appologize for saying it that way.
What I probably should have said was something along the lines of, you really shouldn't throw out accusations like someone, by definition, thinks that everyone who disagrees with them is unintelligent, unless they are actually true. When discussing contentious issues, people have enough trouble remaining civil and on topic when some of the people aren't throwing out stock, dishonest dismissals like that. If you have a problem with something specific that MC says, say you have a problem with it and explain why. Don't just throw out a general attack on his character, especially one that is clearly not true.
edit 2: porter, You knew what you accused MC of wasn't true when you accused him of it. You knew he doesn't think that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. But you said it anyway. I don't think you were intentionally malicious, but can you understand why I could see that as an inappropriate and destructive thing to do?
posted
I think an intelligent person can believe in intelligent design. Intelligent people make mistakes all the time.
I think intelligent design itself is not a valid scientific theory, and should not be taught in school. I believe that pressing for intelligent design to be taught in school along side evolutionary theory is not an intelligent position to hold, because intelligent design is BS.
I used to respect Ben Stein, and believe that he was quite an intelligent person. Perhaps I should have said that I don't approve of the choice he made in this case, which I think was a mistake, was poor judgment, and is frankly not intelligent.
So if you want to get right down to it, I firmly believe that intelligent design being presented as a field of science is total junk. It may show great faith to support it, but I don't think it shows great intelligence.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: Hum, Someone using editing to make the point they want regardless of the interviewees intent. I've never heard of that happening before.
I know. Shocking!
You should see the "documentary" from a few years ago that interviewed my dad (a Bible codes skeptic) and managed to make him sound enough like a supporter that he gets letters every time it shows on late night TV . . .
On second thought, no you shouldn't. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the first time I have ever said this.....but I agree with MC completely on this.
Almost.
I have no problem with teaching ID in schools, but it doesn't belong in any sort of science class, unless it is brought up by a student. Even then, all that should be said is that it isn't science so that particular class will not cover it.
It should be mentioned in social science classes, if at all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Copied from above: porter, You knew what you accused MC of wasn't true when you accused him of it. You knew he doesn't think that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. Nor was it a logical consequence of anything he said. But you said it anyway. I don't think you were intentionally malicious, but can you understand why I could see that as an inappropriate and destructive thing to do?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know in my internal struggles with religion I have read numerous books over the years that were supposed to explain ID, or why Christianity was the true religion or whatever. They always have a few points that will make you think, but they never tell the other point of view. Sometimes they will do what this film says and interview an expert from the opposition, but after you read it you realize they never answered any of the real questions. In their zeal to come across having all the answers they loose all their creditability by not addressing the issues. Sometimes the most thoughtful answers I have heard were "I don't know” or perhaps "there aren't any clear answers on the subject, but there are a few schools of thought…”
The Christian apologist I have read or listen to have a talent for giving well thought out answers to questions other than ones that were asked while at the same making you think they answered the question. They should go into politics
On a side note, but somewhat related, I hate when the news, or some 60 mins show throw out one sentence blurbs saying something to the effect of tune in tonight to make sure your house is safe. It comes across if you don't watch our show tonight your house will burn down, kids will end up on drugs, in a gang, and/or pregnant. Then you tune in and they have a story about checking your smoke detectors.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
