OT - "lie" vs "error"

As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...

What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fa
ct"
being made?

There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then

- if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that i
t is
not true, then it is a "lie"
- if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
"believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-informatio
n"
is an error, not a lie.

***

Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to man
y
threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com...
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in
> fact" being made?
None.  An "error in fact" being made implies control of that error. But you
clarify in the next paragraph :-)

> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
>
> - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that
> it is not true, then it is a "lie"

There is also the "lie" through omission.

For example :

100,000 people march in support of President Y in his attempts to hold
power.

This sounds like a united country.....but only if you didn't know.....

200,000 people march in protest of President Y in his attempts to hold
power.

This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often.   This is
something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call papers
and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

> - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any
> "mis-information" is an error, not a lie.

If they claim to have any knowledge then it is still a lie by virtue of
deceit.
Bush claimed he believed there were weapons of mass destruction.  Using your
definition, this was an error because he believed it to be true (unless he
lied about that); however, as he represented himself as having evidence (the
lie) this makes the error a lie also.


> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to
> many threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.  People
are  saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she is
alive.  They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
she is about as sentient as a dead person.
They also show the tape where she "responds" to her parents - yes, it was
1992 (I think) and is the same one scene shown each time.

GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err
on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was
so high in Texas.....
Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying)
but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

JCE

William M. Klein wrote:
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in 
fact"
> being made?
>
> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
>
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary)  KNOWS that
 it is
> not true, then it is a "lie"
>  - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-informat
ion"
> is an error, not a lie.
>
>    ***
>
> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to m
any
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.
>

The simple lie is an untruth.

The more complex lie is lack of truth, or lie of omission.

The really sophistocated lie is the truth told in such a way that it is
not believed.

Donald

Donald Tees wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote: 
"error in fact" 
that when 
then 
have said 
KNOWS that it is 
statement) 
"mis-information" 
applies to many 
>
> The simple lie is an untruth.
>
> The more complex lie is lack of truth, or lie of omission.
>
> The really sophistocated lie is the truth told in such a way that it
is
> not believed.
>
> Donald


I think the word deceit would be more appropriate for that. I think lie
means a simple untruth, though unravelling it may be complex, as per
some compound programming IF statements where the end result is true or
false.

Robert

jce wrote:
>
> This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often.   This is
> something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call
> papers and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

Those who do "are in error." There are vanishingly few "right wing and
centrist" papers.

> 

> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.

Admittedly the "life worth saving" is, um, convoluted. I think it's really
short-hand "the deliberate taking of an innocent life, or permitting it to
be taken, diminishes us all."

>
> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have
> to "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death
> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really
bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death
for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless IS
error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the
process.

> 
>
> JCE

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com>,
>William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote: 
>
>My memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall being taught something
>about 'the intention to deceive'.

I reckon that the concept of "mens rea" just about covers it..

--
Jeff.         Ironbridge,  Shrops,  U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James,  (1843 - 1916).

On 22-Mar-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to m
any
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

There are also positions in between the two.

When a person of authority tells me that I should trust data that I need for
 my
program, and as a result, my program gives the users bad data - does it matt
er
whether that person was lying or erroneous?   His authority came with a
responsibility to be correct, or minimally to present me with enough informa
tion
to make my own decision.

Modern society puts too much value on intent, and not enough on results.

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142v8pthc83u01@news.supernews.com...
> jce wrote: 
>
> The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really
> bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death
> for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless
> IS error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the
> process.

Not what I said.

George said he had to "err on the side of life".
My point: given the number of people on death row that have been exonerated
recently, one could argue that in the judicial system if we "erred" on the
side of life, we would abolish the death penalty.

Being on the side of death for the helpless IS error, if there is exactly
ONE helpless, and that the help actually is to the detriment of the system
as a whole.   Representative government is to govern the masses, not the
individual.  Unfortunately hard decisions are made - among them is the right
to allow for a group of people to die because it's too difficult/hard/costly
to do otherwise.

If we were to "err" on the side of life, we would abolish the right for
idiots to let kids have access to guns, drive fast cars.

Point is that what he said was probably a truth - I believe he meant it -
but it's non universal application (absence of contrary evidence) really
indicates it is just used as an ends to a means.  Therefore it's a truth,
but the absence of supporting evidence makes it a little "white lie".

JCE

"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8y90e.243187$JF2.154149@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.
People
> are  saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she
is
> alive.  They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
> she is about as sentient as a dead person.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with the Schiavo case has more to do with
the right of one member of a married couple to make medical decisions for
the other.  In this instance, I think it's twenty-five court decisions thus
far that have ruled in favor of the husband's right to make such decisions,
and against the Schindlers' (Terry Schiavo's parents) right to override his
decision.  Having a feeding tube inserted counts as "extraordinary measures
to prolong life", and the husband is in a better, and more legally tenable,
position to know Terry Schiavo's most recent thoughts on such matters than
the parents.  The next of kin makes these decisions, and the next of kin is
the spouse.

The Terry Schiavo Law of this past wend gave the Federal courts
jurisdiction on the matter; the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the
case three times so far on jurisdictional grounds; the Schindlers have vowed
to take the case to the Supreme Court to overturn the two Federal Court
rulings against them.

Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
spouse's life artificially.

-Chuck Stevens

On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal
*
> right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
> spouse's life artificially.

Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror
 SF.