8 ms·

It's great to correct their error, but I wouldn't immediately presume malicious intent.

by nostromo 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
I didn't. I simply said they were lying. Lying is now so common that malice doesn't need to be assumed.
- daeken 14y ago
  They weren't necessarily lying -- they could simply be wrong. There's a huge difference; lying requires knowledge that what you're saying is wrong.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    Lacking the diligence to fact-check yourself is the next worst thing.
    - sukuriant 14y ago
      Do you fact check every single thing you say that you heard from someone that you believe to be a reliable source?
      - stcredzero 14y ago
        No. Do you treat every thing you say like it was a widely viewed online appeal for significant amounts of money that might otherwise go to another project helping people in the 3rd world? If your answer is yes, I'd guess you are lying. If your answer is no, then your point is irrelevant.
        sukuriant 14y ago
        I believe it depends on where he got this information. If he had heard that information from a scientist in the field, then I believe that a reasonable person could believe what the scientist said. After all, that is that person's field, they deal with it all the time. That said, now that we've discovered something inaccurate, as long as that information gets back to them, what matters is what they do with the new information. If, after having been informed of what's correct, they continue to say what they had been saying, then we have a real problem. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough information to say anything. Really, my problem with your statement was calling what they did the "next worst thing". I think that's a bit extreme for what was said, given the little we know about the situation.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > I believe it depends on where he got this information. If he had heard that information from a scientist in the field ... That's a somewhat different topic, but it's relevant. Not all scientists can be relied on to deliver accurate claims. Case in point: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dutch-lord-of-the-data-fo.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dut... All Stapel's papers were published in refereed journals. It will be years, possibly decades, before Stapel's many retracted papers are no longer referenced in the scientific work of other psychologists. My point? Advertising copy must be vetted by knowledge, not appeals to authority. It only took me 15 seconds to find a source that falsified the claim about mosquitoes, and it's not my field. It can't hurt that I knew it was false at the outset. The problem with claims about mosquitoes and light is that there are a lot of dishonest vendors who lie about this, and a copy writer with insufficient training will almost certainly repeat the lies of others. I think that's what happened in this case.
        sukuriant 14y ago
        While I agree, I still believe this could have been an honest mistake including trusting someone that should know the answer.
        lutusp 14y ago
        Yes, I agree, but this won't help a company that claims technical expertise about their own product, but whose advertising copy contains such an elementary error. My use of "lying" was hyperbolic, but imagine how the investors -- or the SEC -- would react to such a "misstatement of fact" in a larger company. For me, the other issues -- deceiving the public, public safety, and due diligence -- lead me to use what might not be the best word to describe it, but lacking a more convenient term, I often use "lying" in a case like this, where the future of the company may well hinge on the initial impression this page creates.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Do you fact check every single thing you say that you heard ... You're comparing ordinary conversation with advertising copy. They aren't comparable. Advertising copy must meet a higher standard -- misrepresentations are sometimes severely punished, and such statements always hurt the company's reputation. A different standard is at work, and it should be.
        sukuriant 14y ago
        Fair enough
  - lutusp 14y ago
    Yes, this is the normal conversational test. But in advertising copy, one can be held to account for false statements, intentional or not. I always call advertising-copy misstatements "lies", just because the level of responsibility is higher and the copy writer has no excuse for endangering the company's future. As it happens, the courts agree.
    - wicknicks 14y ago
      I suppose there was a period of time that this fact was accepted. Take a look at [1], and then [2]. There is a difference of two years between the articles. There might be some out of date articles still on the web promoting that this is a true statement. Given that the main idea behind the product is to produce light without any standard energy sources, and not "a new bug repelling lamp!", I would give them the benefit of doubt. Also, the people behind the lamp are regular designers, not a big company which had all the time and energy to verify everything in the article. Note: I respect your catch. I'm not promoting such misstatements in promotion videos, but the word "lie" is farfetched. Too harsh. Especially with all the other bashing going on here. [1] http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/06/16/newsflash-leds-dont-attract-bugs http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/06/16/newsflash-leds-d... [2] http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2011/08/17/correction-led-lights-do-attract-bugs http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2011/08/17/correction-led-l...
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > ... but the word "lie" is farfetched. Too harsh. Perhaps. I just get tired of seeing so many casual "misstatements of fact" in advertising copy that can mislead the public and/or cause injury (the latter in the case of tanning beds and other technologies where public health is at risk). But I agree it's farfetched. It sprang from annoyance and the lack of a better single word.
- sophacles 14y ago
  They were wrong, factually incorrect. That is not lying. Lying implies intent to deceive. Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect. Do you shame your kids by calling them liars every time the get something wrong on their homework? Do schools kick you out for violating the code of conduct (which usually includes some language about honesty with faculty and administration) every time you get marks off on a test because of factual incorrectness? Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars, because the documentation says it will do this, but a bug means that in some cases it fails?
  - brado86 14y ago
    No, but my kids aren't asking for money based upon wrong claims, whether they know or don't. However, as adults, especially when you are pitching an idea looking for funding, you are expected to be factually correct. Being factually wrong, and then claiming ignorance isn't going to help build confidence in investors. Caveat emptor applies alright, but really, we aren't in grade school to actually let ignorance be an excuse here, especially given they are soliciting funds.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      I never said ignorance was an excuse. I never said "oh they were just wrong - go invest". Asking for money based on incorrect claims could be labeled idiocy, but it's not lying. In fact - I wasn't making any comments on the gravity light thing at all. I was simply questioning a poster's odd use of the word lying. I haven't a clue how you are able to turn that bit of semantics discussion into a defense of the product, but I respectfully suggest you turn down your paranoia - you are seeing a scam where there wasn't even a request for money/favor/work.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect. In ordinary conversation, yes, of course. But not in advertising copy. As to the latter, one cannot claim ignorance. Try your position in a court of law after someone holds you responsible for an "innocent misstatement of fact" in advertising copy that leads to sales based on a false premise, and/or that causes injury. Interestingly, about the difference between false statements and lying, this played a part in a scandal at West Point a few years ago, in which some students didn't realize the point you make about ordinary conversation -- lying must be intentional falsehood, with knowledge that the statement is false. Nevertheless, someone who writes advertising copy can't claim this protection. > Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars ... That's not the same at all. A programming bug isn't an intentional statement, whether true or false. A closer comparison would be someone speaking a word in a language he doesn't actually understand, and not realizing he's used the wrong word.

It's great to correct their error, but I wouldn't immediately presume malicious intent.

lutusp 14y ago

I didn't. I simply said they were lying. Lying is now so common that malice doesn't need to be assumed.

daeken 14y ago
They weren't necessarily lying -- they could simply be wrong. There's a huge difference; lying requires knowledge that what you're saying is wrong.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Lacking the diligence to fact-check yourself is the next worst thing.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    Do you fact check every single thing you say that you heard from someone that you believe to be a reliable source?
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      No. Do you treat every thing you say like it was a widely viewed online appeal for significant amounts of money that might otherwise go to another project helping people in the 3rd world? If your answer is yes, I'd guess you are lying. If your answer is no, then your point is irrelevant.
      - sukuriant 14y ago
        I believe it depends on where he got this information. If he had heard that information from a scientist in the field, then I believe that a reasonable person could believe what the scientist said. After all, that is that person's field, they deal with it all the time. That said, now that we've discovered something inaccurate, as long as that information gets back to them, what matters is what they do with the new information. If, after having been informed of what's correct, they continue to say what they had been saying, then we have a real problem. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough information to say anything. Really, my problem with your statement was calling what they did the "next worst thing". I think that's a bit extreme for what was said, given the little we know about the situation.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > I believe it depends on where he got this information. If he had heard that information from a scientist in the field ... That's a somewhat different topic, but it's relevant. Not all scientists can be relied on to deliver accurate claims. Case in point: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dutch-lord-of-the-data-fo.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dut... All Stapel's papers were published in refereed journals. It will be years, possibly decades, before Stapel's many retracted papers are no longer referenced in the scientific work of other psychologists. My point? Advertising copy must be vetted by knowledge, not appeals to authority. It only took me 15 seconds to find a source that falsified the claim about mosquitoes, and it's not my field. It can't hurt that I knew it was false at the outset. The problem with claims about mosquitoes and light is that there are a lot of dishonest vendors who lie about this, and a copy writer with insufficient training will almost certainly repeat the lies of others. I think that's what happened in this case.
        sukuriant 14y ago
        While I agree, I still believe this could have been an honest mistake including trusting someone that should know the answer.
        lutusp 14y ago
        Yes, I agree, but this won't help a company that claims technical expertise about their own product, but whose advertising copy contains such an elementary error. My use of "lying" was hyperbolic, but imagine how the investors -- or the SEC -- would react to such a "misstatement of fact" in a larger company. For me, the other issues -- deceiving the public, public safety, and due diligence -- lead me to use what might not be the best word to describe it, but lacking a more convenient term, I often use "lying" in a case like this, where the future of the company may well hinge on the initial impression this page creates.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Do you fact check every single thing you say that you heard ... You're comparing ordinary conversation with advertising copy. They aren't comparable. Advertising copy must meet a higher standard -- misrepresentations are sometimes severely punished, and such statements always hurt the company's reputation. A different standard is at work, and it should be.
      - sukuriant 14y ago
        Fair enough
- lutusp 14y ago
  Yes, this is the normal conversational test. But in advertising copy, one can be held to account for false statements, intentional or not. I always call advertising-copy misstatements "lies", just because the level of responsibility is higher and the copy writer has no excuse for endangering the company's future. As it happens, the courts agree.
  - wicknicks 14y ago
    I suppose there was a period of time that this fact was accepted. Take a look at [1], and then [2]. There is a difference of two years between the articles. There might be some out of date articles still on the web promoting that this is a true statement. Given that the main idea behind the product is to produce light without any standard energy sources, and not "a new bug repelling lamp!", I would give them the benefit of doubt. Also, the people behind the lamp are regular designers, not a big company which had all the time and energy to verify everything in the article. Note: I respect your catch. I'm not promoting such misstatements in promotion videos, but the word "lie" is farfetched. Too harsh. Especially with all the other bashing going on here. [1] http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/06/16/newsflash-leds-dont-attract-bugs http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2009/06/16/newsflash-leds-d... [2] http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2011/08/17/correction-led-lights-do-attract-bugs http://www.energycircle.com/blog/2011/08/17/correction-led-l...
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > ... but the word "lie" is farfetched. Too harsh. Perhaps. I just get tired of seeing so many casual "misstatements of fact" in advertising copy that can mislead the public and/or cause injury (the latter in the case of tanning beds and other technologies where public health is at risk). But I agree it's farfetched. It sprang from annoyance and the lack of a better single word.
sophacles 14y ago
They were wrong, factually incorrect. That is not lying. Lying implies intent to deceive. Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect. Do you shame your kids by calling them liars every time the get something wrong on their homework? Do schools kick you out for violating the code of conduct (which usually includes some language about honesty with faculty and administration) every time you get marks off on a test because of factual incorrectness? Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars, because the documentation says it will do this, but a bug means that in some cases it fails?
- brado86 14y ago
  No, but my kids aren't asking for money based upon wrong claims, whether they know or don't. However, as adults, especially when you are pitching an idea looking for funding, you are expected to be factually correct. Being factually wrong, and then claiming ignorance isn't going to help build confidence in investors. Caveat emptor applies alright, but really, we aren't in grade school to actually let ignorance be an excuse here, especially given they are soliciting funds.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    I never said ignorance was an excuse. I never said "oh they were just wrong - go invest". Asking for money based on incorrect claims could be labeled idiocy, but it's not lying. In fact - I wasn't making any comments on the gravity light thing at all. I was simply questioning a poster's odd use of the word lying. I haven't a clue how you are able to turn that bit of semantics discussion into a defense of the product, but I respectfully suggest you turn down your paranoia - you are seeing a scam where there wasn't even a request for money/favor/work.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Speaking factually incorrect things if you believe them to be true is honest but incorrect. In ordinary conversation, yes, of course. But not in advertising copy. As to the latter, one cannot claim ignorance. Try your position in a court of law after someone holds you responsible for an "innocent misstatement of fact" in advertising copy that leads to sales based on a false premise, and/or that causes injury. Interestingly, about the difference between false statements and lying, this played a part in a scandal at West Point a few years ago, in which some students didn't realize the point you make about ordinary conversation -- lying must be intentional falsehood, with knowledge that the statement is false. Nevertheless, someone who writes advertising copy can't claim this protection. > Are people who write code with bugs just dirty liars ... That's not the same at all. A programming bug isn't an intentional statement, whether true or false. A closer comparison would be someone speaking a word in a language he doesn't actually understand, and not realizing he's used the wrong word.