[betty boop]

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones **, techniques of classical rhetoric.

Then it follows that some neo-Darwinists are apologists.

BTW, Plato gives Socrates' "apology" -- in the sense of "taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations" -- in its classical form.

However, Wikipedia -- not surprisingly -- gets it wrong when they say that "'being deceptive', or 'whitewashing' their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones **," are "the techniques of classical rhetoric." Nothing could be farther from the truth: They are the techniques of sophism, against which Socrates and Plato waged unremitting war -- in defense of classical reason. Indeed, it would be unexceptional to state that the reason the "gadfly" Socrates was accused of "impiety" and "contributing to the delinquency of minors" (charges that convicted him and led to his death) was because he offended too many sophists and their politically ambitious followers....

Hello! and greetings to Virginia-American and longshadow, your fellow "brothers in pondscum." Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you all so very much for this fascinating sidebar!

It is interesting that so many science threads end up with sidebars on semantics. As in so many other cases, the term "apologist" can be delivered academically or pejoratively.

However, Wikipedia -- not surprisingly -- gets it wrong when they say that "'being deceptive', or 'whitewashing' their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones **," are "the techniques of classical rhetoric." Nothing could be farther from the truth: They are the techniques of sophism, against which Socrates and Plato waged unremitting war -- in defense of classical reason.

Wikipedia has itself been highly discredited on this forum for being biased which I gather would include "being deceptive" or "whitewashing" their causes or "selective perception." LOLOL!

[Kevmo]

Then it follows that some neo-Darwinists are apologists.
***Yup, and you stole the wind from my sails — that’s where I was headed. I was going to drop that one on Coyoteman, but he of course could see it coming from a mile away. That’s probably why he didn’t want to answer the yes or no question.