Barbara and David Mikkelson run the site. Years ago, I assumed Snopes was run by a sizeable organization and I sent them an e-mail asking if they had any available internships. She wrote me back and said yes, but only if I wanted to sleep on their floor. 
Good news, it looks like Dr Lachlan does have access to email, and I just got his response.
His reply was simply “The quote is utterly false.”
I thanked him for his time, and suggested that that FAQ item be changed to state this clearly and plainly, in the first sentence.
I consider this resolved. This man’s FAQ text, which seemed to imply the quote was excusable because of the time, was what had me leaning towards it being genuine. It seems, as I postulated before, that Dr. Lachlan “wrote some crappy text”.
Ignorance is fought! The day is saved! Thanks to… the Moderator… girls…
You know, actual ignorance being fought might be worthy of a SDSAB article for Tom.
Or RevTim… look, brain has escaped. Come back brain, I have coffee.
Ahem. The point being, if we get the FAQ changed appropriately (And check all the quotes listed, just to be sure), it’s a textbook perfect example of how the Dope is supposed to work. Thanks, Dutchman, for bringing this up.
I was thinking the same thing the last time I was in this thread. Good work, everybody.
Well, darn, before I got to the end of the thread I requested a 1953 German edition from the library; I’ll skim through it anyway tomorrow. I’m interested to see what terms he’s using anyway in German, or what segments may have been ‘creatively’ interpreted.
No harm in that. It’s a good idea. Lachlan seems to be a poor communicator anyway. Even his e-mail reply isn’t well worded. It could mean that the quote, while accurately rendered, makes false assertions about Africans. I doubt that that’s what he meant, but still.
Dagnabbit Lib, I was sure this was resolved but you planted a seed of doubt in my mind. I sent another reply to Lachlan asking for clarification. He responded “It is utterly inconceivable that Albert Schweitzer ever said or wrote that.” A highly pessimistic interpretation of this statement might find ways to the postulate it was still written but Lachlan simply still found it “inconceivable” but true, but I want to let this one stand.
It seems to me like this has been completely resolved. No one has been able to cite a source for that quote and parsing Lachlan’s denial just seems silly. Unless someone can actually cite a source for the quote then decency dictates that we assume he didn’t say it. Let’s not forget where the burden of proof lies here.
It shifted to us when the Whitists cited their source. We’re just attempting to pin it down. Tom read the book they cited and did not find the quote. That shifted it back to the Whitists. But then came the suggestion that it could have been found in an older version. Lots of times, books have their introductions or prefaces rewritten. So we inquired of Dr. Lachlan. But his response was somewhat coy, and frankly so is his new one. We aren’t interested in what Dr. Lachlan can conceive; we’re interested in whether Schweitzer every wrote that paragraph.
Capaybara has offered the perfect solution. He has obtained and is reading the original text in its original language. His findings will convince me completely. Meanwhile, I’m only somewhere between 90% and 95% convinced. Good enough for government work, perhaps, but this is one of those rare, honest to goodness Straight Dope projects that’s true to the mission statement. We have the opportunity to be 100% sure. Let’s not sit on our laurels until the race is finished.
No, the burden did not shift because no one has proven the quote ever existed in the book in question. There is still no proof that Schweizer said or wrote anything like that. Lachlan’s responses have not been remotely coy. They’ve been unequivocal denials. No one has been able to cite a genuine source for the quote and none of the attempted cites reference an original version of Shweizer’s book, they cite “1961” and “shortly before his death.”
Until somebody can prove he said it (which I’m confident they won’t) then it’s indecent and defamatory to keep demanding greater and greater levels of disproof.
DtC, I don’t see your concern. Is there a problem with trying to nail this down further? Are you being put out in any way because further research is being invested?
Clearly we have persuaded you, (and based on my reading of the last chapter of thje book, I wouild say that the spurious quote is completely at odds with Schweitzer’s views), but we’re just digging up information, not trying to fight off swarms of posts by S F patrons.
If the continuied pursuit bothers you, don’t open the thread.
If you ever go with a new handle on this board, can I suggest Literal? I’ve got nothing against looking into this further, and I’m glad someone is reading the book in the original German. That’s where the certainty is.
Still, you’re squinting too hard at this statement. “It is utterly inconceivable that Albert Schweitzer ever said or wrote that” is not coy. If we are dealing with someone intimately familiar with Schweitzer’s writing - and if he’s not, that would be the only place I can find room for doubt here - we’re talking about a credible and pretty strongly worded opinion from experience. If you were talking to me and I said is was “inconveivable,” coming from the point of view of someone who knows next to nothing about Schweitzer, then there would be more wiggle room.
I strongly doubt he was saying “Schweitzer didn’t say this because I can’t imagine it.” He was saying “The statement is so far out of line with Schweitzer’s views that it’s impossible to imagine him actually saying it.”
Like I said, that’s what I think he said too. But he could use some serious remedial lessons for the sake of his expository skills.
Did you ever read that?
You are questioning someone who hasn’t posted since July of 2020.