Posts by cognisonance

"A person who is not aware that he or she is being kept in a state of 'ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness' by deliberate misinformation is in serious danger. The really sad fact is that very often the person who is deceived or deluded tends to hold on to his belief in spite of strong evidence proving otherwise. Perhaps he gets so emotionally attached to his belief that he simply shuts his eyes and closes his ears to any evidence that might challenge it."(Anonymous. 9/1/2010. Guard Against Being Deceived. Watchtower, pages 10-13)

My thoughts about using this quotation to refer to JWs themselves can be found in the following thread (post 23): Quoting out of context - ever justified. Whether or not this would be quoting out of context, I do think it describes how many JWs react to attempts show them strong evidence that is contrary to some belief held.

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Hmm... giving this some more thought. I noticed this recent thread: Your thoughts on our "favourite" religion's description of cultic propaganda? where people quoted the watchtower for ironic statements about propaganda and made me think, would it be considered "quoting out of context" if I took an article from the Watchtower and quoted from it to support a position/conclusion that I hold, one with which they couldn't agree? Consider the following example I just made up:

Why cults can be dangerous is they can cause a person to become deceived to believe something that isn't true, be left ignorant about sufficent evidence that challanges the beleif, and condition them to refuse to listen to such evidence if presented. Many cults seek to control the information their memebers have access to and discourage, or even punish, members from doing independent research, questioning the groups beliefs, or listening to those critical of the group, especially former members. The belief in question may itself be emotionally appealing or comforting. People may be unaware that they are even being deceived and controlled. For example, even Jehovah's Witnesses, whom many ex-members feel use such thought reform techniques to decieve members to hold to certain beliefs, ironically recognize the problem with being deceived. Of course, the group denies that this applies to them as they don't feel they are a cult (what group ever agrees with the assertion of being a cult), and that this only applies to all other religions because those organizatons are being controlled by what they view is the ultimate deceiver Satan. Nonetheless, JWs acknowledge:

"A person who is not aware that he or she is being kept in a state of 'ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness' by deliberate misinformation is in serious danger. The really sad fact is that very often the person who is deceived or deluded tends to hold on to his belief in spite of strong evidence proving otherwise. Perhaps he gets so emotionally attached to his belief that he simply shuts his eyes and closes his ears to any evidence that might challenge it." (Anonymous. 9/1/2010. Guard Against Being Deceived. Watchtower, pages 10-13)

So doing this I certainly have a situation where I would be quoting them to support my position, one which they can't agree with (Just like Eldredge couldn't agree with the Watchtower's conclusion about macroevolution not being documented in the fossil record). Yet, I have been fully honest about the quotation and the context of it (even more explict than they have been with the Eldredge quote). Two of my premises as well as two of theirs are the same - that deception can happen with a person being unaware and they may hold to such a belief becuase it is also emotionally appealing (liken this to the Eldredge quote's premise that the fossil record doesn't show gradualism for many species, note however, that the Watchtower's premise here is subtely different, which wherein lies the problem I think). When pertaining to the conclusion of why being deceived is dangerous. The "danger" of being decieved in the JWs view is being under control of Satan, where an outsider's "danger" would be the use of thought reform techniques (liken this to the Eldrege quote's conclusion that macro-evolutionary change happens in short periods of time vs. the Watchtower's conclusion that macro-evolutionary change doesn't happen at all).

I see similarities here. I could see how a JW (or netural party even) might object to the quote by saying: "JWs are talking about deliberate misinformation, they try their best to be honest and would not deliberately misinform." I could also see how they might want to object "You are making a straw-man argument from the quote, it's context was talking about Satan misleading people via religion, and you are talking about cults misleading people, that isn't the same thing."

Thinking about Marvin's post makes me have mixed thoughts. Is this made up example "quoting out of context"? Or is it simply using the irony of their viewpoint to support how people can be deceived and not be aware? It seems to me that there is some "grey area" with using quotations. Some may be blatantly misrepresentative or subtly misleading. Some may be from author's in full argeement with one's conclusion. Other authorities quoted may not agree with one's conclusion, but nonethless have their quotes honestly portrayed and used in a sound argument (or not) to come to a different conclusion (either more likely or less likely to be true). I've already said why I think the Eldredge quote is not being used in a sound argument (due to problems with original permises, and perhaps not enough honest portrayal of Eldredge's findings). But this deception example, is the argument (primises valid, conclusion plausable/probable) a sound one?

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Marvin,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You've given me much to think about.

To quote a particular finding of a given authority who otherwise disagrees with your ultimate conclusions is not quoting out of context... In a logical argument a given premise can lead to alternate conclusions based on other premises used in a different argument. Hence a particular finding of a given authority can support that authority’s conclusion and your divergent conclusion if that finding (premise) is combined with different premises in a sound argument... When alternate conflicting conclusion are achievable then the analysis shifts to close examination of each premise in each argument to determine its veracity. Sometimes alternate conclusions cannot be eliminated as possibilities. In this case analysis shifts to the probabilities of each premise used in each argument to see if one conclusion is more likely than another.

I can see diagnostic medicine being one example. Patient has symptoms x, y, and z. Those findings (premises) seem to indicate that the patient could have diseases a, b, or c (conclusions). Further tests bring more findings (additional premises) and other arguments are formed as to what is happening, with more conclusions being obtained, while others are ruled out. Then we go to which disease (conclusion) is more likely. Kind of like an episode of House. Is this what you mean?

When it comes to the Eldrege quote example, I can see how they might be trying to do this, perhaps. I think we have multiple initial premises going on with the Watchtower argument.

Initial Premises:

Macroevolution is defined by refering to Darwin's view that big changes happen over vast periods of time via extermely slight modifications
Macroevolution rests on three main asumptions: (a) mutations, (b) natural section, (c) fossil record documenting it
Fossil record documentation should show gradual accumulation of change in species

Eldredge quote to introduce another premise:

The fossil record does not show over vast periods of time that exteremely slight modifications create big changes (attempt to invalidate inital primises [1], [2c], and [3].

Conclusion:

WTBS now concludes that the initial premises' veracity are now in question and conclude that macroevolution is a myth.

So my question then is, did they quote out of context here, or are they simply trying to, as you put it, "quote a particular finding of a given authority who otherwise disagrees with your ultimate conclusions is not quoting out of context?"

When Watchtower writers quote particular findings by outside authorities and then use those findings as premise in an argument of Watchtower’s construction the question of honest portrayal boils down to two things. 1) Is the finding presented as the outside author asserts it and 2) is Watchtower’s argument otherwise sound (meaning other premises are valid and the argument form is logical).

When looking at the above breakdown, my answer (which I could be wrong as I didn't study logic in high school or college) to those two questions you mention are as follows:

Is the finding presented as the outside author asserts it?Technically, yes. It states what he said without changing the meaning. The WBTS does qualify what he said refers to "long periods of time" there would be "little or no change," and stated he believes in evolution. This should imply that the author thinks something evolutionary must then happen in short periods of time (but that likely won't be obvious unless the reader reads between the lines or has some education about evolution). Additionally, his quote also says, "most species" (which is not the same as all). Thus, is this enough for honest portrayal? I'd be more comfortable answering this an enthusiastic yes if they would have been more explict in presenting his views, something like the following (with new words highlighted):
- "Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist that claims a lot of evolutionary change takes place in relatively short periods of time (hundreds or thousands of years), states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, 'little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.' Rather than concluding evolutionary changes take place in short periods of time, we suggest that the fossil record's long periods of stability indicates that macroevolution doesn't happen at all."
Is Watchtower's argument otherwise sound (meaning other premises are valid and the argument form is logical)? It's clear from inital premise [3], that the concept of macroevolution is synomous (or at least indelibly linked) with gradualism from the Watchtower's perspective. As such, I would say the intial premises [1] and [3] are not valid from the beginning because it is not in line with the evidence that exists today (i.e. gradualism seems to be documented in the fossil record, as also seems to be the case for punctuated equilibrium as well, and even with gradualism, circumstances that create fossils are rare and we shouldn't expect that every step of the way in trasitions is preserved). Thus the intial premises are misrepresented and insufficiant to come to a conclusion.

http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

I read your blog on Transfusing, Eating — Misrepresentation. Would you say this was quoting out of context or dishonet portrayal with invalid premises? Both? Is there a difference between the two?

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Isacc, you are stating quite well how I feel about this. I also would like to comment on something you said.

Also, putting the burden on the reader to fact you just isn't good enough. You're the author. Fact checking your work is your job, not mine. If I need to go to a library to check your facts and discover that your book isn't half as convincing as it seems, then you haven't done your job. Also, again, that's really underhanded. You gave me a presentation that made your work seem more convincing than it really was and used this as a lame excuse in case you got caught. I won't trust anything else you write ever again.

The 2011 Yearbook had a section on "Tracing all things with accuracy" where it boasted about how much attention is given to using secular information in an accurate way, making sure that nothing unsubstantiated or untrue is used (i.e. they won't use Wikipedia, and will even cross-check what are often viewed as reputable sources). They will even go to the means of calling an original researcher to verify things as shown in the following excerpt of that section:

Take, for example, the following statement in the brochure Was Life Created? about spider silk being one of the strongest materials on earth: “If enlarged to the size of a football field, a web of dragline silk 0.4 inch thick with strands 1.6 inches apart could stop a jumbo jet in flight!” Although the source for this statement was a reputable science magazine, it was not the original source, and the original source was ambiguous. Therefore, it became necessary to contact the researcher who made the original statement and check how he reached this conclusion. Our researchers also had to find the formula and the information needed to calculate for themselves what impact a jumbo jet might have on a spiderweb the size of a football field. Many hours of research and meticulous calculations eventually confirmed the accuracy of this astounding piece of information.

All this to help JWs think that the information the WBTS prints is nearly perfect, and any mistakes will be few, and the ones that do get exposed will be abandoned in further publications. This later point they site an unsubstantiated Isacc Newton quote as an example, engendering this sense that any further mistakes will humbly be acknowledged that might exist today. Now, I realize they aren't talking about anytimes they have quoted out of context (and likely for good reason), but the average JW is going to have the sense of trust in the WBTS publications, that they are thoughly vetted and as accurate as possilbe.

I refered to Carl Sagan's define misquote at the beginning of this thread and didn't get into it much. That quote I believe was in both the Creation book and Reasoning book. Here's the quote again:

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.

The full quote and context is as follows (you can read it on google books here - note the underlined quote and the missing context which I highlighted for emphesis):

Many people were scandalized – some still are – at both ideas, evolution and natural selection. Our ancestors looked at the elegance of life on Earth, at how appropriate the structures of organisms are to their functions, and saw evidence for a Great Designer. The simplest one-celled organism is a far more complex machine than the finest pocket watch. And yet pocket watches do not spontaneously self-assemble, or evolve, in slow stages, on their own, from say, grandfather clocks. A watch implies a watch-maker. There seemed to be no way in which atoms and molecules could somehow spontaneously fall together to create organisms of such awesome complexity and subtle functioning as grace every region of the earth. That each living thing was specially designed that one species did not become another, were notions perfectly consistent with what our ancestors with their limited historical records knew about life. The idea that every organism was meticulously constructed by a Great Designer provided a significance and order to nature and an importance to human beings that we crave still. A Designer is a natural, appealing and altogether human explanation of the biological word. But, as Darwin and Wallace showed, there is another way, equally appealing, equally human, and far more compelling: natural selection, which makes the music of life more beautiful as the aeons pass.

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).

Okay so the quote is used in the Reasoning book under the heading, What does the fossil record actually show? Is Carl Sagan backing the idea that the fossil record supports special creation by God, and not evolution? It’s rather obvious he is saying the opposite in a quite sarcastic way. So why then use his quote to uphold the idea that the fossil record does not support evolution? This is blatantly a mistake. So has this inaccuracy been acknowledged, or at the very least, it's use abandoned?

It certainly hasn't been acknowledged to JWs that this was an incorrect quote of Carl Sagan. They did appear to stop using this quote after the 80s, as it doesn't show up in publications since then (AFAIK). However, we are encouraged to use the reasoning book still in ministry (there was a part a couple weeks ago on the service meeting about how to use it with people that believe in revelation and Sagan's quote is in that section). A recent watchtower (w09 9/1 pp. 12-15) refers readers to the Creation (and Creator) books. So while Sagan's blantant misquote was never reused later (which seems to suggest to me that the WBTS knows it was misleading), two publications that utilize it are still current, active publications used by JWs for the purposes of recruitment and keeping existing members from doubting evoultion.

Sidenote: Speaking of that meeting, The brother handling the part started his introduction with the something akin to the following:

For many of us science may not be our strong point, or even something that interests us. Nonetheless, in the ministry, and in school, we will encounter people that do believe in evolution. He went on to say that it is important to draw common ground to understand exactly what the person believes, because after all there are so many different versions of what evolution is, for example some believe in theistic evolution, others in Darwinian evolution. If we can’t understand their background and then adapt, they might view us as being biased, or be biased against us even.

After spending just a short time going over some responses in very limited fashion (this was just a 10 minute part including a demo) he encouraged everyone to not memorize these responses, but to use your own words. What should we do if a person wants to talk more in-depth? Well, don’t be shy, use the material referenced in the reasoning book, open it up and share it with the person.

This part really frustrated me and makes me upset! First of all, if someone isn’t interested in science and doesn’t really know much about it, how can they tell someone else that a particular field of study in science is, well, not scientific, or the fossil record doesn't support evolution, etc?

One time I tried the pull-out-the-reasoning-book approach when a householder wanted to get into the details about some subject. When I did this he stopped me and said, "I want to know what you think, not what one of your books has to say." That reply made a lot of sense to me. It certainly didn’t sound open-minded and reasonable to answer with something along the lines of, “well my thoughts are not going to be any different than what is found in this book.” I didn’t give that answer, even though that pretty much is what I thought at the time. I couldn’t give that answer because it sounded so, well, unreasonable, even cult-like, to an outsider. Now though, I can't say anymore that my thoughts are the same as those in the Reasoning book. Yet, I'm sure many JWs today feel like I did in the past. I find it very poignant that many are being mislead about certain things, evolution being one of them.

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Not sure if you got a proper welcome to the board or not, but.. Welcome! I think you will be a valuable member here.

Thanks. And yes you are the first to welcome me.

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Researching further I come to: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html. It makes the following point:

In some sense, all quotation is out of context, but by a 'contextomy', I refer only to those quotes whose meaning is changed by a loss of context. The fallacy of Quoting Out of Context is committed when a contextomy is offered as evidence in an argument. Such fallacious quoting can take two distinct forms:
1. Straw Man...
2. Appeal to Authority...

In this case, would the example in the previous post about "Authority A" represent a loss of context to the quotation? That lost context is the explicit statement that the evidence doesn't show a global flood occured at the time many estimate Noah's flood occured.

In the Eldredge example, wouldn't the missing context be the highlighted information (underlined you'll find the quote):

Here is another pattern that has great potential significance for understanding how the evolutionary process works – the subject of the next chapter: during the long intervals of time between environmental disruption, extinction, and the rapid subsequent development of new species, ecosystems and species themselves are remarkably stable. Little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species during these periods of quiescence – a phenomenon not greatly remarked on by biologists until my colleague Stephan Jay Gould and I discussed it in the 1970s calling it stasis.

So the quotation's context is talking about two senerios the long stasis, or periods of quiesence (inactivity), and the short periods of environmental disruption, extinction, and rapid speciation. This later period, which completes the pattern the auther is talking about is the "lost context" (the closest thing we have to this missing context is in the next paragraph of the JW brochure, but in a way that one is led to think that new forms of life suddenly came about in a way consistant with the idea of special creation, which it isn't). Without more context to the quote, or at least more explicit explaination of punctuated equilibrium, it is easy to use this quote to appeal to authority (see a scientist said this), and form a straw man (see he shows why the fossil record doesn't document macro-evolution). At least this is my take, though I'm leaving room for being wrong here. Anyone care to comment?

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Authority A :"The evidence does not support the suposition that a global flood engulfed the earth 4500 years ago. However we can prove localised flooding in the fertile crescent was a common occurence during that time period."

This is just about OK: Authority A states that evidence shows flooding happened in the Bible regions during the time period we estimate the global flood to have happened.

Hmm.. This one does seem it might be okay. It only says that flooding happened, not global flooding. But does that mean it is not qouting out of context, especially if we put this "quote" into a different context that it never intended to support to make this more like the Eldredge quote:

Myth. A global flood never occured

Fact. Authority A states that evidence shows flooding happened in the Bible regions during the time period we estimate the global flood to have happened.

To date, scientists worldwide have studied geology extensively. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed geological record can show that massive floods have happened and even when the flooding occured.

So if we don't have a quote out of context here (and I'm still wondering if we do), then we at least have a Non sequitur, as the argument does not follow from the primise. That quote and associated argument does not prove a global flood happened, even though it would be used to do just that.

So is the Eldredge quotation quoting out of context, or is it a Non sequitur? Now you have me wondering...

(Either way it still is misleading and intellectually dishonet, is it not?)

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

SlimFatBoy:

Quoting someone in a way that makes them seem to be saying something they never intended is wrong.

Quoting someone you disagree with to show that even they agree on some minor point is fine as long as that is clear.

"Even so and so agrees that this is not a good basis for believing the position that he himself supports".

Thanks for point this out. I agree that is a case where quoting someone (i.e. acutally using someones words against him) can be appropriate. Thanks for providing an example!

Using a modified version of your quoted example, I think the following summary is what the average reader (even the author(s) perhaps) of the new brochure think they are doing with the quote:

"Even Eldredge agrees that the fossil evidence is not a good basis for believing macro-evolution happens, although he believes in macro-evolution."

When what acutally is the case when researching what he actually said and believes:

"Even Eldredge agrees that the fossil evidence is not a good basis for believing all evolutionary change was consistantly gradual, although he believes in macro-evolution."

They are starting with a position Eldredge is indeed supporting (the latter example), and altering the second half of the argument so that his original postion is changed to look like the one the JW writer(s) have. This is what makes it a strawman argument. This is why it is misleading. Am I wrong?

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

cognisonance

Here is what I think. As long as there is a disclaimer, as long as sources are given, then even if the conclusion the one using the quote/s arrives at is incorrect, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is an individual's duty to examine for theirself the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion.

Yes it shouldn't be an issue and people shoud examine for themselves the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion. However, how many JWs do that? If I were to go to the elders with something like this what would happen?:

Br. Elder, in the newest brochures about evoltuion vs. creation, one of them says the following:

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” 28

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge , a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.” 29

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

Well, I looked up the reference from Eldredge and he wasn't saying the the fossil record documenting macroevolutionary change is a myth. Eldrege was not contesting Darwinism, or that evolution happened. In fact his own hypothesis (punctuated equilibrium) builds upon evolutinary theory, it doesn't tear it down. He was simply disagreeing with the pace of evolution. He knows that macroevolution happened and that many transitional fossils exist in the fossil record, just like the National Academy of Science referenced said as well. He's just saying that instead of these changes comming about gradually at a consistant pace, that for long periods of time most species remain stabe, but once environmental, ecological, or other stressing situations put pressure on a species they begin to change more rapidly.

So instead of perhaps millions of years of gradual consistant-pace changes, it might be hundreds or thousands of years during the punctuated times instead. It's that latter time period that is said to have the rapid or sudden appearance of new species. Short by geological/evolutionary perspects, still long from a human point of view though. Additionally, such sudden time periods is along the lines of a single-celled protists changing in it's size of it's shell, being isolated from other populations, and now being considered a different species (UC Berkely's website has a great explaination about this, and it mentions that it doesn't have to be an either or situation as the fossil record supports punctuated in some species and graudualism in others). The type of change required to go from a fish to an amphibian (i.e. macroevolution), would take longer. How many transitional species were there and how quickly the changes happened is what the controversy is about.

For example, the transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, such as Tiktaalik is dated to, I think, 375 million years ago, right between fish that didn't exibit transitional features 385 million years ago, and the first amphibians at around 365 million years ago. There's about a 20 million year window where such a change occured. In this time period we have other transitional fish/amphibian fossils. The graduism school of thought would be that the changes happened at a more or less gradual pace through many decended species similar to the transition fossils we find today, and that there are many more that didn't get preserved in the fossil record to fill in the "gaps." Those favoring punctuated equilibrium would think that perhaps there were not as many decended species in the transition, and that changes happened more rapidly in punctuated periods. As we find more fish/amphibian transitional fossils (and we are), it appears that gradualism can be a good explaination for the fish -> amphibian transition, in other species the punctuated equilibrium model might fit better (i.e. the single-celled protists mentioned before).

In either case, the fossil record does indeed contain transitional fossils between fish and amphibians (as well as other classes). The controversy amoung scientists isn't that such a transition happened or not, but just simply is about the rate of change. So all this being the case, why are the brochure's authors using Eldredge to support their claim that macroevolution is a myth? Eldrege and others are not making any such claim. The fossil record is not showing macroevolution to be untrue either.

Further, remember that article in the awake from 2003 that encourages us to not quote the bible out of context? It gives the following example:

A THEATER critic for a newspaper once went to see a certain play. He did not much like it and afterward wrote: “If triviality is what you happen to be wanting, by all means go and see this play.” Later, the promoters of the play published an advertisement that featured a quote from the critic’s review. The quote was: “By all means go and see this play”! The advertisement accurately quoted the critic’s words, but it lifted them out of context and thus grossly misrepresented his view.

That example illustrates how important the context of a statement can be. Taking words out of context can distort their meaning, just as Satan distorted the meaning of Scripture when he tried to mislead Jesus.

Now if the promoters of the play put a footnote to the quote refering to the source, does that make what they did no longer misleading? If they added to the footnote that the critic did not like the play, would that make it no longer misleading? Cherry picking words (or parts of a concept) and using them in a way that distorts their meaning, is using a quote out of context. What is being done in the new brochure isn't much different than the play example. True it isn't changing the meaning of the original statement to mean the opposite, but it is distorting it's meaning to make it sound like macroevolution in the fossil record is not documented, that transitional fossils don't show macroevotionary change.

So in conclusion, yes it shouldn't matter, but given the target audience of the brochure, again how many JWs are acutally going to dig deep like this? What's more likely to happen?

Read the brochure and take it at face value and say, hmm... Yep! I guess the fossil record doesn't support evolution after all, see we even "caught" a staunch evolutionist admiting that it doesn't support it.
Dig deep and look up all the references. Pay close attention to make sure no straw-man arguments are being used. Then, independetly verify the concepts (educate oneself about evolution) from other sources so as to use one's critical thinking skills to come to a well informed conclusion.