Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quote Mining, false witness for the gullible and willfully ignorant
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(7)
Message 1 of 49 (814314)
07-06-2017 8:42 AM


Some creationists love quotes from authorities that seem to discredit science in general or evolution in specific. The gullible ones see them on their favorites creationist sites and repeat them because they seem to support their worldview.
But quote mining is false witness, the full context betrays them.
quote:
One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].
For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, ""which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored"" [4].
In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent. As noted by Dana Tweedy, one of the responders:
Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning. The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations [were] not admitting that "a portion of evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a "lie of omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and clarifies the person's position. Those quotes you stole are classic lies of omission. They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood . . . [5]
Another responder, John Wilkins, continued in the same vein:
(I)t is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.
Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation. [6]
Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. (Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.
In addition, some of the "quotes" were outright fabrications; others were actually taken from creationist authors or other people who doubted, rather than supported, evolution (making their designation as "evolutionists" itself disingenuous); several were expressions of opinion by people with no expertise in fields related to evolution and many were so old as to be of no use at all in understanding present day evolutionary theory. The few quotes that can be said to be both in context and from knowledgeable proponents of evolution [7] invariably discuss limited technical subjects which may appear, to those unfamiliar with the details of modern biology, to contradict evolutionary theory but, in fact, do not.
Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists [8] and all eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.
Color added for emphasis: it is the science that speaks, not people, whatever the quote says.
This is difficult to get through to many creationists because they are notably authoritarians who are raised (or genetically predisposed) to believe authorities over evidence.
This applies as much to republicans as it does to creationists, hence our current buffoon of a president celebrated for his authoritarian statements, regardless of factual voids and contradictions or any relationship to reality.
Many creationist in fact don't seem to even know what evidence is. Math is not evidence of reality, logic is not evidence of reality. Rocks and fossils and radioactive isotopes are examples of evidence of reality.
And this is frequently due to strict conservative religious upbringing coupled with a lack of scientific experience and training or even training in open-mindedness and true skepticism.
Quote mines are lies.
Repeating them is lying, even if it is through ignorance and biased thinking.
So this is a resource to check your "quotes" for veracity and reality:
So the honest creationist should read through this list, be ashamed if they have used any of them, and have their skeptical hackles (if they have any) raised when they see similar quotes ... and question the source, because again:
quote:
Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists [8] and all eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.
It is the science that speaks, not people, whatever the quote says.
/rant
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by marc9000, posted 07-08-2017 8:51 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 49 (814381)
07-08-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by marc9000
07-08-2017 8:51 AM


It's a good laugh
Here's a good read {laugh} for you
There, fixed it for you.
You do realize that this site is a laughing stock for rational people that choose fact over fiction, yes?
This excerpt you cite is so funny.
Always good for a laugh.
Thanks.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by marc9000, posted 07-08-2017 8:51 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by marc9000, posted 07-08-2017 10:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 13 of 49 (814388)
07-08-2017 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
07-08-2017 8:19 PM


Re: Trump made calculated comments about Mexicans and it was deliberately sweeping.
She never had high ground.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 07-08-2017 8:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2017 2:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 20 of 49 (814399)
07-09-2017 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by marc9000
07-08-2017 10:48 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
Certainly you found some parts of it funnier than others, right? How about this line, from that link;
quote:
They have tried to make quote mining a pejorative term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries.
That was a real knee-slapper, wasn't it?
It was marc, in fact it was that totally logic free statement uttered as if it were the death toll on the term that really set me howling ... with laughter. The dictionaries don't define every two word combination.
Probably the biggest quote mine in U.S. history happened about 70 years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court took a quote mine from a Thomas Jefferson letter to a religious denomination that was intended to agree with them concerning the importance of religious liberty. The "separation of church and state" quote mine was used to change/lessen traditional Judeo Christian involvement in government. The phrase was taken completely out of the context it was intended for well over a hundred years earlier.
And yet the context of his quote supports the decision made. If you disagree then post the letter and show it. Then we can howl ... with laughter ... at your twisted interpretation.
You see quote mining doesn't mean just taking a quote from some text -- it means taking a quote out of context so that it looks like the opposite of what was said. That was not the case with Jefferson's letter.
I don't deny that some creationists sometimes do cross the line when quoting scientists, but if you want to try to convince people that many Democrats / atheists, whether they're militant atheist scientists or militant Trump haters, don't do the same and probably worse, you're not going to succeed.
Agreed -- all malicious use of quotes out of context are evil, they mislead and play false witness to the reality. It's just funny when the purported morally superior lot of purported christian types lie through their teeth with them.
I think you'd do well to drop it, but I hope you don't. Your side hasn't won an election in a while, you and the mainstream news media need to keep right on doing what you're doing to keep it that way.
The difference is that you don't know that you lost as well. The republicans only represent corporations, they only toss you bones to get elected and then don't come through with the goods promised. Such gullible suckers.
How's your healthcare? Really?
But then, if you believe in a young earth, then you already live in a fantasy world.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by marc9000, posted 07-08-2017 10:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by marc9000, posted 07-09-2017 1:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 30 of 49 (814426)
07-09-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by marc9000
07-09-2017 1:49 PM


Re: It's a good laugh
Since you NEVER concede points, ...
Wrong. I have admitted errors and conceded many points in the past, some to Faith for example.
"Open compound words" are two words with a space between them, but when they are read together a new meaning is formed. Examples; ... You'll find all these at Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. But you won't find "quote mine" there.
And you will note that my response was:
... The dictionaries don't define every two word combination.
So funny. I bet they don't define "gullible fool" either.
... Still laughing? ...
Haven't you noticed that everyone (that replied) is laughing at you on this?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by marc9000, posted 07-09-2017 1:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 07-09-2017 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 49 (814439)
07-09-2017 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by marc9000
07-09-2017 8:03 PM


Re: It's a good laugh LOLZ again
So carry on with more detail about creationist quote mining as though liberals never do it. ...
And I've never said nobody else does it, that must be part of your fantasy.
You're a long-time poster here who's loved and adored. You're excellent at starting and maintaining evolutionist love-fests. That's all this forum is about - not sure if it's been that way since its beginning or not. There can never be any meaningful, adult discussion here concerning creation vs evolution. It's gotten so I can't say 2 words without having 5 trolls immediately on my back. Most here would say that's because my views are so radical, but they don't get out much.
And half the time I can't tell if you're a poe or a real creationist, oh the irony, because virtually 99% of what you say is so far outside the scope of reality.
Can you tell me how you justify the age of the earth? Just curious ... (*)
That was your edited response, yes. Your original that I got in the email notification read like this;
And if you look at my posts I often edit just after posting to make my meaning clearer and more honest ... what do you do when you look at a post and think it isn't quite correct?
So funny. I bet they don't define "gullible fool" either.
Hmm, name calling from the one the trolls declare the winner.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (too easy). Thanks for the entertainment.
Enjoy
(*) -- out of curiosity I checked the posting log for all the current and past versions of my "Age of the Earth" threads and out of:
  1. Age Correlations and an Old Earth Version 1 number 1 (297 posts)
  2. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. Version 1 number 2 (306 posts)
  3. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) (357 posts)
  4. Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 (currently 513 posts)
and the current version (26 posts) ... for a total of 1499 posts on the topic ... you have said squat.
Seems you prefer to nitpick from the sidelines than actually participate.
** oh by the way, that's an edit after posting to add material ... oops I did it again ...
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 07-09-2017 8:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 07-11-2017 11:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 49 (814727)
07-12-2017 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by marc9000
07-11-2017 11:37 AM


Mostly off-topic say Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden (use "peek" to see). Also "Off-Topic" banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 07-11-2017 11:37 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 07-12-2017 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 42 of 49 (814827)
07-13-2017 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by marc9000
07-12-2017 8:07 PM


Re: It's a good laugh LOLZ again, so marc9000 whines to admin
Okay, now you can acknowledge that your issue about quote-mining not being in the dictionary is resolved,
(a) because contextomy is in the dictionary
(b) encyclopedias, including creationwiki.org, define it: Quote mining - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
quote:
Quote mining is the practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as a logical fallacy known as "contextomy". It is a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."[1]
(c) because we all know what it means, being able users of the internet, and the internet defines it, and last but not least ...
(d) the issue of creationist quote mining is not rebutted by your silly argument ... and that IS the issue of this topic. Not other people quote mining politicians or other red herrings you want to throw into the room to deflect from the issue of creationists using quote mines to spread false information, falsehoods that people claiming some moral high ground via their religious beliefs should not be spreading ... lies and bearing false witness.
The joke is still on you because you still lose. You have not rebutted creationist use of quote-mines nor shown it is an uncommon creationist practice. You're just a nit-picker and not a debater. A troll.
Or you could, as I have suggested, go to the appropriate thread to answer
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : oh look I edited again ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by marc9000, posted 07-12-2017 8:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by vimesey, posted 07-13-2017 7:20 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 49 (814980)
07-14-2017 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Rrhain
07-14-2017 4:14 AM


politics and quote mines and implications for creationists
NoNukes writes:
quote:
Of course, Hillary later comes along and makes that "basket of deplorables" comment that kicks way all possible moral high ground.
At the risk of running away from the topic: Exactly what was wrong or "immoral" about her statement?
Curiously I think we can all agree that virtually all political campaigns use quote mines against their opponents. It is a political ploy to make the opponent look bad.
To bring this back to the topic, this certainly is "Quote Mining, false witness for the gullible and willfully ignorant" ... with the purpose of getting votes, ie political support.
What it shows about creationist usage, then, is that using quote mines in debates about science is waging a political campaign rather than a campaign based on facts and evidence.
Nor does it matter the science, climate denial, evolution denial, age denial, all these denial campaigns are based on emotional appeal rather than scientific evidence, and they freely use quote mines to delude the gullible.
Because they don't have the facts.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2017 4:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024