Quote Mining, false witness for the gullible and willfully ignorant

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:

---

The Quote Mine Project

Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines

​

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./rantEnjoy

The two seem to go hand in hand lately.

Saudi Arabia and others gave Qatar a 13 point list that must be met.One was the shutting down of al Jazeera.( I feel so bad because I had a conspiracy theory friend that for months singled out Qatar as a good nation that was on the side of the people. I always threw Qatar in with the rest of the rotten Gulf states, and argued with him on numerous points. I am sorry to say that he moved months ago and I don't think I will get the chance to apologize for my ignorance. I now have at least become aware of my past ignorance due to recent developments )From the June 24-25 Wall Street Journal article Arab States Issue Demands to Qatar by Nicolas Parasie and Summer Said

quote:

---

The U. S., however, would be potentially supportive of calls to shut down Al Jazeera, the official said.

---

So much for the uncompromising freedom of the press.The left in this country needs to remember that its ideological soul mate , Al Gore, recognized this news organization as a great one and on the side of people over propaganda.(I don't always get it right I must say. I love reading a paper called China Daily and have months of my issues piling up along with endless other daily papers. I just found out that the paper is published by the People's Republic of China. I don't have any explanation for how I failed to notice lol. )All sides let government propaganda dictate what we are outraged by. We were obsessed with the Russian conspiracy theories ( which Trump was falsely accused of being a party to ) while we are directed away from seeing much of what is really outrageous and freedom-quashing.Creationism and Trumpism have their own opinions which are very judgmental and overlook the beam in their own eyes, but the opposition has massive misjudgments too.Consider my post an endorsement for the Sermon on The Mount Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Here's a good read on the subject;http://www.conservapedia.com/Quote_mining

quote:

---

Evolutionists are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the dogmatic nature of their faith, because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see scientific method). While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to discredit him, evolutionists do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice. They have tried to make quote mining a pejorative term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries.

---

EvC could probably have its bandwidth crippled with examples of dishonest quoting by the mainstream media concerning Donald Trump in the past 6 months. Quote mining is also rampant by the political left in its responses to critics of the global warming movement.

Critics of Global Warming are at best fools who should be told how cute they are and sent back to the kiddie table. Many though are simply liars.

Let's see a dozen or two. That won't cripple EvC.

And they even lie about this - there's no end to creationist dishonesty, which is weird as they call themselves Christians.We have no problem with creationists quoting science back to us so long as it's done with integrity - but it never is. It's always partial, out of context and/or downright wrong. It's also done deliberately to deceive. The number of quotes they lie about caused Talk Origins to list them all and get to the original source. The scientists themselves are outraged to be used like this.Every time you do it, it'll come right back at you with full details of how and why it's a lie.

Useful video demonstrating how creationists use quote mines and why.

Is it even possible to quote-mine Trump? He stands by the most outrageous and ridiculous things he says - at least until he does an about-face.

He specifically said that only "some" were good people.The speech about Mexico not sending "their best" but sending drug dealers and sexual criminals.It was deliberately sweeping so I can't feel sorry for him when his daughter says that she is just so shocked by all the negativity.Marco Rubio said, during his Presidential drop out speech , that the campaign Trump ran would cause ethnic groups to have mutual hatred for each other.Trump has added to a "not all good things" type of racial relations situation we all faced already in the United States.Racial relations are worse than they need to be and this was a price Trump was willing to make the nation pay so he could win the GOP primary (which had voters hungry for bold "politically incorrect" rabble )

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, : .

More like, "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."No, that was not meant to be the kind of epithet you could drop on anyone of any nationality. I can understand a wing-nut being okay with such a statement, but I cannot accept the faux bewilderment at other people who find the statement ridiculous.Of course, Hillary later comes along and makes that "basket of deplorables" comment that kicks way all possible moral high ground.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

She never had high ground.Enjoy

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?This subject reminds me of another liberal idea that came about a few decades ago. Several variations of it came to light in the early days of the www, when this type of written debate forum was fairly new. Some thinkers on college campuses were sometimes having trouble in oral debates with conservatives in front of audiences, so they came up with lists of logical fallacies. It was a way to slow or stop a debate, take it in an unrelated direction, to stop the bleeding. Since some, but not all, of the "fallacies" were slanted to favor liberal thinking, it was also a way to help a liberal "win" in a judged debate. It didn't work very well, (I've never seen it referred to here at EvC) The reason is simple, liberals quickly found out that when they accused a conservative of committing a fallacy, they could correctly be shown that they themselves actually committed more than the conservative. "Poisoning the wells", and "Argument by dismissal" are two that you committed here. (they're described in the above list) Argument by emotive language is a biggie for atheists, message 5 above is an example, and of course EvC is loaded with it in just about every thread.Accusations of quote mining by the political left will fail quickly also, I'm sure you'll appreciate this heads up from me.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.Today, the 14th amendment is being quote mined to attempt to grant illegal immigrants constitutional rights, as if illegal immigrants are in any way comparable to (in 1868) recently freed slaves who were brought to the U.S. against their will. Again, completely out of context, far more than most or all examples that you gave in message 1, or that you can find more of concerning creationists quote mining atheists.These are only two (one past, one present) of countless quote mining in all areas of liberalism. I see already there are demands of more more more, but I'm having a busy, productive summer and see no reason to spend a couple of hours researching something that will be dismissed in 5 seconds by a group of angry people. I only have a few basic points to make - my side's not been losing elections lately.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.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.

2nd edit - text hidden. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide.