consilience. : the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory.
contextomy. : an informal fallacy and 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. Quote mining.
excilience. : the linking together of Contextomies from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory. Thought mining.
The Quote Mine Project provides excellent examples of contextomy. Uncommondescent provides excellent examples of excilience.
The practices lend themselves to all kinds of humorous incongruities. Among them are:
1. free will vs predestination
2. deism vs interventionism (Michael Denton vs Michael Behe)
3. front loading vs twiddling (Mike Gene vs gpuccio, etc.)
4. ascentism vs degenerationism (Chardin vs Sanford)
5. old earth vs young earth
6. realism vs last thursdayism
7. biblical literalism vs inspirationism
There are probably a lot more, but these come up frequently. The humor comes from observing that the armies of ID clash by night, without ever mentioning or discussing their differences and their contradictory assumptions and conclusions.
Food for discussion.
Crap . Misspelled ascentism. I think. Can a made up word be misspelled?
Undecidable-ism vs. Infallible-ism (Cordova vs. Arrington)
More like mutual fumbduckery.
petrushka,
Fixed.
Free will vs. Darwinian evolution?
The Big Tent is the antithesis of science and discovery.
“Don’t sweat the details” is politics. Sweating the details is what science is all about.
Glen Davidson
l wonder how much “quote-mining”, as perceived by anti-IDists, are simply cases of straw manning what the IDist is saying.
I went to petrushka’s link, The Quote Mining Project. The very first “example” I read, Quote #4 by John Wilkins:
Barber then quotes from elsewhere on the quoted page to make this point:
Except, Wilkins never said or implied that Gould et al “rejected evolution”. Straw man.
Then, I scrolled back up and read #3; no evidence was presented of quote mining. Hopkings even admits there is no proof that this is a quote mine.
Thinking these must be anomalies, I read quotes 2 and 1, where there was no context of what those who used the quotes were trying to say the quotes represented.
IOW, for Darwinists, quote-mining means: When IDists or Creationists use quotes from Darwinists to support their views or argument, whether or not we can show they are contextually incorrect.
??? And so you are drawing a distinction between “Darwinists” whose complete context shows they ARE creationists, and “Darwinists” who are quoted out of context to create the IMPRESSION that they are creationists?
My reading is, evolutionary biologists reject creationism. ALL of them do. This means there simply ARE no examples of full contexts of such people actually showing they accept what they’ve spent their lives rejecting.
Number three ia a quote mine because it is used to imply that the original author [Niles Eldredge] is presenting a weakness or flaw in evolution.
Am I misinterpreting the intentions? Here’s an Amazon review of “Darwin’s Enigma”, a typical one:
Your post actually looks like a quote mine.
That’s a pretty good clue that you are misinterpreting what you are reading.
Nested quote mines. Common ancestry!
*facepalm*
Never change phoodoo, never change. ffs lol.
Just like TSZ. No big tent here. Just a bunch of scoffers fearful their dear country will turn into a theocracy. Theo-preppers.
Of course we’re a big tent. We have lots of scientifically knowledgeable, educated people posting here. Then we have Joe G, phoodoo, and you. Room for all! 🙂
Flint said:
As far as I can tell, no one that site uses as examples of “quote-miners” claims or implies that those they are quoting are creationists or support creationism. Using quotes that support a creationist argument is not the same as asserting that the person being quoted is a creationist or supports creationism.
Neil Rickert said:
Then show me where in this quote:
Wilkins said or implied that Gould rejects evolution.
Answer: he doesn’t, and that’s the quote Barber uses to make his case. Straw man.
Petrushka said:
Neither you or Hopkins provide any contextual support to show (1) that Wilkins was trying to characterize what Eldredge said in that way, or (2) that Eldredge didn’t mean excactly that. Hopkins admits he as no such proof:
Darwinist Lexicon: Quote-mining: whenever a creationist or IDist quotes a non-creationist or anti-IDist.
It seems that anti-ID/creationists think that if one quotes a Darwinist to make an anti-Darwinism point, it must be quote-mining simply because the Darwinist rejects creationism/ID.
That’s a non-sequiter. If a Darwinist says “there are few transitional forms” and means that there are few transitional forms, creationists/IDists are free to use that quote to make a case that there are few transitional forms or as part of their case against naturalistic evolution. It doesn’t matter if the Darwinist has an alternate, naturalist explanation for the lack of transitional forms – that may be entirely irrelevant to the point the IDist/creationist is making.
It in no way implies that the IDist or creationist is attempting to claim that the quoted Darwinist finds naturalist explanations weak or creationism/IDism better explanations.
If you fail to quote the Evolutionist actually adding the disclaimer that their position does not support Creationism then it is quote-mining, regardless of whether the Evolutionist actually said any such thing.
Since the vast majority of scientific papers fail to mention Creationism at all, then any quote from a scientific paper is very likely to be a quote-mine.
Well, yes, it’s true that quoting a mainstream biologist to support a creationist argument is quote mining.
The reason for this is found in the removal of context. Hence the word contextomy. If you said, for example, that the Eldridge paper supports creationism or contains serious reasons to doubt evolution, that would be a lie. So quoting a snippet that misleads the reader about the original argument is a lie.
It’s a form of lying, William. It’s a misleading use of authority. When one wishes to be honest, one provides a proper reference to the original material and provides a proper summary of the original author’s argument.
Yes, absolutely this is quote mining. Those who reject creationism DO NOT make statements supporting creationist arguments. However, of course it is possible to extract some statement made by a real biologist, provide a context unintended by that biologist, and insert that statement into the new context in a way that makes it look consistent with the new context. That’s the essence of quote mining. You are saying, in effect, “this person supports and agrees with my argument” when you know damn well he does not.
You are finagling some way to make certain statements APPEAR to support arguments they were never intended to support. If the person you are quoting rejects creationism, ANY quotation taken from him in support of a creationist argument is quote mining.
Yes, absolutely, it is quote mining.
But in the omitted context, that is NOT what was said. The omitted context is that actual transitions take place both relatively rapidly and relatively locally, and the probability of capturing even one fossil snapshot of that transition, much less multiple snapshots, is infinitesimal due to the nature of the fossilization process.
What YOU are trying to get him to say is that actual transitions are rare. What he SAID was that fossil records of transitions are rare.
The creationist is arguing here that transitions are rare. This argument is NOT supported by the quote mine, taken from a context of observing that fossil records of transitions are rare, but transitions are common. The mined quote is talking about the nature of the fossil record relative to the rapidity and geographically small range of the transition, not the rarity of transitions.
But it implies that the biologist agrees with something he does NOT agree with. And the creationist KNOWS he doesn’t agree.
This is a good thread about a complaint of mine.
The using of geology and other subjects to prove a biology hypothesis. This crossing of disilpnie is cheating and nullify’s evolution as a biological bypothesis.
Its okay to, at the end, include other subjects BUT to be a scientific hypothesiis/theory one MUST use the evidence of the subject being addressed.
Biological evidence must be used for biological theories etc.
Evolutionism, since Darwin, has gone under the radar on this.
This is a bit error unless I’m wrong in my reasoning.
Quote mining is a strange and false accusation against creationists.
Its fair and square to use the oppositions own words against them in the court of public thought.
Creationists do not take out of context, on purpose, evolutionists etc words to make our case. Thats a lame accusation.
Words/ideas are rightly used to make some point about the chaos and contradiction of the guys who are wrong. This is standard play in all human affairs.
Its dumb to heat quote mining crying from evolutionists.
Most are right and some are wrongly interoperated by creationists.
Its not a reflection on intellectual confidence or integrity of creationists.
Just a reflection on accusers and defenders general incompetence due to being humans (or tailless primates for some).
You can quote me but remember context.
It’s good to see a straight up balls to the wall defense of quote mining. Keep digging.
Flint said:
An erroneous interpretation of my point. When I said “transitional forms”, of course I meant the record of transitional forms. Without access to any “at the time” transitional forms, what else could I mean.? He speculates that there were transitional forms that are not in the fossil record for various reasons, but that is just speculation.
It’s not quote mining when, in making the point that there is a poor fossil record for transitions, you quote an authority who states that such fossil records are sparse.
Yes, the creationist is arguing that transitions are rare, and to support that point he quotes an authority who says that fossil records for such transitions are rare. That quote supports the creationists argument. That the Darwinist theorizes or speculates that there is a naturalist explanation for the rarity of transitional fossils is irrelevant. It’s not quote mining – it’s just someone using a fact about the fossil record to reach a different conclusion, and he’s quoting an expert to show that the claimed rarity of transitional fossils is a true fact.
That doesn’t mean he is implying anything about the views of the Darwinist he is quoting.
Dishonest quote-mining is not only acceptable to Creationists, it’s actually pushed as a “good” debating method. Creationist Henry Morris published a whole book of dishonestly mined quotes that has become a second Bible to some YEC fanatics.
That Their Words May Be Used Against Them
These people have no discernible morals or scruples.
Your comment is redundant. WJM agrees with you.
He is playing semantic games, but he agrees that quote mining is a good thing.
Petrushka said:
Nope. Not in any sense.
Absolutely not.
By that standard the site you linked to is utterly dishonest, because he fails to provide any context for virtually any of his claims about what anyone meant, and even admits he doesn’t have any such proof in at least one case.
If I’m making a point and “the lack of transitional fossils” is a fact that supports my point, then quoting experts who state that there is a lack of transitional fossils in order to support my claim that there is such a lack is utterly honest and acceptable, as long as I don’t imply that who I am quoting agrees with or supports my conclusion.
If I quote Dawkins saying that the sky is blue, and I use that as an expert statement, and I am using the fact that the sky is blue to make some point that Dawkins disagrees with, I can still quote the fact that he agrees that the sky is blue even though i go on to argue to a conclusion he disagrees with.
That’s not quote-mining.
Keep digging, William. I appreciate your work.
Petrushka flatly admits his inability to understand what quote-mining means here:
You think that if the “context” of a quote is that the person doesn’t support creationism, and I use a quote from that person to support a creationist argument, then I am guilty of “quote-mining”.
OMFG that’s hilarious. That really is what you guys think. That explains that entire website. ROFLMAO
And I yours. SO much. Biggest laugh I had all day, other than some shit I saw on Nurse Jackie 🙂
Keep digging William.
Mung said:
No, it’s not. You might add it as a courtesy, but not putting it on there doesn’t mean the quote is quote mining. The overall perspective of the person being quoted is entirely irrelevant to the fact that is being supported by the quote: that transitional fossils are rare.
When I read an IDist that is making an ID case that quotes Darwinists about the Cambrian explosion or the rarity of transitional fossils or some other fact, I don’t for a second suppose that the quoted person agrees with the conclusions or position of the IDist. I suppose only that the Darwinists are being quoted only to demonstrate the specific fact in question is one Darwinists admit or agree with.
And that’s all such quotes are used for – to demonstrate that the specific fact point is agreed to by Darwinists.
Perhaps you’re being sarcastic and its going over my head?
Is it okay to do this with scripture, William?
Honest people consider quote-mining to be lying. Creationists consider it a useful tactic.
Like I said, these people have no morals or scruples.
Yes, I think William’s spirited defense of quote mining says everything we need to know about William.
This is hilarious! You guys really do think that this shit is “quote mining”. How many times do you guys quote IDists to make points that IDists would never agree with? ROFL!!
WTF do I care about scripture, petrushka? Did you forget who you’re talking to?
Wow.
Rather it confirms once again what we’ve all known for years.
We know it is WJM. I’m glad you agree quote-mining is so dishonest.
Those are your words in the order you wrote them, right? So what if they’re not in context, right?
IDists say all kinds of things. In fact this thread is precisely about the fact that IDists contradict each other.
But perhaps you would favor us with links to quote mines. That would be examples of evilutionists quoting Dembski or Behe or some major ID player out of context, implying they see irremediable problems with ID.
Actual quote mining – where you are portraying the meaning of what the author said in a way that is contrary to what the author meant – is, of course, wrong. However, using a quote that transitional fossils are rare to support your own assertion that transitional fossils are rare is not quote-mining. If the quoter implied that the quotee agreed with the quotees argument or conclusions, then that would be quote mining.
However, there is no evidence that the quoter made such a statement or implication. Using agreed-upon facts that both creationists and darwinists agree upon, and showing that both agree upon those facts using quotes, is not quote mining because the quoter is not mischaracterizing the meaning of the quote one bit.
ROFLMAO!!!
“Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted. ”
Michael Behe.
Okay, mung, you got me. ROFL! Sometimes text is too dry a medium for me, especially when it comes to your kind of wit.
Michael Behe
Not a quote mine, but William, do you think this represents Behe’s position, or is it prefatory? Would he use it for an epitaph?
I’d like to point out that simple quote mining is not the target of this thread. I’m after bigger game.
I’m looking at the assembly of disparate thoughts into a melange. This involves quote mining on an industrial scale. Few creationists are up to this task, but we have one here. Using established biologists to support such idiocies as YEC and genetic entropy.
You have completely misunderstood the role of Wilkins. He was one of the maintainers of the quote mine project. In the case of this quote mine, he added commentary to explain why it was a quote mine. Maybe you should have read the next paragraph.
One serious problem with William’s attack on “Darwinist strawmen” is that he doesn’t even get what the Quote Mine Project is doing, nor who would be doing the quotemining. So now, specifically:
It is not a quote by John Wilkins. Wilkins is responding to this general use of this quotemine–or “quotemine” if you prefer. William really has no idea about what is being quoted, and by whom. Wilkins was with Talkorigins in the past, and perhaps still is. He’s not an IDist/creationist who purportedly quotemined anything.
Yes, and that was Wilkins’ point as well, he just referred the reader to the context that is often left out.
Of course Wilkins never said or implied such a thing, he’s one of those who are countering such quotemines. William is utterly clueless about who is (reputedly, at least) misquoting Gould. It’s not Wilkins.
No, Hopkins is commenting on what is purportedly quotemined far too frequently. He “admits” that there’s no proof that it’s a quotemine, but notes that we can’t really tell without the transcripts–plus, what’s supposed to be so important about the Cambrian Explosion being mysterious anyway?
You really don’t get it at all, do you? The point is not a particular quotemine here or there, it is that these are reputedly frequent quotemines by creationists, in particular, and Talkorigins is responding to them in general for the sake of others who might wish to counter them as well.
IOW, William doesn’t understand the Quotemine Project in the least, and, rather than figuring it out, or asking, he simply faults “Darwinists” for his gross misunderstanding of what it’s even about.
Here is an example of what the Quotemine Project is countering, a bunch of quotes ripped from context as potential soundbites for largely ignorant creationists/IDists:
http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/evolutioncritque.htm
It’s really amazing how wrong William is about almost everything he’s complaining about there.
Glen Davidson
Help me out here.
Say there is a quote from a known and knowledgeable anti-creationist. How can such a quote, when seen in context, ever support creationism? Is the anti-creationist so dumb that he doesn’t understand his own arguments? Is that likely when it comes to highly qualified professionals like Gould?
Isn’t it far more likely that the person who claims that the quote somehow supports creationism simply doesn’t understand, or prefers to ignore, the evolutionist’s overall argument, of which the quoted bit is only a part and not the whole?
And if this is the case, is presenting the quote without the context of the overall argument, not stupid and/or dishonest?
Now, if the creationist wants to make an argument that rests on the same facts that the evolutionist used when he made his argument, that is of course no problem. But then, what is the point of referring to the evolutionist in the first place? What weight does that add to the argument? Why drag in an authority even if it is known that he doesn’t agree with the creationist argument? Why not simply refer to the scientific papers where these facts are published?
I’ll tell you why: because the creationist isn’t engaged in science, he is engaged in politics whilst pretending to do science. And that is why we object.
fG