Excilience and Contextomy

Posted on January 13, 2016 by petrushka

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.

361 thoughts on “Excilience and Contextomy”

GlenDavidson on January 14, 2016 at 5:29 pm said:

Here is an interesting example of a collection of creationist quotemines on the fossil record. It’s at the IDEA Center, you know, promoting the ID that isn’t at all opposed to evolution, while freely using anti-evolutionary quotemines with abandon.

To be sure, they’re not necessarily all quotemines. But clearly they’re appealing to authority, no matter how outdated, and ignoring the context–look at the first two Darwin quotes:

“Not one change of species into another is on record … we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

“..why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”
“… The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

The first one isn’t even real, at least according to the Quotemine Project:

Quote #82

“Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

Charles Darwin never wrote any book by that title.

It’s commonly misquoted on many a creationist site.

His son edited, after his father’s death, a book called The life and letters of Charles Darwin.

In which you can track down the second half of the “quote” above, but without any trace of the first half.

Many of Darwin’s books (including The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin) are available via Project Gutenberg. I tracked this down and reported what I found in Re: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

– Mike Hopkins and Mark VandeWettering

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

They admit that not all of their quotes are verified–yeah, so why not?

And the second is badly outdated, with later editions suggesting solutions to the problem of lack of transitionals, such as localized changes and relative stasis and then change for a while. And of course much discovery has occurred since Darwin died.

IDEA Center might be all-but-dead, yet the IDists could still clean up their act, if truth really mattered to them.

Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson on January 14, 2016 at 5:35 pm said:

William J. Murray
Petrushka made this erroneous understanding explicit when he said:

Well, yes, it’s true that quoting a mainstream biologist to support a creationist argument is quote mining.

Anyone willing to agree that Petrushka is simply flat-out wrong about this? If not, you’re just as wrong as he is.

Yeah, I don’t agree with that, and it seems not out of context (I’ll check).

Quoting–both opponents and proponents–can be a part of proper argumentation. But it’s easy to do it wrong, and the bulk of argumentation should be about the evidence.

Glen Davidson
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 5:37 pm said:

Flint said:

Then, once again, why bother to mention Gould? If you must get your facts by quoting someone, why not quote a creationist?

Already answered several times. They are not “getting their facts” from Gould; they are demonstrating that Gould et al agrees with those facts to establish agreement on both sides about certain facts that are usedin the argument.

And while we’re at it, why do you creationists NEVER ONCE go on to say something like “while Gould agrees that transition fossils are rare, his interpretation of this rarity is completely incompatible with mine”?

I’ve read just that sort of disclaimer many times at UD and other places, where the poster says “While no one could ever accuse Joe of being an ID supporter (in fact, he’s vehemently anti-ID), Joe agrees that X is true (X being a fact used in some ID argument).”

But, such a disclaimer is simply not necessary. Only a moron would think that those evolutionary biologists support the conclusions or views of creationists.
hotshoe_ on January 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm said:

Flint: And while we’re at it, why do you creationists NEVER ONCE go on to say something like “while Gould agrees that transition fossils are rare, his interpretation of this rarity is completely incompatible with mine”?

Because every creationist alive is a deluded idiot who could not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to save their lives.

Edit: not (mostly) their own faults. Mostly the fault of their cultural indoctrination which overtly and covertly taught them not to perceive and state the truth.
faded_Glory on January 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm said:

William J. Murray: I think that if quotes can be provided that shwos both sides agree to certain facts, we can accept those facts arguendo for the purpose of the debate/argument.
(…)
However, to have an argument we must agree on certain things.Establishing that both sides agree to a set of facts lets the argument proceed at least arguendo.
(…)
But, in order to establish that the argument at least potentially has merit, you should establish assumptions or facts that both sides agree upon. There’s no better way to do this than by providing quotes that demonstrate the other side agreeing to a fact you have posited for the argument.

There is a much, much better way: simply list the facts that you think support your argument. Then let the other party indicate if they agree with these facts or not. If they do, great, move on. If not, start a sub-debate about the facts under dispute. Solve this sub-debate by going to the original sources and settle the matter.

Why is this much better? Because it avoids the fallacy of arguing from authority, it avoids the risk of misrepresentation and it reduces the risk of over-extending an argument past what is supportable. It makes it very clear where the disagreements are in detail, and shows the way to resolve them. It will lead to much deeper understanding of which positions are actually supported, or not.

The drawback? It can be a lot more work, for both sides, and so it will probably take more time.

If that drawback is seen to outweigh the benefits, it would be better not to engage in the discussion in the first place.

No, it justmeans that I’m using evolutionist’s own admitted facts against them. Which is perfectly fair.

Once again, the language you use shows that you are engaging in a political, not scientific, debate. There is no ‘admitting’ of facts in science. Facts are not a commodity to be used selectively. They exist, or they don’t. If they do, they are available for everybody.

fG
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 5:51 pm said:

GlenDavidson said:

Here is an interesting example of a collection of creationist quotemines on the fossil record.

To be sure, they’re not necessarily all quotemines. But clearly they’re appealing to authority, no matter how outdated, and ignoring the context

Good grief, Glen. The disclaimer at the very top of the page:

Welcome to our Fossil Record quote collection. Many of the quotes in our collections have been verified for accuracy, but not all have been verified. Thus, we present our quote-collections as a starting point for research, and suggest you verify any individual quote before using it.

If you have information about problems or inaccuracies in any quotes, we welcome corrections. Please send them to us at: info@ideacenter.org.

There’s not even any argument being made here, nor any characterizations of what the author meant when he made the quotes. None of those quotes are “quote-mines”; they are admittedly non-verified quotes that are posted as a starting point for research and which readers are urged to investigate before using and send an email if found incorrect.

At worst, this is a potential resource for quote-miners, but their existence on that page itself is not an example of “quote-mining”.
hotshoe_ on January 14, 2016 at 5:53 pm said:

faded_Glory:

[WJM sez:]… But, in order to establish that the argument at least potentially has merit, you should establish assumptions or facts that both sides agree upon. There’s no better way to do this than by providing quotes that demonstrate the other side agreeing to a fact you have posited for the argument.

There is a much, much better way: simply list the facts that you think support your argument. Then let the other party indicate if they agree with these facts or not. If they do, great, move on. If not, start a sub-debate about the facts under dispute. Solve this sub-debate by going to the original sources and settle the matter.

Why is this much better? Because it avoids the fallacy of arguing from authority, it avoids the risk of misrepresentation and it reduces the risk of over-extending an argument past what is supportable. It makes it very clear where the disagreements are in detail, and shows the way to resolve them. It will lead to much deeper understanding of which positions are actually supported, or not.

The drawback? It can be a lot more work, for both sides, and so it will probably take more time.

If that drawback is seen to outweigh the benefits, it would be better not to engage in the discussion in the first place.

No, it justmeans that I’m using evolutionist’s own admitted facts against them. Which is perfectly fair.

Once again, the language you use shows that you are engaging in a political, not scientific, debate. There is no ‘admitting’ of facts in science. Facts are not a commodity to be used selectively. They exist, or they don’t. If they do, they are available for everybody.

fG

Yes!

Religion poisons everything. It denies people equal access to the facts, and then in projection the religionists assume the “other side” ‘is likewise selectively denying or “admitting” facts.

Why would evolutionists “admit” facts reluctantly? NO reason; it never happens, because we know that facts are out for everybody to see. But religionists, working from a poisoned worldview where the only way to settle a question is by appeal to Authority (god, or in its absence, the pastor) literally do not see the facts: they only see the revealed opinions about the facts. They’ve trained themselves so well and so long that they literally cannot see that there is a more clear and productive way.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 5:54 pm said:

faded_glory said:

There is a much, much better way: simply list the facts that you think support your argument.

How you would prefer someone make an argument is entirely inconsequential to the fact that quote-mining has not been evidenced.
Alan Fox on January 14, 2016 at 6:03 pm said:

petrushka,

I’m baffled by this comment. What’s the significance of the long list of website addresses?
faded_Glory on January 14, 2016 at 6:07 pm said:

William J. Murray:

How you would prefer someone make an argument is entirely inconsequential to the fact that quote-mining has not been evidenced.

LOL. Even when the people being quoted have themselves gone on record to say that they were quoted out of context and misrepresented?

fG
Alan Fox on January 14, 2016 at 6:10 pm said:

William J. Murray: At worst, this is a potential resource for quote-miners, but their existence on that page itself is not an example of “quote-mining”.

Ah! Déjà-vu! Strong quote mining is lifting an out-of-context remark from a larger piece of text to suggest a different meaning from the one intended by the author. The use of ellipses and the combining of quotes is especially reprehensible. Weak quote-mining is using a second-hand source without bothering to to check the original. A prime example is when Barry Arrington copy-pasted a list of quote-mines including one by Niles Eldredge, repeating the spelling errors made by the original quote-miner.
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 6:14 pm said:

Alan Fox:
petrushka,
I’m baffled by this comment. What’s the significance of the long list of website addresses?

They’re from my database of egregious quote miners. Worst first. I took the quotes from the quote mine project.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/and_the_winner.html

The article is no longer online. but I still have the database.
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 6:47 pm said:

William J. Murray:
GlenDavidson said:

Good grief, Glen. The disclaimer at the very top of the page:

There’s not even any argument being made here, nor any characterizations of what the author meant when he made the quotes.None of those quotes are “quote-mines”; they are admittedly non-verified quotes that are posted as a starting point for research and which readers are urged to investigate before using and send an email if found incorrect.

At worst, this is a potential resource for quote-miners, but their existence on that page itself is not an example of “quote-mining”.

Actually it is a source of quote-mines William. The first one in fact is a great example. Notice the ellipses? That’s an indicator right there that the site manager isn’t being honest about what was actually said.

And, lo and behold, a little digging produces the fact that Darwin never wrote anything entitled My Life and Letters. His son put together such piece of work with that title after Darwin’s death. Searching through his son’s My Life and Letters we find that the second part of the quote (the part after the ellipses: “we cannot prove that any single species has been changed”) was stated in the work and attributed to Charles Darwin. The first part does not show up in My Life and Letters and it turns out that it shows up nowhere in the work by Charles Darwin, nor is it something he ever said. It appears (and this has been confirmed) that the quote comes from a missattribution by Theodore Graebner’s work, Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism (1921). The statement was actually made by Nathaniel S. Shaler in a writing he did in “Faith and Nature” in The International Quarterly in 1902/1903. So Graebner, who had quoted Shaler earlier, simply grabbed the quote and missattributed it to Darwin.

Bottom line, the quote is false, it’s context is false, and it continues to be put forth by creationists not only as factual, but as Darwin’s actual thinking. Is dishonest on multiple levels, yet creationists unabashedly reference it.

So much for the validity of your argument William…
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 7:01 pm said:

Just for fun, here are fifty links to quote mine project number three. The links are old, but the ones I checked are still active. Anyone can check thes sites to see how the quote is used. This is just the first fifty links, sorted by worst offender.

“a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_nfl_intro.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_incorporatecontroversy.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teachthecontroversy.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_uscommcivrights.htm
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/000838/p/4.html
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001580/p/1.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch31c.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch34a.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1088526/posts
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/51
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=51
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/intrdc01.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe01intr.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/cequc107.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0221flies.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0221flies.asp?vPrint=1
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-67603.html
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65287
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A41HD1GWO97RW?_encoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AQCGKE5LE05B7?_encoding=UTF8

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1261
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1294
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1378
http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3h.htm
http://www.geocities.com/fdocc/miller.htm
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_creationevolutiondesign_archive.html
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_creationevolutiondesign_archive.html
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1134
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1861
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2335
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2456
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2564&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2743
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2931
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2615
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2331
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2409
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC-News&id=1367
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134
http://bevets.com/equotesd.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/JANFEB99.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/MARAPR00.htm
http://www.cft.org.za/articles/evquote.htm
http://members.aol.com/jorolat/oosi.html
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0602W3.htm
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_fm.html
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin_fm.html
http://www.greenstone.org/greenstone3/library?a=xd&sa=text&d=origin&c=gberg
http://www.greenstone.org/greenstone3/library?a=xd&sa=text&d=origin.frontmatter&c=gberg
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 7:06 pm said:

Actually a fair number of links are dead.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 7:43 pm said:

Robin said:

LOL. Even when the people being quoted have themselves gone on record to say that they were quoted out of context and misrepresented?

Certainly. Asserting that something was quote-mined is not explaining explaining how what was quoted is a quote mine. Judging from the lot of you here and from the sites you’ve linked to, few people on your side of the table know what a quote mine is.

Actually it is a source of quote-mines William.

Nope. It’s a source of supposed quotes (the disclaimer makes this clear) intended to initiate investigation that readers are advised to research before using. The disclaimer by itself indemnifies the quotes against being “quote mines” opn that site (though used elsewhere, may in fact be quote mines), because they are not even represented as accurate, much less to accurately represent anything the original author meant.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 7:46 pm said:

Robin said:

Bottom line, the quote is false, it’s context is false, and it continues to be put forth by creationists not only as factual, but as Darwin’s actual thinking. Is dishonest on multiple levels, yet creationists unabashedly reference it.

If used on another site it could be a false quote and/or a quote mine, but on the site in question is certainly not a “quote mine”, due to the disclaimer and instructions on the site.
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 7:53 pm said:

William, I have links to 13,000 web pages that display the quote mine project quotes.

You want to place bets on what percentage include proper citations and disclaimers, and what percentage use them naked as proof that evilutionists admit that evolution is not true?
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 7:54 pm said:

William J. Murray:
Robin said:

Uhh…that wasn’t me; that was said by faded Glory…
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 7:58 pm said:

William J. Murray:

Robin said:
Actually it is a source of quote-mines William.

Nope. It’s a source of supposed quotes (the disclaimer makes this clear) intended to initiate investigation that readers are advised to research before using.
The disclaimer by itself indemnifies the quotes against being “quote mines” opn that site (though used elsewhere, may in fact be quote mines), because they are not even represented as accurate, much less to accurately represent anything the original author meant.

They’ve been notified of the errors contained in several of those quotes (the first one at least 6 times that I’m aware of personally), yet they’ve not changed it. That’s dishonest attribution William, the very definition of quote-mining.

I’d say the only person exhibiting an ignorance of the term “quote-mine” here William is you.
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 8:00 pm said:

William J. Murray:
Robin said:

If used on another site it could be a false quote and/or a quote mine, but on the site in question is certainly not a “quote mine”, due to the disclaimer and instructions on the site.

False William. They’ve kept it up in spite of being notified repeatedly of it’s inaccuracy. That’s dishonesty William and demonstrates their disclaimer is bogus.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:00 pm said:

petrushka:
William, I have links to 13,000 web pages that display the quote mine project quotes.

You want to place bets on what percentage include propercitations and disclaimers, and what percentage use them naked as proof that evilutionists admit that evolution is not true?

Petrushka,

My argument is certainly not that most creationists do not quote-mine. My point is that your concept of what constitutes a quote mine is incorrect, as is that of some others here. Quote mining occurs and it is wrong to quote mine, but you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.
Flint on January 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm said:

William J. Murray: .The disclaimer by itself indemnifies the quotes against being “quote mines” opn that site (though used elsewhere, may in fact be quote mines), because they are not even represented as accurate, much less to accurately represent anything the original author meant.

Righto! They were just selected at random, have nothing to do with the argument the creationist is trying to make, and it’s just name-dropping. Right?

I notice the disclaimer does NOT say “these quotes were chosen EVEN THOUGH they do not accurately represent anything the original author meant.” A disclaimer like that, BECAUSE it’s more honest, might cause the reader to wonder exactly why those quotes are even there.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm said:

William J. Murray: Quote mining occurs and it is wrong to quote mine, but you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.

If not every time, what proportion of the time would you say it *is* quote mining? Care to share?

Closer to 1% then 90%? Would you agree with that?
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:04 pm said:

Robin said:

False William. They’ve kept it up in spite of being notified repeatedly of it’s inaccuracy. That’s dishonesty William and demonstrates their disclaimer is bogus.

Appealing to motives or personal characterization of the site’s moderators is not evidence in your favor and it doesn’t change the fact that due to the disclaimer being up there, and due to the fact that there is no attempt to characterize what anyone meant by those quotes, those simply cannot be characterized as “quote mines”.

At least one quote is probably a factually incorrect quote, but that doesn’t make it a “quote mine”.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:06 pm said:

William J. Murray: you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time

It’s like arguing with a lawyer. Language is imprecise. You would be best dealt with in a functional style programming language that allows unambiguous contracts to be formed.

No, you personally don’t believe that FSCI can be calculated, you believe that some believe that it can.

If they are not quote mines, what purpose are they serving? If the facts are the facts, why not just repeat the facts?
Flint on January 14, 2016 at 8:06 pm said:

William J. Murray: Petrushka,

My argument is certainly not that most creationists do not quote-mine. My point is that your concept of what constitutes a quote mine is incorrect, as is that of some others here. Quote mining occurs and it is wrong to quote mine, but you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.

That is NOT what is being said, of course. It’s only quote mining if the impression is being created that the biologist agreed with the creationist claim, and the quote is being used to support that claim, KNOWING the author disagrees.

It’s fine to quote anyone, creationist or not, so long as the quote is being used to illustrate what its author actually believes and argues. If you are saying “here is what evolutionist X argues, here is a statement he made in support of his position, and now HERE is why that position is incorrect” then you’re fine.

I can’t believe you can continue to write that it’s perfectly dandy to deliberately create false impressions and make others look like morons.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm said:

OMagain said:

If not every time, what proportion of the time would you say it *is* quote mining? Care to share?

I have no idea whatsoever.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:09 pm said:

William J. Murray: I have no idea whatsoever.

So you can’t hazard a guess that it’s closer to 1% then 90% even.

So if you have no idea, none at all, on what basis do you say:

William J. Murray: you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.

If you literally have no idea whatsoever, on what basis did you make that claim?
Flint on January 14, 2016 at 8:10 pm said:

OMagain:If they are not quote mines, what purpose are they serving? If the facts are the facts, why not just repeat the facts?

This is really the key. WHY go to the trouble to quote in support of a position, someone you know opposes that position?
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 8:15 pm said:

William J. Murray:
Flint said:

No evidence of misrepresentation has as yet been offered up here. I’m sure it happens – I’m not about to claim no quote-mining by creationists ever occurs. However, it is clear from explicit statements from many people here that they are confusing their personal views about the motivations of creationists, and their indignation at having their own quotes used against them in support of creationism, as cases of “quote-mining”.

Petrushka made this erroneous understanding explicit when he said:

Petrushka: Well, yes, it’s true that quoting a mainstream biologist to support a creationist argument is quote mining.

Anyone willing to agree that Petrushka is simply flat-out wrong about this? If not, you’re just as wrong as he is.

So William, I have to ask then: why do you consider a creationist cherry-picking pro-creationist statements from people who vehemently deny the given position – and whose body of work actually notes a denial of the pro-creationist statements – as somehow morally or ethically superior (or just honest for that matter) compared to quote-mining? Why is cherry-picking statements that don’t fully represent someone’s thoughts or stance on a given subject less or non-ethically questionable or objectionable, but quote-mining is?
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:16 pm said:

Flint said:

I can’t believe you can continue to write that it’s perfectly dandy to deliberately create false impressions and make others look like morons.

I’ve said no such thing. What I’ve said is that from the quotes and evidence currently under argument, it hasn’t been shown that anyone is trying to create a false impression of any sort about the views of the original author.

If I’m making a case against something Joe believes, and I say X is a fact and that Joe agrees with me that X is a fact, and then I use that fact to reach a different conclusion than Joe, where have I created the impression that Joe agrees with my argument or conclusion, when the whole purpose of my argument was to show how my disagreement with Joe should be considered the better argument and that I have reached a more sound conclusion from the same, agreed-upon facts?

Quoting Joe when there is agreement about certain facts or information in order to make an alternative case using those facts is not quote mining. Get over it.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:18 pm said:

William J. Murray: more sound conclusion from the same, agreed-upon facts?

Facts delivered in the form of specific words from a specific person? Why do that if they are mere facts? What does it add to cast them into the form of someone’s specific words?
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm said:

Robin,

I didn’t say it was honest or ethical. I said it that in the particular case of the site and examples in question, it’s not quote-mining.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:20 pm said:

William J. Murray: If I’m making a case against something Joe believes, and I say X is a fact and that Joe agrees with me that X is a fact, and then I use that fact to reach a different conclusion than Joe

But that’s not what’s happening? You make a case against something Joe believes using Joe’s own words do you?

Can you write a little play? I’d like to see how that would go.
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 8:20 pm said:

William J. Murray: but you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.

You are welcome to look at some of my links. (Some of the sites are gone.)

My sampling indicates it is rare for the quotes to be used correctly.

Correctly would mean indicating that they are part of a larger argument in favor of evolution. And correctly would also include full attribution, to online sources whenever available.

Of course it is possible that the people who display these quotes are personally honest, but just too stupid to understand the original author’s
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:20 pm said:

OMagain asks:

What does it add to cast them into the form of someone’s specific words?

Already answered like 5 times in this thread. To show that there is agreement from both camps about the asserted fact.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:20 pm said:

William J. Murray: I said it that in the particular case of the site and examples in question, it’s not quote-mining.

Support your claim.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:23 pm said:

Petrushka said:

Correctly would mean indicating that they are part of a larger argument in favor of evolution.

You’re just wrong about this, Petrushka. I don’t have to use quotes from evolutionary biologists to support evolutionary biology. I can use them to support creationism. That has nothing to do with what quote-mining is per se.
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm said:

OMagain: Support your claim.

Already have. Are you new to the thread or something?
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:25 pm said:

William J. Murray:

I didn’t say it was honest or ethical. I said it that in the particular case of the site and examples in question, it’s not quote-mining.

Rather, I said that no evidence has been presented indicating quote-mining.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:29 pm said:

William J. Murray: To show that there is agreement from both camps about the asserted fact.

But it does not show that at all! One person is active, providing the quote free of any context. The other has said some words at some point in the past, the “fact”. There seems to be a serious imbalance. One person is marshalling many such “facts” in support of their argument (the creationist) and the other is just being quoted.

And do you really think that if I as a creationist quote 20 people to make a particular creationist argument that there would be agreement from both camps about that ‘argument’? I don’t suppose you would. Yet the individual “facts” themselves can be used both ways. It’s odd how when you collect them together they can be used to argue the opposite of what their authors collectively believe.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:32 pm said:

William J. Murray: Already have. Are you new to the thread or something?

Heh. You supported your argument because nobody presented any evidence that they were quote mines? Not sure that’s how it works.

William J. Murray: uote mining occurs and it is wrong to quote mine, but you are simply flat-out wrong when you say that every time a creationist quotes a non-creationist evolutionary biologist it is quote mining.

If you literally have no idea how many times creationists quote mine, on what basis do you make that statement?
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:33 pm said:

William J. Murray: Go back and read the thread, moron. You’re such an idiot.

Yet, you Sir, are the one defending creationist quote miners!
William J. Murray on January 14, 2016 at 8:36 pm said:

OMagain: Yet, you Sir, are the one defending creationist quote miners!

No, I’m not defending any actual quote-mining. I’m pointing out that what several of you call “quote-mining” is not quote mining at all. Petrushka thinks that a creationist just using a quote from an evolutionary biologist means it is a quote mine simply because he’s using the quote in an argument for creationism.
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:43 pm said:

William J. Murray: No, I’m not defending any actual quote-mining. I’m pointing out that what several of you call “quote-mining” is not quote mining at all. Petrushka thinks that a creationist just using a quote from an evolutionary biologist means it is a quote mine simply because he’s using the quote in an argument for creationism.

Shrug. Yes, I know you are making a very specific point in a very specific argument. But so what. You can play your semantic games.

The point is that you imply that both sides have the same quality of argument.

After all, they are both starting from the same “facts”, right? This is not a new tactic.

Hence you defend the indefensible.

As, after all, there are no legitimate scientific arguments for creationism so how can scientific facts be used to make such an argument? Please explain. Or give an example.

As you prefer.
petrushka on January 14, 2016 at 8:43 pm said:

William J. Murray: Petrushka thinks that a creationist just using a quote from an evolutionary biologist means it is a quote mine simply because he’s using the quote in an argument for creationism.

Yes, it is, because in it’s original context, it was part of an argument against creationism.

The original author intended the statement to be read in context. It is inherently dishonest to remove it from that context.

Now, if you can show me an instance where the creationist presents a fair and complete representation of the original argument, I will accept that as fair usage.

I’ve provided lots of links. Pick one and demonstrate that the creationist has presented the issue as the original author intended.
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 8:43 pm said:

William J. Murray:
Robin said:

Robin: False William. They’ve kept it up in spite of being notified repeatedly of it’s inaccuracy. That’s dishonesty William and demonstrates their disclaimer is bogus.

Appealing to motives or personal characterization of the site’s moderators is not evidence in your favor

I’m not appealing to motives or characterizing the site’s moderators: I’m noting the factual evidence of their behavior. They have refused to fix a noted missattribution. That’s dishonesty, pure and simple. And, I might add, it’s not like they were asked to change the citations yesterday; the requests have been made for years.

and it doesn’t change the fact that due to the disclaimer being up there, and due to the fact that there is no attempt to characterize what anyone meant by those quotes, those simply cannot be characterized as “quote mines”.

It’s a set of dishonest attributions William. And since evolutionary biologists coined the term back in the late 70s, I don’t think you’re in any position to actually argue what constitutes a quote-mine and what doesn’t. They noted back then – and it’s still true today – that creationists routinely quote them out-of-context, without accurate attribution, and string together unrelated (and often missattributed) statements to try to make it look like the person holds a position they don’t. That’s a quote-mine William and that’s exactly what this site is doing. It makes no difference that the site isn’t using these quotes to make any specific argument; all that matters is that they are presented inaccurately.

I will also note that your semantic argument doesn’t actually provide any ethical or moral support for such sites anyway; the far bigger issue is that the practice knowingly providing inaccurate quotes and cherry-picking statements that appear to support a given position is just plain dishonest no matter what you want to call it.

At least one quote is probably a factually incorrect quote, but that doesn’t make it a “quote mine”.

Ok…it’s an outright fabricated lie. That somehow make it better?
OMagain on January 14, 2016 at 8:43 pm said:

petrushka: Now, if you can show me an instance where the creationist presents a fair and complete representation of the original argument, I will accept that as fair usage.

I’ve provided lots of links. Pick one and demonstrate that the creationist has presented the issue as the original author intended.

I second this. But that’s not the argument that William is making. I predict a retreat.
Robin on January 14, 2016 at 8:51 pm said:

William J. Murray:
Robin,

I didn’t say it was honest or ethical. I said it that in the particular case of the site and examples in question, it’s not quote-mining.

I don’t see you being in any authoritative position to make the claim of what is or is not a quote-mine. Got any reference for what the origin of the term and the intended use that counters what I have? No? Then on what are you basing your expert knowledge of what “quote-mine” even means?

But really William…why are you so gleefully grabbing at that low-hanging fruit anyway when the real issue in using the term “quote-mine” is to note dishonesty, and that the practice of creating that list of quotes, no matter what one calls it, is in fact dishonest and unethical? What exactly is the point of your argument – that accurate term use trumps moral behavior?