I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Darwinists mine quotes, too

The Wikipedia article on quote mining described it as something that anti-Darwinists do to Darwinists, but the Darwinists do plenty of quote mining themselves. An Arkansas newspaper reported,

While most Republican candidates for higher office in November say they don’t think intelligent design should be required curriculum, they say that because of “academic freedom” teachers should be allowed to address the subject in class . . . . . .

One of the assembly’s officers, former state lawmaker Gunner DeLay of Fort Smith, is the Republican candidate for attorney general.

DeLay said he wrote a paper in law school on what he says is a teacher’s “right to academic freedom” under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to teach subjects that are “scientifically valid.”

He said that could include intelligent design.

“The basis of my paper was that although legislative mandated efforts to teach creation science or intelligent design have been struck down, the courts have left open teaching those theories under an instructor’s First Amendment right to academic freedom,” DeLay said.

Such protected speech would have to have a “scientific basis,” DeLay said, adding that a science teacher “could not come in and say we’re all born under a cabbage leaf.”

"The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it’s scientifically valid,” DeLay said.

The title of a Panda's Thumb post citing this newspaper article triumphantly crows, "The old creation science is the new intelligent design." Talk about quote mining. Here was a statement by an obscure politician and a Darwinist repeats it as though it were the gospel truth.

Anyway, in regard to the newspaper article, I am glad to see that some major candidates for top state offices in Arkansas are in favor of teaching the controversy and have not been deterred by setbacks in Dover (PA), Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

The article to which you referred doesn't show any evidence of quote mining by Darwinists.

What are you babbling about?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:00:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Larry once again shows he has no clue what quote mining is.

Here is a simple test for quote-mining:

1) Is the quote presented out of context?

2) Does the analysis of the quote misreperesent the author's intent?

A quick check of the PT article shows that 1) the quote is presented in context (with a link to permit the reader to verify the context), and 2) it does represent the author's view. Furthermore, the brief analysis consists solely of the following sentence fragment: "Someone didn’t get the DI memo in Arkansas:" which indicates that the DI, the primary promoter of intelligent design, does not (publicly) support this view.

In other words, Larry's talking out his ass again.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 8/17/2006 10:21:24 AM ) --

>>>>> Larry once again shows he has no clue what quote mining is.

Here is a simple test for quote-mining:

1) Is the quote presented out of context?

2) Does the analysis of the quote misreperesent the author's intent? <<<<<<

Your definition of "quote mine" is too narrow. To me, a quote mine is any quotation that is selected for the purpose of trying to mislead people. Hence, quote mines are not necessarily just quotations that misrepresent the actual views of the person being quoted, but can also be: (1) a quotation used to misrepresent or stereotype the views of a whole group and (2) a quotation used to support a falsehood. The Talk.Origins website's article on quote mining says,

Even an accurate and in-context quote can be used to mislead. Many quotes are out of date, for example, and talk about our ignorance in areas of which we are no longer ignorant. (emphasis added)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ supports a very broad definition of quote mining:

To sum up, when evolution deniers provide quotations many questions need to be asked including:

Is the quote itself accurate?
Do the preceding and following passages change the meaning of the quote?
Does the creationist use the key terms in the same way as the quoted person?
What is the quoted person's actual opinion on the point in question?
Who was the quoted person addressing?
Is the quote out-of-date?
Who is the quoted person?
Is the quoted person a relevant authority to the issue at hand?
What do other relevant authorities think?
Is the quote from a popular source or from the primary peer-reviewed literature?
Is the quoted person actually correct?


>>>>>>A quick check of the PT article shows that 1) the quote is presented in context (with a link to permit the reader to verify the context), and 2) it does represent the author's view. <<<<<

I never said that the quote was taken out of context. My objection was that the quote was used verbatim for the headline of the Panda's Thumb article, falsely implying that the quote told the truth.

>>>>>> Furthermore, the brief analysis consists solely of the following sentence fragment: "Someone didn’t get the DI memo in Arkansas:" which indicates that the DI, the primary promoter of intelligent design, does not (publicly) support this view. <<<<<<

That doesn't matter -- it is still a quote mine because the Panda's Thumb article treated the quote as factual by putting it in the title.

>>>>>> In other words, Larry's talking out his ass again. <<<<<<

That's why it's called a "rebuttal." And Kevin gets blown away again by Larry's fart gas.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Larry once again shows he has no clue what quote mining is. <

And then he goes on to prove it conclusively in his rebuttal.

Forget it Larry(?). You can't redefine words and then complain because people don't go by your new faulty definitions.

Kevin has blown you away again.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:01:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>> You can't redefine words and then complain because people don't go by your new faulty definitions. <<<<<<

You stupid, feeble-minded cretin -- it looks like I have to blow you away, too.

It was Kevin who redefined "quote mine" by limiting it to quoting out of context and/or misrepresenting the author's intent. I have shown that the noun "quote mine" means and should mean any quote made for the purpose of misleading people, including quotes that are in-context and that do not misrepresent the author's intent. And I have cited a Darwinist source to back up my definition.

I once thought that "quote mining" meant "quoting out of context." So I asked myself -- if "quote mining" means "quoting out of context," then why not just say "quoting out of context"? I now realize that the meaning of "quote mining" is much broader than that.

No matter how well I explain my position and back it up with references, trolls like VIW will waste my time by coming back and saying -- without any argument or evidence whatsoever -- that I don't know what I am talking about.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> it looks like I have to blow you away, too. <

You pathetic asshole. Your belief that you have ever gotten the better of anyone on this blog is a sure sign of your increasing separation from reality.

> I now realize that the meaning of "quote mining" is much broader than that.<

Before you are through redefining it, "Quote Mining" will be the name of a new rock star.

> No matter how well I explain my position and back it up with references <

This is a moot point. You have never explained your position well. As for references, they often disagree with the points you are trying feebly to make.

> saying -- without any argument or evidence whatsoever <

Further perceptual problems -- If you don't agree with, or even understand an argument. It has not been made.

Why don't you try actually answering the many arguments against your positions that appear on this blog? How about the mountain of evidence that is presented against your absurd claims? I suppose that your answer will be the zillion and first repetition of "I am under no obligation..."

Go back into your cave, Troll.

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Quote Mining said...

<< Before you are through redefining it, "Quote Mining" will be the name of a new rock star. >>

I like this ... offers intriguing possibilities for word play around "rock" and "mining" ... :-)

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:53:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home