Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − [[Evolutionists]] are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the [[dogma]]tic 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 [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]]s 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
remove paragraph that ignores the difference between science and law and politics and is a bad argument (words of scientists are not evidence in science)
Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as it violates the modern principle of [[falsifiability]]: no amount of evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single counterexample can be found (see [[Thomas Kuhn]]).
Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as it violates the modern principle of [[falsifiability]]: no amount of evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single counterexample can be found (see [[Thomas Kuhn]]).
Evolution proponents have tried to make ''quote mining'' a [[pejorative]] term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries.
==Intelligent Design Journalist Denyse O'Leary on False Charges of Quote Mining ==
==Intelligent Design Journalist Denyse O'Leary on False Charges of Quote Mining ==