7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + +
no edit summary
::There is also developing a more general use. It is perhaps rather bold to start with the most contentious topics, but the two examples show how it can be used to support various types of argument. If it is an invalid method of argument, and yet creationists use is, where can they be shown this is a more friendly place than here?[[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is also developing a more general use. It is perhaps rather bold to start with the most contentious topics, but the two examples show how it can be used to support various types of argument. If it is an invalid method of argument, and yet creationists use is, where can they be shown this is a more friendly place than here?[[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that there may be a misunderstanding concerning quote mining. Quote mining is a concept that has existed ever since books, papers, and intellectual journals have been written. One of the primary determinants of an accurate and honest work is the avoidance of quote mining, as it is tempting to skew sources to support whatever the writer would like to say. Anyone can find dozens of sources to support even the most ridiculous of notions. I think that the is no legitmate reason for this article to be deleted. It has nothing to do with the imaginary war between science and religion. It's about good, factual writing.