Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + + + + + + + +
another reason the rv was wrong to do
The article is wrong insofar as it relates to lawyers. Quote mining is selective quoting. Lawyers acting ethically do not selectively quote. A lawyer's first obligation is as an officer of the court. For example, when I am in court I have an obligation to advise the court of all relevant cases, not just those that might assist my client. Furthermore, I cannot misrepresent an opponent's position by selectively quoting them. Any lawyer who selectively quotes and, by doing so, misleads a court, has failed in their ethical obligations. I am happy to take a stab at a rewrite if no-one has any objections. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)
The article is wrong insofar as it relates to lawyers. Quote mining is selective quoting. Lawyers acting ethically do not selectively quote. A lawyer's first obligation is as an officer of the court. For example, when I am in court I have an obligation to advise the court of all relevant cases, not just those that might assist my client. Furthermore, I cannot misrepresent an opponent's position by selectively quoting them. Any lawyer who selectively quotes and, by doing so, misleads a court, has failed in their ethical obligations. I am happy to take a stab at a rewrite if no-one has any objections. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:I'm not sure what happened there. I posted the above entry and no-one objeected. I changed the article (for the better in my view) and it was reverted without explanation. What gives? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 23:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:I'm not sure what happened there. I posted the above entry and no-one objeected. I changed the article (for the better in my view) and it was reverted without explanation. What gives? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 23:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)
==General and specific==
In the general sense, quote mining means finding evidence within the very words of one's adversaries which contradict their own position. Partisans who are dishonest would naturally object to this. "Hey, no fair proving me wrong with my own words!" This is like a nanny who secretly beats or molests your children, getting caught on videotape; she then objects to having been videotaped surreptitiously as if your efforts to protect your children were an even greater offense than her own crime. Possibly this objection derives from the [[exclusion rule]], which was instituted to prevent the planting of [[false evidence]], but it is unrelated to public writings and speeches.
In the specific senses, quote mining sometimes means a [[false interpretation]] of the words of one's adversaries. The typical defense here is, "Yeah, I said that, but it doesn't mean what you think it means." Environmentalists have tried to explain away Stephen Schneider's [[scary scenarios]] statement this way. Evolutionists frequently say that the doubts various pro-evolution scientists have about some aspects of evolution should not be taken as evidence of [[scientific controversy]]. However, this is specious reasoning designed to cover up the existence of [[scientific debate]].
The position of science educators who doubt evolution is that the Theory of Evolution should not be taught as a "fact" (like gravity) but merely as the best explanation found so far by [[physical science]]. It should not be taught as unassailable doctrine, but as a tentative theory. Science, unlike religious [[faith]], is not entitled to promulgate [[dogma]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)