Difference between revisions of "Talk:Quote mining"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Instead of "balance"...) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Maybe we could change it to a more abstract (and made-up) example that emphasizes the point while at the same time simply telling the context in which the term is often used (Evolutionists accusing Creationists of doing so, possibly with the reply by Creationists as Richard gave it - I haven't checked that link)? The quote strikes me as needlessly complicated, especially for an example that is supposed to make a point clear. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:33, 8 March 2007 (EST) | ::Maybe we could change it to a more abstract (and made-up) example that emphasizes the point while at the same time simply telling the context in which the term is often used (Evolutionists accusing Creationists of doing so, possibly with the reply by Creationists as Richard gave it - I haven't checked that link)? The quote strikes me as needlessly complicated, especially for an example that is supposed to make a point clear. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:33, 8 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Actually, what triggered my comment was that I was ''planning'' to find or concoct an example that did not involve either evolution or creationism, but if I'm correct that the phrase is used only in the evolution/creationism dispute—and, as [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] notes, only in one direction—such an example would be misleading, because it wouldn't be illustrating the actual way the term is used. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:35, 8 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:35, March 8, 2007
Usage of the term?
I'd never heard it before. Some Googling and a look at the corresponding Wikipedia article give me the distinct impression that it is commonly used by evolutionists against creationists, but that it is not commonly used in any other context. It also seems to be a fairly recent coinage.
Thoughts? Dpbsmith 06:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- I have heard this term before, but only ever used by evolutionists as an attack on creation researchers. It was apparently coined on the evolutionist discussion group Talk.Origins. CreationWiki has a response to this. Perhaps for balance, the sample "mined" quote could be changed from Darwin to an example of an evolutionist quoting, say, Dembski, out of context? Dr. Richard Paley 07:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Surely 'balance' would be having both? Tsumetai 08:01, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Maybe we could change it to a more abstract (and made-up) example that emphasizes the point while at the same time simply telling the context in which the term is often used (Evolutionists accusing Creationists of doing so, possibly with the reply by Creationists as Richard gave it - I haven't checked that link)? The quote strikes me as needlessly complicated, especially for an example that is supposed to make a point clear. --Sid 3050 08:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Actually, what triggered my comment was that I was planning to find or concoct an example that did not involve either evolution or creationism, but if I'm correct that the phrase is used only in the evolution/creationism dispute—and, as Dr. Richard Paley notes, only in one direction—such an example would be misleading, because it wouldn't be illustrating the actual way the term is used. Dpbsmith 08:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)