Quote mining

Quote mining is a pejorative term that expresses objection to the use of quotes by a person that tend to discredit a position taken by that person. For example, supporters of the theory of evolution criticize as "quote mining" the use by creationists of quotes in which evolutionists admit to flaws in or problems with the theory.

Origin, in TalkOrigins.org

According to TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

The charge is that of taking a quote out of context. The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have deliberately taken quotes out of context, and (b) have done this on a large scale. The term appears to be used in many cases where there is no, or insignificant, evidence of the quotes being taken out of context.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s. It is not recognized by any dictionaries. Its most common use is by evolutionists to oppose the use of quotations of evolutionists by creationists that tend to discredit their theory.

Is Quote Mining Wrong?

This section discusses merely whether quote mining is wrong, not whether it exists or has been practiced by any individuals.

Myth

Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

Fact

While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation either that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following invented quotation from an imaginary legal case.

"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.

However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.

However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a court opinion. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by twelve days when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law, "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion." She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours," apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying no time constraint other than necessity.

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,

“

The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.

”

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is indeed something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

External Links

• Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes
• Creation Quotes list from Answers in Genesis
• The Quote Mine Project - hosted by the talk.origins archive

See also

• Evolution
• Young Earth Creationism