Quote mining

Quote mining is a pejorative term, not recognized by dictionaries, used to describe the act of taking a quote out of context to argue a point that the original quoted person was not arguing. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to discredit him, quote mining is different because it doesn't catch contradictions in what one says, but rather makes it seem like the quoted person is against a belief they actually support.

Origin, in TalkOrigins.org

According to the pro-evolution site 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.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered not to be quote mining.

The term is used to suggest that people have deliberately or negligently taken facts that are material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial, since it implies scienter - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting for use against the quoted; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does. Generally, however, the term quote mining is used only to describe deliberate misrepresentations of the views of the person quoted.

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 who frequently argue that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists. This is not a sign that is is an invalid claim, as it could also mean that creationists are the most frequent users of the tactic in question.

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.

This is not true, as using somebody's own quote against them is different from quote mining. The fundamental difference is that while the former method is used in law to expose self-contradiction, the latter is used to misrepresent the views of prominent and respected people.

Fact: Defining Quote Mining

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."

This method, however, is not a good example of quote mining, as quote mining generally omits whole sentences, while keeping the used sentences intact, to conceal the fact that the quote is misrepresented. The use of elipses and omissions would make the nature of the quote obvious because of the skepticism of the legitimacy of the quote.

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, but rather of appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

External Links

• Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes
• Creation Quotes list from Answers in Genesis
• (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki
• The Quote Mine Project - hosted by the talk.origins archive

See also

• Evolution
• Young Earth Creationism