Using creation science to demonstrate evolution

[rcorlew]

rcorlew wrote:

How is that the case? Somebody needs to be getting the quote from the original source, and cutting it to deceive. I'm not talking about all the creationist dupes who use quotes without checking on them (which is bad enough), but the creationist that first quotemined the quote. A lot of these are from books, such as the origin of species, that anyone can get, and even the papers have to be obtained first (such as from the library) by the creationist that first gets the quote.

Yes, I agree that other groups quote mine too. We just saw the nationally prominent case of quote mining in the Shirly Sherrod case. However, does any group quote mine as much as creationists? I mean, I can easily come up with dozens of cases of creationist quotemining in minutes, yet I don't think I could find even 6 quote mines easily by putting together all the other ones I could find that aren't from creationists. Am I forgetting some huge source of quote mines?

Similarly, have you seen any group use as many hoaxes? And it's not so much that they use the hoaxes, but that they keep using the same hoaxes after they've been exposed - the opposite of what happened with piltdown man, which was exposed as a hoax by scientists, and dropped. maybe UFO people come close on that score?

Papias

My reference was mainly to third level debaters like we see in forums like this. I mean, let's face it, unless you are a collegiate level student, involved in the field of study, or have some way worked your way one of these two other circles (as Leonard Susskind did), you have to rely on those who have. That being said, humans are humans and we all like to be on the winning team, I cannot think of ever hearing a football player saying "I am sure glad we lost the Superbowl this year, going into the locker room as losers of the biggest game of the year is what this whole team strives for!" So, when somebody finds out that what they thought was true is no longer true they pretty much have 4 options:

1) Deny the information is the truth as it does not mesh with their current belief/understanding
2) Keep propagating the same information repeatedly in hopes that enough disinformation will obscure the truth
3) Remain silent and allow others with whom they agree to continue the debate without sharing this new information with them
4) Switch sides

 

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

Do you pay as much attention to any other group of conspiracy theorists as you do to creationists?

I mean, the quote mine is really just a specialized case of the more general tactic of ignoring context - and that is used by conspiracy theorists all over, whether it's anti-Semitics harping on the Great Jewish Agenda of 1905 (or whatever it's called) or moon landing deniers harping on the creases in the American flag. Climate change skeptics are especially good at mining their quotes and data.

Well, few other conspircy groups are relevant in my life. For instance, holocaust deniers are few and far between here, as are moon landing hoaxers. Birthers are a little more common, but I've yet to meet even one, and havn't seem them quote mine. Climate deniers are probably the next most relevant group after creationists. I have argued against them as well, including letters to the editor. So, now that you get me to look at it, I seem to be doing an OK job of responding in terms of effort in proportion to relevance wrt conspiracy groups. I'd give myself a "B". If anything, maybe I should give a little more attention to climate deniers than I have.

rcorlew wrote:

So, when somebody finds out that what they thought was true is no longer true they pretty much have 4 options:

1) Deny the information is the truth as it does not mesh with their current belief/understanding
2) Keep propagating the same information repeatedly in hopes that enough disinformation will obscure the truth
3) Remain silent and allow others with whom they agree to continue the debate without sharing this new information with them
4) Switch sides

Yes, I think you really hit the nail on the head here. So many people think it is a personal failing to have been wrong, and avoid admitting it, thus making things worse. It's like any presidential scandal in history - the attempt at cover up is usually more damaging than the actual transgression. That also applies to third level debates like you reference. They too are just as morally obligated to check sources so as not to be propagating a lie. I check sources, even though I'm a person who posts here. If I find my a quote that I thought was in my favor is a distortion, I say so. It is not a personal failing to be wrong, but it is a personal failing to remain wrong when you know better, and thus to knowingly propagate a lie. Of your options, only #4 is honest. The rest require deception. I've found that being secure enough in my own self worth is helpful in getting over our cultural insecurity over being wrong. Now I love finding out I was wrong, because it means I learned something new. I have faith that the real world is not against me, and so finding out more about what is real is not going to threaten me.

Papias

 

[rcorlew]

Shernren wrote:



Well, few other conspircy groups are relevant in my life. For instance, holocaust deniers are few and far between here, as are moon landing hoaxers. Birthers are a little more common, but I've yet to meet even one, and havn't seem them quote mine. Climate deniers are probably the next most relevant group after creationists. I have argued against them as well, including letters to the editor. So, now that you get me to look at it, I seem to be doing an OK job of responding in terms of effort in proportion to relevance wrt conspiracy groups. I'd give myself a "B". If anything, maybe I should give a little more attention to climate deniers than I have.

rcorlew wrote:



Yes, I think you really hit the nail on the head here. So many people think it is a personal failing to have been wrong, and avoid admitting it, thus making things worse. It's like any presidential scandal in history - the attempt at cover up is usually more damaging than the actual transgression. That also applies to third level debates like you reference. They too are just as morally obligated to check sources so as not to be propagating a lie. I check sources, even though I'm a person who posts here. If I find my a quote that I thought was in my favor is a distortion, I say so. It is not a personal failing to be wrong, but it is a personal failing to remain wrong when you know better, and thus to knowingly propagate a lie. Of your options, only #4 is honest. The rest require deception. I've found that being secure enough in my own self worth is helpful in getting over our cultural insecurity over being wrong. Now I love finding out I was wrong, because it means I learned something new. I have faith that the real world is not against me, and so finding out more about what is real is not going to threaten me.

Papias

Well I agree with you 100% except for the bolded part, as a Christian the world is against us as they are God's enemy. This is not some gigantic conspiracy though, it is a "slow fade" and it is our duty to get the world to option 4 doing what the Apostle Paul describes as "persuade" them to Christ.

 

[Papias]

rcorlew wrote:

except for the bolded part

I think I would have been clearer in saying "natural world". What I mean is that admiting I'm wrong, learning from it, and moving on works much better than dragging things out by denying that I'm wrong. I don't mean it in the sense you responded to, I think.

Anyway, Yep.

 

[shernren]

What's a birther?

 

[Assyrian]

What's a birther?

People who don't think a Kenyan should be president of the USA and that the and that the Kenyan birth certificate has been covered up by liberal media.

 

[shernren]

People who don't think a Kenyan should be president of the USA and that the and that the Kenyan birth certificate has been covered up by liberal media.

Ahhh, those guys.

Personally, of all the things that the American conservatives do, I think the Obama-haters turn me off the most. Ok, I respect your right to disagree with his policies and politics. Everybody's a critic these days. But when they do silly things like harp on the man being a Hussein, or call him a Muslim as a result, or think his presidency is invalidated simply based on where he was born - now that's just plain mean. These guys sound like they've never heard of respecting the civil authorities!