Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do creationist posters quote so?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1 of 45 (73689)
12-17-2003 8:04 AM


I've noticed a strong trend for Creationist posters to 'argue by quoting'. They begin their posts with a quote, then respond to any arguments with more quote. It seems they rarely argue the points, prefering instead to rely on outside authority. The evos meanwhile seem to argue the points, only quoting or posting links to support points they themselves have argued.
It's possible this only my impression, and not an actual property of the posts. Does anyone else agree with this trend?
Any ideas as to why it is so?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 12-17-2003 8:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 3 by wj, posted 12-17-2003 8:24 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 4 by MrHambre, posted 12-17-2003 9:18 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 25 by Philip, posted 12-28-2003 12:31 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 45 (73692)
12-17-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 8:04 AM


"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain."
   (Joan of Arc, act I, scene 2 by von Schiller)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 8:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 45 (73693)
12-17-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 8:04 AM


I suggest that creationists have a predisposition to accept authority - whether it is their religious text which has to be taken literally and accepted as inerrent, or in their choice to submit themselves to the authority of a spiritual master.
With this mindset, creationists think that argument from authority trumps any other form of evidence and therefore are inclined to quote mine. And they do not care if a particular quote is consistent with quotee's considered position or not, as long as it superficially apppears to support the creationist's view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 8:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by roxrkool, posted 12-23-2003 11:05 AM wj has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4 of 45 (73710)
12-17-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 8:04 AM


Don't Quote Me on This
As with everything else they offer in support of their position, the quotes offered by creationists are notoriously selective and misleading. If (as in the case of the Milton quotes WILLOWTREE offered) the quoted author is anti-evolution, then his word is taken as absolute, objective truth. The assumption is always that the author's sole intent is to destroy the insidious materialist/naturalist/whateverist conspiracy, and his motives are assumed to be pure. Often (as in the case of the countless quotes DNAunion offered) the authors are more or less conventional scientific researchers, but their words can be misread to support claims with which the authors themselves would almost certainly disagree. In this case, the assumption is that the author must have had a rare epiphany in which the truth appeared to him despite his brainwashing by the etc.ist conspiracy.
The most frustrating aspect to this creationist quote mining is its invulnerability to correction. When people questioned Milton's credentials or his grasp of the concepts he was discussing, WILLOWTREE took the criticism as a sign of Milton's maverick insight. When evidence was offered to counter Milton's claims, WILLOWTREE answered that the evidence could only refute him if it were filtered through an evolutionist perspective. Concerning the quotes from evolutionists, creationists still stand their ground even though evolutionists put the original quotes into their proper context: the assumption is that the same scientists can be regarded as reliable if their words support the creationist's claims, but unreliable when they don't.
The cornerstone of creationism is the belief that any support for evolutionary theory is motivated by atheism, the urge to perpetuate the vast cover up, or both. Attempts to counter creationist claims can come from believers or atheists, researchers or theorists, but their opposition to creationism is always dismissed as atheistic folly. Thus, any attempt at rational discourse ends up becoming an emotionally charged battle about irrelevant metaphysics instead of an objective debate about the significance of empirical evidential inquiry.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 8:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wj, posted 12-17-2003 9:23 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 10 by DNAunion, posted 12-24-2003 6:35 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 45 (73714)
12-17-2003 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by MrHambre
12-17-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Don't Quote Me on This
mindset of submission to authority + conspiracy theory + martyr complex = creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by MrHambre, posted 12-17-2003 9:18 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 45 (74801)
12-23-2003 1:39 AM


Fact mining also.
I think both "quote mining" and "fact mining" (to be discussed below) can both be honest attempts at arguing a point, by a creationist under the influence of "Morton's Demon". That is, they hear what they want to here, and are oblivious to what conflicts with what they want to hear.
I once again bring up Terry, from "Terry's Talk Origins".
While I don't remember Terry being a "quote miner", he does have a real talent at "fact mining". That is, the digging up of little facts (sometimes remarkably obscure) that he thinks will be a step toward the downfall of "old earthism". In looking at his tidbid, he is astonishingly oblivious to context.
As a prime example, I bring you Terry's "Rocks don't have dates on them!" topic.
There he takes the article "Ironstone pods in the Archean Barberton greenstone Belt, South Africa: Earths oldest seafloor hydrothermal vents reinterpreted as Quaternary subareal springs", and interpretes it as a great failing of "old earthism", despite the fact that the enclosing rocks are still clearly defined as 3.2 Ga greenstones.
Moose

  
Admiral Valdemar
Inactive Junior Member


Message 7 of 45 (74851)
12-23-2003 10:52 AM


Appeal to Authority Fallacies and Copy 'n' Paste tactics make such debaters tactically inept. They may as well just tell you to argue with yourself as they have no valid input of their own.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by roxrkool, posted 12-23-2003 11:11 AM Admiral Valdemar has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 8 of 45 (74853)
12-23-2003 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by wj
12-17-2003 8:24 AM


I agree, wj. I also think it's because creationists (at least the fundamentalist Christian types) are programmed to accept authority - no questions asked. Submitting to authority is something that is strongly pushed as a good thing and necessary for being a good Christian. The woman must submit to the man, the man to his pastor, the pastor to a higher church leader, and so on - all of whom must submit to God. It's called faith.
I've seen this same mentality when discussing politics. The fundamentalists do not like to question the president's decisions or his motives and they argue that because he is the president (or whatever), then he knows better than we do.
Questioning authority is frowned upon and it probably has to do with that sort of indoctrination being necessary to take the Bible literally. Or at least follow church leaders without questioning why. In the creation context, if church leaders/elders say that so and so said this about evolution, then it must be true. He's a godly man and wouldn't lie...
I've discussed creation with intelligent creationists, but even after pointing out why quote mining is meaningless and unethical, they still have been unable to grasp why it's wrong. I keep hearing, "But that's what they say right there; it doesn't matter what he says elsewhere."
I think a huge problem is that many people don't have the slightest idea of what evidence is - WILLOWTREE is a perfect example of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by wj, posted 12-17-2003 8:24 AM wj has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 9 of 45 (74856)
12-23-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admiral Valdemar
12-23-2003 10:52 AM


That, too, Valdemar. Most creationists are not science savvy enough to argue in their own words so have to turn to other *experts.*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admiral Valdemar, posted 12-23-2003 10:52 AM Admiral Valdemar has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 45 (75041)
12-24-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by MrHambre
12-17-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Don't Quote Me on This
quote:
Often (as in the case of the countless quotes DNAunion offered) the authors are more or less conventional scientific researchers, but their words can be misread to support claims with which the authors themselves would almost certainly disagree.
Exactly which quotes that I have posted at this site do you contend misrepresent the authors' actual statements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by MrHambre, posted 12-17-2003 9:18 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 45 (75045)
12-24-2003 6:55 PM


1. I do some quote mining simply because my counterparts tend to bury themselves in their own ideological graves by their own words. When a kid lies, he comes up with all kinds of alibies to cover. I find this true with evos and some of whom I contend with here in town. This is not to imply that evos here in town are deliberatly lying, but that their false premise requires what I consider to be similar to alibies. Imo, this worked to my advantage in debate and for the prevalence of truth in the young sun thread as I contended with Nosy Ned and Eta.
2. When contending for truth in subjects one is not well versed one must mine quote in order to support one's ideological position.
3. Evos are remiss often in supporting statements and, imo, would do well for the advancement of factual truth to back up some of their own statements with documentation, rather than expecting us all to accept some specific statements at face value, as if they are the authority they consider themselves to be. Imo, Eta, in the young sun thread is a good example. He contends that you begin counting sun age at main sequence initiation rather than at sun birth/protostar sequence, (supported by Nosy Ned), the former, which, as I see it, is the minority view among his own constituents.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-24-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 12-24-2003 7:55 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-25-2003 1:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 45 (75049)
12-24-2003 7:17 PM


I doubt many of you even know when an appeal to authority is legitimate and when it’s not. In support of my use of quotes, I’ll provide quotes!!!
quote:
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. ...
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified.

(emphasis added, Page not found - Nizkor)
quote:
Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)
Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources. (emphasis added, Forbidden )
quote:
Five conditions for a legitimate argument from authority
1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle
5. A technique is needed to adjucate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. (emphasis added, Wikipedia)
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-24-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2003 8:58 PM DNAunion has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 12-26-2003 4:55 AM DNAunion has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 45 (75053)
12-24-2003 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
12-24-2003 6:55 PM


He contends that you begin counting sun age at main sequence initiation rather than at sun birth/protostar sequence,
And, of course, the universal use of the acronym ZAMS - Zero-Age Main Sequence - couldn't possibly support what Eta says. He only does astrophysics for a living, after all, Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2003 6:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2003 11:24 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 45 (75056)
12-24-2003 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by DNAunion
12-24-2003 7:17 PM


Authorities - good and bad
Thank you DNA, I agree with you. However, even knowledgable appropriate authority is trumped by facts and sound thinking. But when you have not other basis then a consensus of qualified experts does make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DNAunion, posted 12-24-2003 7:17 PM DNAunion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 12-26-2003 11:12 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 45 (75092)
12-25-2003 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coragyps
12-24-2003 7:55 PM


And, of course, the universal use of the acronym ZAMS - Zero-Age Main Sequence - couldn't possibly support what Eta says. He only does astrophysics for a living, after all, Buz.
.........But had he brought forth authoritative sources from other qualified persons/organizations besides himself to refute authoritatve sources which I brought forth which were sources from evolutionists, it might have enforced his own position. After all, his own biased position was necessary to refute my biased position that an existing star regardless of whether it was created or evolved would show a far greater appearance of age than a few thousands of years, even if for no other reason than the fact that it exists as a fully formed star.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 12-24-2003 7:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024