Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD Editors: There is nothing new under the sun says the teacher. With all the furor over false quote mining charges recently, it seems appropriate to revisit this piece Dr. Dembski first published on April 26,2005 (making it among the first of the now 11,000+ UD posts).

Unlike the serious sciences (e.g., quantum electrodynamics, which is accurate up to 14 decimal places), evolution has become an exercise in filling holes by digging others. Fortunately, the cognitive dissonance associated with this exercise can’t be suppressed indefinitely, so occasionally evolutionists fess-up that some gaping hole really is there and can’t be filled simply by digging another hole. Such admissions, of course, provide ready material for evolution critics like me. Indeed, it’s one of the few pleasures in this business sticking it to the evolutionists when they make some particularly egregious admission. Consider the following admission by Peter Ward (Ward is a well-known expert on ammonite fossils and does not favor a ID-based view):

“The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.
— Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), 29.

Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory, wouldn’t you say? Note that this is not a misquote: I indicate clearly that Ward does not support ID and there’s sufficient unedited material here to make clear that he really is saying that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory.

You’d think, therefore, that the evolutionary community might be grateful to evolution critics for drawing their attention to this problem, treating it as an incentive to get the lead out and figure out just what happened during the Cambrian. But that’s not what happens. Rather, evolution critics are charged with “quote mining,” misrepresenting the true state of evolutionary theory by focusing on a few scattered problems rather than toeing the party line and admitting that evolution is overwhelmingly confirmed.

This happened when I quoted from the above passage by Ward in a popular piece titled “Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge” (go here). In due course I received the following email:

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I would appreciate the citation for your recent quote from Peter Ward, “The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”

Thank you,

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

Innocent enough request. The piece in which the quote appeared was popular, so I hadn’t given the reference. I wrote back giving the full citation. Next thing I read on the web is a piece (co-authored by Hurd) twice as long as my original piece focused on the sin of quote-mining (go here). And, as is now standard operating procedure, the original author of the quote is contacted for comment on being “quote-mined.” Predictably, the author (in this case Ward) is shocked and dismayed at being quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution. Evolutionists may not know much about what actually happened in the course of natural history, but they have this script down:

We [i.e., Gary Hurd et al.] emailed and then telephoned Peter Ward to ask him for a citation to this quote. He actually couldn’t recall where he had written this. Ultimately we had to ask William Dembski for the citation, which he promptly provided. We would like to thank him publicly for this courtesy. Professor Ward was not at all pleased, and wished us to convey to Dr. Dembski his displeasure at his writing being manipulated in this fashion. We consider this as done herein.

Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’t want to be quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution, resist the urge — don’t criticize it. If tempted, even if the reality of evolution’s gaping holes is staring you in the face, close your eyes and repeat the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.”

Through long experience, this has been found to be the most effective way to rejoin your fellow sleepwalkers.

Comments
F/N: Onlookers, kindly cf my response on Feb 16 [and details further up], at 119 to see why, for cause, I have responded now as sharply as I did. Roy has had two weeks to sort things out and come to a reasonable settlement, but chose instead to continue personal attacks. That speaks volumes and takes away any moral high ground he pretends to. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Onlookers, I of course happened by to see more of Roy's little dirty game in progress. Let us now refuse to feed the troll. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Roy, at this stage it is clear that you have no decency or sincerity or appropriate responsiveness to abundant facts in evidence from detailed and lengthy citation beyond what would be normal. Where I made a sincere error of citation -- a word I thought accurate but which is not, a word that did not change meaning, I acknowledged and corrected, drawing out the basis for my conclusions in detail. To this you show zero appropriate responsiveness, revealing only a well poisoning trollish agenda. Consider yourself exposed as a troll. Good night. KFkairosfocus
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise.
It is also normal for a citation to refer to the actual source of whatever text is quoted, and for that text to match what the original author actually wrote. RoyRoy
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
William,
It depends on what they’re being used for. If they’re being mistakenly used as factual references to support an argument the quotes do not actually support (because context would make that clear), I would call it a misunderstanding or ignorance about what the quote actually means.
I agree that might sometimes be the case, but not in this instance. Kairosfocus made it clear when he introduced this Gould quote that he was aware that it was claimed to be both quote-mined and about lower taxonomic ranks ("species"). Yet he copied it from an unreliable, contextless source anyway. He was neither mistaken nor ignorant, but deliberately negligent.
It wouldn’t be “quote-mining”, though. Quote-mining carries with it an element of deceit,...
Well, there's the deceit of citing the primary text rather than the actual source, but I doubt you mean that.
... and we’re supposed to be debating under the principle of charity.
Perhaps you should tell kairosfocus - he's been showering accusations of bigotry, falseness, bluffing, toxicity, etc like confetti. You could explain the difference between a quotation and a citation as well, since he doesn't seem to take any notice of me.
IOW, one should tell their adversary that they are mistaken about the meaning of the quote and attempt to correct them, but to insist they are “quote-mining” just because you doubt they actually read the contextual material is in bad form, IMO.
I tried. I directed kairosfocus to the context (post #69), and got an arrogant and snotty response that made it abundantly clear that kairosfocus wasn't interested in any context. My subsequent suggestion that the text might be incorrect was met by a flat denial of any misquoting. I didn't insist that kairosfocus was quote-mining because I doubted he had read the context, but because he was demonstrating not only ignorance of the context but also complete indifference to it. And because his actions met not just my criteria for quote-mining, but yours and his as well. Incidentally, I wasn't just doubtful, but 100% certain he hadn't read the context, partly because he carefully avoided referring to any of it, but mostly because of all the 500+ instances Google finds of his erroneous version, not one includes even a single word of the subsequent text. I don't think he'll learn anything from his accidental misquote and misrepresentation, and his latest attempt to justify his views, with the substitution of "major taxonomic groups" for the previously exposed "THE major groups" plus his continued references to Gould entire output - apart of course from the two occasions when Gould explicitly stated that he had been quoted out of context - suggest he has no interest at all in what Gould actually meant, only in how he (kairosfocus) can bend Gould's words to support his (kairosfocus's) own views. (I'm spending far too much time on this.) RoyRoy
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
It seems, some reasonable response on your part is in order.
No response is in order unless you either retract your claim that I am "perilously close to insistently making willfully false accusations", or demonstrate that anything I've said is actually false. You might also ponder whether you are in a position to request a "reasonable response" given that you have repeatedly failed to provide a reasonable response to the straightforward question concerning where you really got that quote purportedly from Gould's essay 'The return of hopeful monsters'. RoyRoy
February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Roy: It is still the case that:
you have made several demonstrably overblown accusations, and expressed “contempt,” which seems to be a euphemism for unwarranted hostility (probably driven by fever swamp talking points). Since Sunday morning, I have made several specific responses, documenting in particular how an innocent error on a clip did not materially or willfully distort Gould’s meaning on the point made. And, earlier, a more extensive citation of the case highlighted by Matzke shows the same pattern of overblown accusation and failure to accept that Gould did indeed highlight — as an expert — that sudden appearance, stasis and disappearance are typical and indeed dominant patterns in the fossil record; in context this is a decades long sustained view and summary report on his part right up to two months before his passing away. It seems, some reasonable response on your part is in order.
KFkairosfocus
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Roy: you have made several demonstrably overblown accusations, and expressed "contempt," which seems to be a euphemism for unwarranted hostility (probably driven by fever swamp talking points). Since Sunday morning, I have made several specific responses, documenting in particular how an innocent error on a clip did not materially or willfully distort Gould's meaning on the point made. And, earlier, a more extensive citation of the case highlighted by Matzke shows the same pattern of overblown accusation and failure to accept that Gould did indeed highlight -- as an expert -- that sudden appearance, stasis and disappearance are typical and indeed dominant patterns in the fossil record; in context this is a decades long sustained view and summary report on his part right up to two months before his passing away. It seems, some reasonable response on your part is in order. KFkairosfocus
February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
WJM: My concern, of course is precisely the career-long context, which has been more than adequately documented and in fact was notorious. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
I would still be interested in how you would describe the practice of using isolated quotes from unreliable lists without either checking their veracity or citing the secondary source. If “quote-mining” is an inappropriate term, what would be an appropriate one?
It depends on what they're being used for. If they're being mistakenly used as factual references to support an argument the quotes do not actually support (because context would make that clear), I would call it a misunderstanding or ignorance about what the quote actually means. It wouldn't be "quote-mining", though. Quote-mining carries with it an element of deceit, and we're supposed to be debating under the principle of charity. IOW, one should tell their adversary that they are mistaken about the meaning of the quote and attempt to correct them, but to insist they are "quote-mining" just because you doubt they actually read the contextual material is in bad form, IMO.William J Murray
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, meanwhile it is still the case that the only observed source of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I, is design; that blind watchmaker chance and/or necessity therefore cannot pass the vera causa [an actual, observed, true cause is required to explain phenomena which we did not directly observe . . . such as those of the remote natural history past of origins] test, and; such should not even be admitted as an attempted explanation of body plan origin requiring more than 500 - 1,000 bits worth of incremental explicit or implicit information. Where, it is readily seen that novel body plans for multicellular organisms credibly require 10 - 100+ mn bits of incremental bio-info, and that a first cell based life form would require something like 100,000 to 1 mn or so bits. That speaks to both the major branches of the tree of life and the root, and it highlights that the only vera causa plausible explanation of the FSCO/I in life is its only observed cause, design. Where also, the open challenge I have put up to submit an essay of about 6,0000 words outlining the evo mat account of these origins with empirical evidence that passes the vera causa test -- which I would host here at UD -- still stands open and unanswered after coming on a year and a half. (I did put together what amounts to a half-hearted composite response as in that form the best shot coming from TSZ etc, but it is patently grossly inadequate. If there were a real and cogent answer, it would be in every museum, every textbook, every magazine, all over the internet.) It seems to me that the sort of fever swamp hostility, bigotry, rhetorical tactics and agendas we all too routinely see here at UD come from this underlying explanatory failure, joined to ideological commitment to a radical secularist, evolutionary materialist worldview that ever so easily bleeds over into nihilist amorality. The sort of misbehaviour that recently tried to expose my residential address (and so by implication of such "outing" tactics, uninvolved wife and children) to such threats in a hostile context. If that is how such behave in cases of minor power, how would they behave with effectively unchecked power? Do we really want our civilisation to pass into the domination of such hands and hearts? Maybe, we need to again pay attention to Plato's warning from 2350 years ago about where such predictably ends up. KF PS: Read the context of the just linked.kairosfocus
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Roy, Finally, your problem is not mere contempt, it is bigotry, laced with hostility verging on hate. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Roy Pardon, but you just further proved to me that your rhetorical game is to distract, accuse and dismiss, not to seek truth or be fair. Much less, actually address the matter on its merits, where quite plainly you do not have a cogent answer to the suddenness, stasis and disappearances of the fossil records as a characteristic pattern across major groups. One much mo4re widely known than Gould's cites, but for which those cites are a useful point of reference. I rest content on that conclusion, as if you had a reply on the material facts you would have given copious citation. That you instead are working yourself up into a lather over a minor error of citation that does not change meaning in any material way, speaks volumes, unintentional volumes. Just to clench over this nail, let me highlight the short clip in a different way:
"transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Major taxonomic groups obviously would include those at the top of the hierarchy of classification, from Family on up. Abrupt is synonymous with suddenness. Stasis of the defining characteristics of the groups is notorious. But what is "characteristically," if not this:
characteristic (?kær?kt??r?st?k) n 1. a distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait 2. (Mathematics) maths a. the integral part of a common logarithm, indicating the order of magnitude of the associated number: the characteristic of 2.4771 is 2. Compare mantissa b. another name for exponent, used esp in number representation in computing adj 3. indicative of a distinctive quality, etc; typical ?character?istically adv Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
In short, Gould was describing a typical, distinguishing pattern of major groups in the fossil record, which the immediate context (as well as that of his career up to the final book published in 2002 as long since cited and studiously ignored by you in haste to score rhetorical points) makes plain is quite utterly dominant. I will explain. Let us look at a wider, annotated cite of the essay for the clip with the minor error; done in response to the accusations you made pivoting on whether or no "the" appears in a cited phrase [which it seems not]: ____________ >> "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change [[--> notice, NO support], and the principle of natural selection does not require it—selection can operate rapidly [[--> he intends to call for this to save the wider theory, but on fair comment, this is not successful] . . . .
[[--> this opening remark tries to make virtue out of a grave weakness, the specific functional information content of "sudden leaps" of implied scope of complexity undermines the hope of accumulating small, incremental changes to overwhelm the cliff-like challenge of Dawkins' Mt Improbable]
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. [[--> notice, "All paleontologists know . . . "] Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record—if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change . . .
[[--> statistically, with 250,000+ fossil species notoriously in hand, millions of specimens in museums and billions observed in the field (think here of Barbados, which is built on cubic miles of fossil corals etc. that can be seen just by walking along the roads or visiting construction sites), if gradual change were dominant, per the implications chance sampling, it should be dominant in the fossils, so that it is not is a striking concession]
we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, [--> notice his underscoring of the "characteristically abrupt" just above] can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms—that is, viable, functioning organisms—between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no
[[--> Notice Gould's remark already cited, that "our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" -- especially relevant when such "preadaptation" then faces the challenge of diverse parts being required to fit together, be coupled just right (often to tiny fractions of an inch), and have all parts present and correctly arranged at one go for irreducibly complex functional entities; e.g. to build Behe's famous bacterial flagellum which requires dozens of fairly unique proteins set up in a elf-assembling functional whole . . . where also the usual counter-example suggested rhetorically, the toxin injector of bacteria that prey on eukaryotes (which supposedly derived later from prokaryotes, that -- similar to bacteria -- don't have nuclei), is far more plausible as a similarly irreducibly complex derivative based on one of the substructures. Likewise, at gross body plan level, loss of function on the way to becoming a wing integrated with requisite control and powering systems to achieve flight, is a classic challenge]
[[Stephen Jay Gould 'The Return of Hopeful Monsters.'Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, pp. 22 - 30 & elsewhere. Emphases, highlights and parenthetical notes on points added. This cite has been expanded in reply to an accusation of "quote-mining," and to correct a minor error in the original short highlighted clip, "transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.>> ______________ It is fair comment to hold that this constitutes a case of straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel on your part. It was already pointed out that from the wider corpus and particularly the last book by Gould, the general pattern cited is accurate to Gould's sustained thought, and now the context of the clip with a minor error show that minor error notwithstanding -- and I acknowledge my error -- the cited clip does not, did not and plainly from additional words cannot change the fundamental meaning of what Gould had to say. I thank you, Roy, for the minor correction; but I need to point out that you are failing to see the substantial issue, not just what Gould -- as an expert with decades of experience -- had to say, but the underlying facts on the ground. Namely, it is quite plain that the fossil record on the whole does not document the textbook pattern of gradual emergence but instead suddenness, stasis and disappearance which may -- think a certain famous fish that vanished only to be found alive swimming in our oceans from 1938 was it on -- be consistent with continued existence. We then need to ask ourselves why there is such stout rhetorical resistance by any means necessary to the substance on the ground and to any public citation of experts that points to it. Not to mention, the all too habitual resort to the assumption, insinuation and even outright accusation that any and all who seriously question the evolutionary materialist narrative on origins, are incorrigibly ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. And BTW, Roy, it is a serious false accusation with a notorious context and track record leading to highly abusive behaviour up to and including unjustified career busting and distortion of education policy and court decisions, to conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism. If you would simply contrast the patterns of discussion of design thinkers and the way say Mr Ham argued in his recent debate with Mr Nye -- notice, for just one instance, how he did not want to address fine tuning of the cosmos, one of the most powerful evidences of design as it cut across a typical YEC interpretation of Genesis which seems to control how Mr Ham argues -- you would immediately see how different the two are. I suggest to you that you take time to look at the UD Weak Argument Correctives, accessible through the Resources tab, top of every page in this blog. Good day. KFkairosfocus
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
The only thing I addressed in this thread was (1) your original, apparent misconception about what “quote-mine” means, and (2) the fact that it is incumbent upon those who make the accusation to support them – it is not incumbent upon the accused to “prove their innocence”.
True, dat. Perhaps I should have taken more care not to let my contempt for kairosfocus cloud my opinion of you by unfair association. I would still be interested in how you would describe the practice of using isolated quotes from unreliable lists without either checking their veracity or citing the secondary source. If "quote-mining" is an inappropriate term, what would be an appropriate one? RoyRoy
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
I wrote this:
Despite the facts provided here and your exhortation for me to “acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done” I suffer no illusion that you will do anything of the sort. Instead I expect you to either to twist and turn in false indignation and slander me, or to ignore this post completely. But if you do reply, remember that unless your response starts with either an acknowledgment that you misquoted Gould (or very strong evidence that he did produce two versions of his text) it will not be worth reading.
I see kairosfocus has returned. Is what he has to say worth reading?
FYI, I have looked at the relevant text of the book and am satisfied that the cites in question are substantially sound and in context. Cf 94 above. At this point you are perilously close to insistently making willfully false accusations, and I suggest to you that it is time to think seriously again on what you are doing. KF
No, it isn't worth reading. It's a load of self-serving garbage. For a start, what false accusations? Kairosfocus has made that accusation twice now, but has yet to show that anything I have said is false. And he has the unmitigated effrontery to suggest that I think about what I'm doing. Then there's this:
I also went up to 53, where I cited (from accessible sources) as follows:
"from accessible sources"? Kairosfocus hasn't cited any accessible sources. In fact he's repeatedly refused to say where he got that misquote from 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Maybe he thinks "cited (from accessible sources)" means the same as 'copied from an unreliable quote site'. Then later he says:
So at most there is a minor error of citation such as does occur, for which if so I apologise. (That will happen occasionally, even when typing from a book.)
It's not an error of citation. The citation was accurate, or at least it would have been if kairosfocus had actually used Gould's text. It's a misquote. If he wants to apologise he can apologise for what he actually did. All of it. Otherwise his apologies are as worthless as his 'quotes'. Next up:
Has a material difference been made to meaning in light of the immediate and wider context of Gould’s work? I suggest, no.
It's suspiciously convenient that now kairosfocus has been told about the extra word he thinks it doesn't make a material difference, when back in post #75 he was emphasising it in ALL CAPS. It's also suspiciously convenient that he has omitted all mention of his previous emphasis. As for his talking about the "immediate context", he still hasn't given the slightest indication that he knows what the immediate context is, so any claims he makes about it are just discardable drivel. I'm not sure which possibility is worse - that he hasn't checked the context but blathers about it anyway, or that he has checked the context, and is pretending not to know he misquoted Gould. As for the wider context, it's also suspiciously convenient that kairosfocus has nothing to say about his more serious misrepresentation - that Gould's examples all involve families yet kairosfocus claimed Gould was talking about phyla, subphyla, classes and orders. Gould plainly has been misrepresented, as is obvious to anyone who has actually read the essay being 'quoted' (which almost certainly doesn't include kairosfocus). Gould's later clarifying remarks confirm this, if such were needed. So if misrepresentation is the essential feature of quote-mining, kairosfocus is a quote-miner.
In short, it seems here we have a side track leading away form a substantial issue... So, what is really going on, on the material issue?
Actually, the central issue of this thread is misquoting and quote-mining, so kairosfocus's attempt to divert from his shenanigans is the side track. It's ironic that he has been caught misquoting and quote-mining in such an appropriately titled thread, but as I said before, he had plenty of opportunities to avoid it. He only has himself to blame. I'm done here. Kairosfocus has proved not just to be a quote-miner through totally unnecessary culpable negligence, but also too gutless to admit to his sins, preferring instead to ignore inconvenient facts, rewrite history and accuse others. I'll not waste any more time on him. RoyRoy
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Exactly what is preventing you from doing what I did and seeking out a copy?
The only thing I addressed in this thread was (1) your original, apparent misconception about what "quote-mine" means, and (2) the fact that it is incumbent upon those who make the accusation to support them - it is not incumbent upon the accused to "prove their innocence". My points were entirely about quote-mining accusations, not about Gould or anything he said. What Gould has to say doesn't interest me.William J Murray
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
F/N 2: I also went up to 53, where I cited (from accessible sources) as follows:
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.]
Roy makes much and tries to hang a case on the claim that "the" before major groups is incorrect. Okay, to see a key point, let us now cite again omitting the:
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.]
Has a material difference been made to meaning in light of the immediate and wider context of Gould's work? I suggest, no. So at most there is a minor error of citation such as does occur, for which if so I apologise. (That will happen occasionally, even when typing from a book.) But, the underlying point remains; the substantial message remains the case. In short Gould has plainly not been misrepresented, which is the essential implication of "quote mining" that has any merit. Beyond Gould, Darwin's view has also not been misrepresented and the substantial issue remains that persistence of gap[s int eh record and absence as a rule of transitional forms between major groups/ the major groups, is a problem. In short, it seems here we have a side track leading away form a substantial issue that has not been seriously addressed and cogently addressed by blind watchmaker thesis evolutionary materialists in the discussion. So, what is really going on, on the material issue? KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
F/N: Let me repeat what occurs at 94 again, from the first cite: >> The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The longterm stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists, as the previous story of Hugh Falconer [c. 1862] testifies. This fact, as discussed on the next page, established a basis for bistratigraphic practice, the primary professional role for paleontology during most of its history. But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later 19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life’s history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the canonical expectation for evolution’s expression in the fossil record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologists could be good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their profession — but only at the price of sheepishness or embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited evidence rather than an expression of nature’s ways. Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution — with an evident implication that the fossil record’s dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty — paleontologists became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum . . . >> In short the previous cites are clearly substantially correct as to both Darwin's context (I think here of his argument esp. in Ch 6 of Descent of Man] and Gould's. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
PS: your insinuation of cowardice in the face of a much simpler explanation, the fading of a thread into inactivity, does not speak well of your attitude either. FYI, I only chanced to glance at recent comments and saw activity that looked like it should be followed up. As at now, I can stand on the record at 94 above that cites context to show that I am not misrepresenting Gould's position. Which position is abundantly warranted by the simple fact of the commonplace lack of viable links despite the "missing links -- found" headlines over the past 150 years since the first ultimately failed one archaeopteryx.kairosfocus
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Roy: FYI, I have looked at the relevant text of the book and am satisfied that the cites in question are substantially sound and in context. Cf 94 above. At this point you are perilously close to insistently making willfully false accusations, and I suggest to you that it is time to think seriously again on what you are doing. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
I appreciate that you’ve made the effort to back up your claim of quote-mining. However, not having a copy of the book in question, I have no way of vetting what anyone says about the book – you or KF.
Exactly what is preventing you from doing what I did and seeking out a copy? Alternatively, you could have asked for the URL to the on-line version of the text I referred to.* As a third option, you could simply Google the two variations and see which one has the most hits. The ratio of nearly 100:1 is a strong indication as to which version is correct. Since the last two options require minimal effort, I can only conclude that either you didn't think of them (no longer a barrier), or you are more interested in solidarity than truth. Only you know which. Roy *If you ever find your cojones look here. Although since you have at least returned, unlike Mapou and kairosfocus, I should probably concede that you are headed in the right direction.Roy
February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Roy, I appreciate that you've made the effort to back up your claim of quote-mining. However, not having a copy of the book in question, I have no way of vetting what anyone says about the book - you or KF. I was just making the points that your original understanding of quote-mining was apparently wrong, and that it was your job to make your case for it. I give you credit for what appears to be you at least attempting to make your case.William J Murray
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Maybe the onus is on you to prove that the quotes are false, since you’re the one making the thinly veiled accusations.
Mapou, I have now shown that kairosfocus's quote was false, i.e. not what Gould actually wrote. In your posts here you have accused me of lying, blustering, slandering, wasting time, etc. Will you retract those accusations, or do I have to search elsewhere for an honest creationist? RoyRoy
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
William J Murray:
It’s not the person who is accused of quote-mining that bears the responsibility of proving his/her innocence; the burden of making a case falls on those making the charge of quote mining. They must show that what the quoter implies is the meaning of the quote is in fact not what the original author meant by the quote.
Done. Kairosfocus distorted Gould's meaning by emphasising a word that was not actually present in the original text. Do you accept this, or is your mob mentality stronger than your integrity? RoyRoy
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus (post #97):
If you want to accuse me sight unseen of misquoting or quoting out of context, I think on fair comment the ball is in your court to show that my citation is inaccurate.
I have still not been able to locate my copy of Gould's The Panda's Thumb, but I have found some-one else who owns one. I've also checked several reliable on-line sources, including one with a copy of the full text of the essay concerned. In Return of the Hopeful Monster, Gould wrote this:
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
But in post #53, you quoted Gould - italics yours, bolding mine - thus:
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.
You misquoted Gould. It may only be a minor misquote, but it is unquestionably a misquote. Does that additional "the" matter? You lost any chance you ever had of arguing that it doesn't matter in post #75 when you wrote this:
Where — notice Roy, when a world class paleontologist speaks of a scarcity of transitional forms among “THE major groups” [all caps emphasis added], the direct, normal import of his meaning is quite plain and obvious...
Well, it might have been obvious if Gould had actually written that, but he didn't. Putting emphasis on a word that isn't even in the text is a novel way of preserving the meaning. Still, it's just possible that by "major groups" Gould did indeed mean, as you wrote in post #53, "the top level classifications at levels where major body plan features and functions are manifest, including phyla, subphyla, class and order." Luckily Gould included a couple of examples of the transitions, and hence major groups, that he was referring to:
On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint.
Many rodents have check pouches for storing food. These internal pouches connect to the pharynx and may have evolved gradually under selective pressure for holding more and more food in the mouth. But the Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (kangaroo rats and pocket mice) have invaginated their cheeks to form external fur-lined pouches with no connection to the mouth or pharynx.
It takes just a couple of minutes to discover that the two snake genera - Casarea and Bolyeria - are in one of about a dozen families in the infraorder Alethinophidia, and the two families of rodents lie within the suborder Castorimorpha along with the family Castoridae (beavers). Thus the types of direct, fossil-less transition that Gould was referring to are those that lead to animals being classified as belonging to new families - not to new phyla, subphyla, classes or orders. By claiming Gould was referring to the latter, when the examples Gould provided suggest otherwise, you have taken Gould's words out of context. And since Gould wasn't referring to phyla, subphyla etc, by emphasising that non-existent "the" and claiming that Gould was referring to "THE major groups", rather than any old major groups, you have distorted Gould's meaning. You provided a handy checklist of what quote-mining typically means at post #90:
misquoting or out of context, distorting quoting
Misquoting: check. Out of context: check. Distorting: check. WJM also provided a definition:
Quote mining is using quotes in order to make it appear the person being quoted meant something other than what they actually meant.
Yous used a (mis)quote to make it appear that Gould meant the higher taxonomic orders, including phyla and subphyla, when both the examples in Gould's essay and Gould's own later clarification show that he actually meant lower taxonomic orders. By both WJM's definition and your own, you are a quote-miner. You could try claim to be a victim of some-one's error here - after all, it probably wasn't you that inserted that additional "the". But nobody forced you to copy the misquote from whatever dubious site you obtained it from. Nobody forced you to cite Gould directly rather than via a secondary source. Nobody forced you to continue to conceal your actual source, despite hints in posts #91 and #93 and being directly asked in posts #86 and #95. Then, after I say that "I am being as careful as I can to make sure that everything I say is justifiable", you can't even be bothered to wonder why I'm asking or how I knew you didn't get that quote from a legitimate source, but instead accuse me of making unjustified and groundless accusations and false insinuations. You aren't a victim, you're culpably negligent. Nor are you innocent of the distortion. Your comments about quote-mining in post #53 indicate that you knew when you posted the quote from "Return of the Hopeful Monster" that it had been described as being out-of-context. Yet despite that knowledge, you made no attempt to confirm the context before posting. Culpable negligence again. That is the basis for my criticism. It is possible that Gould produced multiple versions of his essay, and that your misquote is actually genuine, but I really, really doubt it. It's far more likely that you misquoted Gould out-of-context, distorted his intended meaning, and became a quote-miner. Despite the facts provided here and your exhortation for me to "acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done" I suffer no illusion that you will do anything of the sort. Instead I expect you to either to twist and turn in false indignation and slander me, or to ignore this post completely. But if you do reply, remember that unless your response starts with either an acknowledgment that you misquoted Gould (or very strong evidence that he did produce two versions of his text) it will not be worth reading. RoyRoy
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
M & WJ, Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away.
Not tip-toeing away, merely having a Xmas break, dealing with storm damage to my property, and attempting to track down the full text and context of that last Gould quote. Unfortunately, my copy of The Panda's Thumb is proving to be irritatingly absent, so I may have to find a well-stocked library or bookshop. RoyRoy
January 10, 2014
January
01
Jan
10
10
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
[…] is in this context that I responded to Jaceli123 as follows (in a thread where he subsequently […]ID Foundations, 22: What about evolutionary trees of descent and homologies? (An answer to Jaceli123′s presentation of a typical icon of evolution . . . ) | Uncommon Descent
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
PS: Then there's:
The Darwinist toxic rhetorical squid ink cloud to enable escape for oneself (maybe by handy sockpuppet . . . ) or for one's partners in crime
. . . as well as the longstanding:
Darwinist trifecta red herrings trojan horse led away from the track of truth to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion
. . . and of course the even more classic:
fallacy of the closed, hostile, question-begging, self-referentially incoherent, absurdity-clinging a priori materialist mind.
When all else fails we have:
Your'e expelled you creationist mole in the high church of Darwin
. . . and:
We're gonna out and threaten as well as stalk or harass you and your family and those you care for.
Maybe it's time we started to treat this stuff like antivirus companies with computer malware. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2013
December
12
Dec
27
27
2013
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
M, I understand how you feel but sorta think you should slide the tone/language intensity down a bit. On the main point, if you will look at my more extended cite from Gould's last book, you will see that he is hinting that there are some things that are unmentionable and subject to a sort of consensus of silence among the in-group and hoi polloi don't even read this stuff so why tell them. Talk about an inner ring secrets game! I suspect Gould was a tad tongue in cheek when he wrote that, but it is revealing in his context. And I see after complaining where did you get that -- from Gould's last book, just as stated, R has gone poof. I guess, bluff called, and R has maybe read pp. 750 ff of Gould's 2002 book that critically assesses the state of evo theory and realised that his toxic remarks make him look outright churlish in light of the fuller context. As for NM, nowhere to be seen, after falsely accusing me of being a liar and a distorter, then trying a 1984 slip-slide on definitions; his want of decency to take back those words and apologise like a gentleman, tell us all we need to know about him . . . yet again, sadly. BTW, this one is beginning to look alike the latest in darwinist fallacies of accusation against design thinkers, they must have just trotted it out at some of those fever swamps. Let's give it an official name, just like viruses, trojans and worms get names form antivirus software people:
The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse.
I think that about captures it: it's not what it seems like, and it's what's inside the wrapper that counts. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2013
December
12
Dec
27
27
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply