Creation Trick: Quote-Mine the Abstract

Any time you see a creationist quote a paper in such a way that the authors seem to support the creationist position, look up that paper. There's a good change they're quoting the "setup" line from the abstract, in which the authors state the problem they're going to address. Creationists love to take that line out of context and present it as though that's the position the authors hold, even when the actual paper says and shows the opposite.

Shout out to @GutsickGibbon for catching the Lynch example during our Dismantled series.

This is just a hobby for me, but if you appreciate what I'm doing and want to say thank you, you can contribute here:

References:

[mjjoe]

I’ve heard more than one person suggest that the goal of creationists and apologists is retention rather than conversion. Quote mining seems to align with that. The tactic is meant to prevent someone from asking more questions or being curious. “We looked at that. It supports our side. Don’t worry about it.”

[lantzeerie]

Oh, like a paper's abstract.
I was excited and curious what "quote-mining the abstract" could possibly mean. Like going to the realm of pure abstraction to pull quotable statements. Pinging the null-space.
Whatever it means, its sounds epic.

[cicik]

this is also a great video how to read and formulate abstract, thanks

[KaiHenningsen]

Pretty much the exact same thing as the infamous Darwin eye quote mine.

[nagranoth_]

Lying for Lies knew exactly what he was doing with that quote mine.

[vestafreyja]

The term Trojan Source was recently coined on Rationality Rules channel by a person in the comment section that perfectly describes this underhanded trick used by creationists.

[seleuf]

Phew. Binged all of Dapper Dinosaur's main channel. Now to catch back up on Dan!

[kamion]

Professor Dave dedicated two video's to the workmethods of Nathaniel Jeanson.
and actully when Jeanson published a recepie for making spagetti bolonese with his methods, I would not eat it fearing foodpoisening.

[heathenwizard]

It is -INCREDIBLY- ballsy to cite and highlight the problem statement of L&A’s abstract while the REST OF THE ABSTRACT IS VISIBLE. They don’t even attempt to hide their quote mining.

Those folks must think their viewers are a special kind of stupid to not bother looking that up.

[buddnd]

Yes a perfect explanation of a
T-R-O-J-A-N SOURCE !!
Those actually accredited scientists, definitely know better than to do this. This is massively dishonest. And makes me think of a phrase my mum always used to say, “better to be slapped with the truth then kissed was a lie.”
They are kissing their followers with LIES.

[origamiswami]

Are you planning to do a video on the Covid variants since Delta? The video you did on Delta was really interesting, and I'd really like to see a follow-up talking about Omicron.

[ReedBetweenTheLines]

I have seen Standing For Truth cite nothing more than the title of a paper on more than one occasion.

Not even the abstract.

Just the title.

[BarryDesborough]

This echoes the quote-mining dishonesty (lying) regarding Darwin's writing. The best-known example is where Darwin is considering the eye.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

I hope that we all know what Darwin wrote, following that sentence.

[biomuseum]

I feel so sorry for the US people having to deal with all these religious extremists

[mepollack]

I agree wholeheartedly, though I’d phrase it differently: it’s not that they should know better, it’s that they’re taking advantage of selective reading. The abstract is often the only part of these papers that get read, and the first sentence or two far more so than others. People read them just to decide if the paper’s worth checking out. These people (YECs) know that playing off of those first couple of sentences plays into the biases of their audience by giving them the simplest “just skim over this, don’t look deeper” mentality to work from. It’s deceit, plain and simple.

[samburns]

What's really hilarious is Am4zon put SFT's self-published nonsense on ERVs in the *Christ1an Books & Bib1es > Min1stry & Evange1ism* section. 😄😄😄

[DavidPNeff]

Don’t mind me. I’m just feeding the hungry algorithm.

[WukongTheMonkeyKing]

Well, it's a good thing these Christians don't follow a religion that teaches not to bear false witness, or lie in general. Otherwise their deity, should it exist, might be upset.

[donnanobel]

And another "Trojan Source" - where the shown quote refutes the proposition

[George]

Am I correct in assuming that there is almost nothing the authors of the papers can do about credentialed creationists dishonestly misrepresenting their work? If there is no recourse it seems like an oversight.