Quick question. What’s the phrase we use for creationists taking quotes from an abstract to support their argument but ignore everything that follows in the actual paper that refutes it? We say they are…… I can’t remember the term .
2 Likes
“Quote mining”? Although “dishonest” works too.
3 Likes
It’s not quote mining. It’s a specific term for quote mining abstracts
Hmmm… I don’t know that one 
“Fallacy of Ambiguity?”
This Wiki may be helpful? (“Contextomy” is one I hadn’t heard before))
1 Like
Literature bluffing?
1 Like
I don’t know of a settled expression for that. I know I’ve referenced it in reviews and comments but I think I’ve always just called it the “cite the problem from the abstract” tactic or something like that.
“Abstractsquatulation” would be a good one. It combines the charm of 49er mining slang with the way in which the tactic is a cite-and-flee method. And since, as with all creationist work, its objective is to hornswoggle people and get the facts all cattywampus, it fits nicely into that 49er framework.
3 Likes
It may be abstract mining. Abstract bluffing .I’m
Not sure. I’ve heard people use a specific term for it before and it’s just bothering me I can’t remember it
1 Like
Creationists who resort to such tactics are driven to abstraction.
1 Like