Wednesday, November 03, 2010
An object lesson
I received the following as a comment to my biographic entry, "About me". I rejected it as a comment but would like to use it to point out somethings about discourse today that are quite troubling.
Notice how this person focuses on my background as not qualifying me to criticize Burton Mack. In today's society, apparently if you don't have the right piece of paper with the right incantations and runes on it, you cannot practice some kinds of magic. Or less sarcastically, only people with the proper training can discuss certain areas. This is ridiculous on the face of it. I have seen PhD philosophers write bad philosophy, and amateurs write excellent, cogent arguments. The formal training simply teaches the vocabulary and who has written what. It does not guarantee actual expertise. This is akin to the closed, union shop mentality, and is a way of preventing challenges to the established "wisdom". Only those who have been indoctrinated may join the discussion.
Second, notice that it compounds the felony for me to criticize Burton Mack negatively. And just who will point out the weaknesses in his arguments, the true believers? If one publishes, one is inviting comment, positive or negative. When one has the intent of tearing down established Christianity then expect plenty of criticism.
This is a common technique in modern discourse, the use of the ad hominum attack rather than debating the argument. Note that there are at least two posts of mine on Burton Mack that this person could have commented on, pointing out the errors in my arguments that he/she sees. Instead, this person chose to take the shortcut by saying that since I am not "qualified" to discuss this, then I should not do so, and my statements should not be considered. From my point of view this person, by failing to engage my arguments or commentary directly has exhibited either intellectual laziness, cowardice, or incompetence, separately, in some combination, or all three.
Just to belabor the point, gilhow has no knowledge of what informal study I have undertaking over the years, nor has she/he paid any attention to the posts I have generated. The fourth generation of the Vanderbilts (the railroad people) did not have an official citation in marine biology. However, his collection of benthic organisms is considered one of the worlds greatest and has been used as a reference collection for decades. As the old adage says, "Never judge a book by its cover."
With your background, I'm concerned how you think you are qualified to criticize the work of Burton Mack, especially so negatively. I can't see any competency match for that at all.Two notes on comment policy, 1) Though anonymous according to Blogger, the person did sign their name, so they avoided having their comment go in the bit bucket for anonymity, and 2) as an attack on me rather than my post, it would normally go in the bit bucket, but I wish to use it as an object example.
gilhow
Notice how this person focuses on my background as not qualifying me to criticize Burton Mack. In today's society, apparently if you don't have the right piece of paper with the right incantations and runes on it, you cannot practice some kinds of magic. Or less sarcastically, only people with the proper training can discuss certain areas. This is ridiculous on the face of it. I have seen PhD philosophers write bad philosophy, and amateurs write excellent, cogent arguments. The formal training simply teaches the vocabulary and who has written what. It does not guarantee actual expertise. This is akin to the closed, union shop mentality, and is a way of preventing challenges to the established "wisdom". Only those who have been indoctrinated may join the discussion.
Second, notice that it compounds the felony for me to criticize Burton Mack negatively. And just who will point out the weaknesses in his arguments, the true believers? If one publishes, one is inviting comment, positive or negative. When one has the intent of tearing down established Christianity then expect plenty of criticism.
This is a common technique in modern discourse, the use of the ad hominum attack rather than debating the argument. Note that there are at least two posts of mine on Burton Mack that this person could have commented on, pointing out the errors in my arguments that he/she sees. Instead, this person chose to take the shortcut by saying that since I am not "qualified" to discuss this, then I should not do so, and my statements should not be considered. From my point of view this person, by failing to engage my arguments or commentary directly has exhibited either intellectual laziness, cowardice, or incompetence, separately, in some combination, or all three.
Just to belabor the point, gilhow has no knowledge of what informal study I have undertaking over the years, nor has she/he paid any attention to the posts I have generated. The fourth generation of the Vanderbilts (the railroad people) did not have an official citation in marine biology. However, his collection of benthic organisms is considered one of the worlds greatest and has been used as a reference collection for decades. As the old adage says, "Never judge a book by its cover."
// posted by Bill @ 9:04 AM 
