tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post7505765929361203900..comments2024-03-22T17:35:52.045-04:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: On credentials, Philosophy, and NT studiesLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-76188928992735657782021-10-06T16:33:17.179-04:002021-10-06T16:33:17.179-04:00Hey,Unknown, whoever you may be: You are obviously...Hey,Unknown, whoever you may be: You are obviously woefully uninformed about what analytic philosophy is. Philosophy of language is one very small segment of it. (Hint: I'm a probability theorist specializing in evidence and testimony and simplicity and independence--you know, stuff that the scholars I'm criticizing keep trying to talk about and doing it poorly.) You also betray your ignorance even of philosophy of language itself if you think that "do you know ___" *specific* language is even relevant to philosophy of language! That Greek snobbery is merely a fig leaf with which insecure scholars cover their own inability to respond to good arguments.<br /><br />No, I do not *read* ancient Greek, though I often make better arguments *using* matters concerning ancient Greek than the scholars I'm criticizing, some of whom are so insecure that they (one in particular) constantly posture about "reading ancient Greek." You don't have to read a language fluently to use tools to make good arguments using that language and about that language.<br /><br />By the way, please take note, for what it's worth, of the undeniably highly well qualified and knowledgeable scholars, including high-level specialists in ancient Greek, who have given strong endorsements to my most recent book, The Eye of the Beholder, including those who were specially asked to review the sections where I talk about ancient Greek!<br /><br />This is an old, tired, fake "argument" that you are making, whoever you are. (I have a couple of guesses.) Give it and yourself and me a rest. To that end, I won't be publishing any more of your silly, trollish comments. I'll just leave you to ponder my embarrassing-to-you-and-yours glowing endorsements by top-notch scholars, which you-and-yours would give your eyeteeth to have on one of your books, and would never stop talking about if you got them. Also, in the same category, have fun pondering my invitation to speak at an invitation-only session of the ETS on Johannine literature. Shocking! I can't imagine what Mickey Klink and Stanley Porter could have been *thinking* of to invite such an *unqualified* person who works in analytic philosophy and doesn't read ancient Greek to talk about such a terribly specialized topic as the historicity of the Gospel of John.<br /><br />I've been noticing that since EoB came out with endorsements from names that even you-and-yours are not capable of condescending to, the peanut gallery chattering about my lack of qualification has grown rather quiet. But maybe you didn't get the memo that nowadays such nonsense is embarrassing even to the folks you're trying to "help" by saying such things.<br /><br />Instead, try actually making good arguments about the topics at issue. If you are able.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-10769937773897075152021-10-06T15:12:02.392-04:002021-10-06T15:12:02.392-04:00Analytic philosophy is philosophy of language.
You...Analytic philosophy is philosophy of language.<br />You need to understand a language in order to make philosophical statements about it.<br />So, the real question, not answered in the long text above, is: Do you know Ancient Greek?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05295352876654331818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-3584683333538087362018-11-22T20:10:58.906-05:002018-11-22T20:10:58.906-05:00Credentials in STEM means what they say. In the so...Credentials in STEM means what they say. In the social studies and humanities usually credentials mean the opposite of what they say. That is the general rule though there are exceptions.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-54116236098367174412018-08-22T19:02:14.210-04:002018-08-22T19:02:14.210-04:00Lydia
As a history teacher I'm saddened that a...Lydia<br />As a history teacher I'm saddened that academic historians have attacked your credentials rather than engaging with your arguments. History is valuable in and of itself- but it is also practically useful, because past thinkers do not share our modern prejudices and biases. The historical record is a vast rich, resource of surprising answers to theoretical and practical problems. One value of teaching history is that it allows us to escape moral and intellectual conformity. <br />Now, academic historians should know that and preach that. So I am absolutely stunned that they would suggest that they cannot learn anything from someone outside their own <i>discipline</i>!<br />(And are they also saying that we cannot learn from Carlyle or Gibbon because they were not trained in modern historical methodologies? It would seem to follow...)<br /><br />I would have thought that a willingness to be challenged by novel views would go hand in hand with the study of history. But as a humble high school teacher, I probably do not have the necessary credentials to judge for myself...<br /><br />I keep praying that God will bless your work, <br /><br />Graham Veale<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901664472339872114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-41616961811900578652018-06-03T09:56:19.876-04:002018-06-03T09:56:19.876-04:00This is being saved on my browser. Nice gold mine ...This is being saved on my browser. Nice gold mine of articles to track down later too!Callumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15175263766263579648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-36551563175362986392018-05-31T08:24:25.148-04:002018-05-31T08:24:25.148-04:00Jon, interesting thought. I probably wouldn't ...Jon, interesting thought. I probably wouldn't because it would sound made-up. That is to say, it isn't standard terminology. And people get touchy about made-up specialties. "You're just trying to make yourself sound more important," etc. However, it would be completely legitimate to label an area of competence as "intersection of philosophy and biblical studies," without any appearance that one is trying to imply a previously established sub-discipline.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-28315114152038598362018-05-30T21:27:35.259-04:002018-05-30T21:27:35.259-04:00If your credentials as a Philosopher are accepted,...If your credentials as a Philosopher are accepted, have you ever thought about calling what you are doing "Philosophy of Biblical Studies?" Now certainly a philosopher of religion should know about religion, and a philosopher of science should know about science, but often philosophers of science are accepted as such without having a degree in the sciences. Now there are some scientists who think philosophers are crazy for thinking they know about science when they don't have a degree in it, but many who study science on their own are seen as legitimate philosophers of science. It's just a thought.<br /><br />Also, I think it is important to have an outside perspective. When you know about a subject, but have not been integrated into the paradigm, it helps to see some of the flaws that may be accepted as truth within the field.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07005030473782790667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-11910005347343807082018-05-30T20:46:04.402-04:002018-05-30T20:46:04.402-04:00Lydia, I greatly appreciate your transparency, luc...Lydia, I greatly appreciate your transparency, lucidity, honesty, and intellectual tenacity. Thanks.mbabbitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07877142559351300094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-81157988405974217302018-05-30T13:29:54.449-04:002018-05-30T13:29:54.449-04:00Spot on, Lydia.Spot on, Lydia.Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-82500260372559269732018-05-29T23:12:14.751-04:002018-05-29T23:12:14.751-04:00Thanks to all for your supportive comments. Brad, ...Thanks to all for your supportive comments. Brad, it's interesting what you say about Licona and classics. His answer would be that Christopher Pelling likes his view, Christopher Pelling is an eminent classicist, he's been following those who *are* experts in classics, so he's being consistent. I happen to know that he has even gone so far as to say that the "entire field" of classics supports this view.<br /><br />The oddity about that is that in the recent podcasts he emphasized that Pelling was the only person who had done much with the literary devices, and even Pelling only in a more sporadic way. And in the post last fall he said it was a "handful of classicists" who had guided him to this view.<br /><br />One can't really have it both ways: This book is a bold, important, new treatment of literary devices not previously widely understood in classics. Only a handful of classicists understood it before. *And* say that "the entire field" of classics endorses this view.<br /><br />So even as far as *living* classicists, I would be willing to bet there are those who are dubious and think, e.g., Plutarch just sometimes made minor mistakes or forgot, many of these aren't discrepancies anyway, etc. <br /><br />But once we enlarge our view so as not arbitrarily to restrict ourselves to those who happen to be living at the same time as ourselves, it becomes nearly certain that there have been *many* classicists who would have rejected such a view.<br /><br />At that point merely to dub the Pelling/Licona view a "new discovery" which those older classicists "didn't understand" is the purest chronological snobbery, if in fact they would, with all their expertise, have *rejected* it as poorly supported.<br /><br />Hence in the end, Licona himself has to think *for* himself in fields in which he lacks a credential in order to pick his favored experts to prefer.<br /><br />Personal judgement of evidence: You just can't get away from it.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-68281201464226178642018-05-29T23:00:21.847-04:002018-05-29T23:00:21.847-04:00My deepest apologies for the moderation delay. Blo...My deepest apologies for the moderation delay. Blogger had inexplicably turned off e-mail notifications on comments awaiting moderation. I wondered why everything was so quiet! I have now turned *off* moderation. Hopefully all comments on this post have now gone through.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-88818903220100638922018-05-29T21:53:01.808-04:002018-05-29T21:53:01.808-04:00I already have your "Coincidences" book,...I already have your "Coincidences" book, and will read it soon. You have convinced me to read more of your work. Richard M. Evans. Southwest Dallas/Duncanville Chapter of Reasonable Faith.Richard M. Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753281312533130767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-80055267506902701952018-05-29T17:25:53.464-04:002018-05-29T17:25:53.464-04:00I find it bizarre that you have to point out that ...I find it bizarre that you have to point out that people should pay attention to the argument and not rest everything on credentials. Credentials got us the embarrassing claims about "First Century Mark", maybe a little probability theory and evidence weighing would have been good for certain NT scholars. But I guess that would be outside their field. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-64207536607147643622018-05-29T16:10:52.561-04:002018-05-29T16:10:52.561-04:00I think it is also quite ironic that Licona is que...I think it is also quite ironic that Licona is questioning your credentials when he does not have a single degree in Roman history or as a classicist, yet the work he is being criticized about is related to a rather questionable conclusion that he has reached based simply on his study of Plutarch and that he wants to apply to all First Century historical works. Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-28750090119200740972018-05-29T14:41:01.249-04:002018-05-29T14:41:01.249-04:00Pointing to a supposed lack of credentials is so b...Pointing to a supposed lack of credentials is so blatantly ad hominem. In my experience, when someone no has no logical response to their opponent's argument but ceasethey do not want to concede that fact, they almost always attack their opponent with some kind of ad hominem comment. Sadly this is the case with Licona and Evans. But I guess we all fail sometimes--no matter how great a scholar one may be.Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-26590926793945145372018-05-28T17:12:13.161-04:002018-05-28T17:12:13.161-04:00The Difference Between the Fallacies of Appeal to ...<b>The Difference Between the Fallacies of Appeal to Illegitimate Authority and <i>Ad Hominem</i> Circumstantial</b><br /><br />The way credentialism has become a fetish for some people I believe is due in large part to their inability to think critically. For some it is a byproduct of our internet culture -- google it and find the answer. We have lazy intellects; thinking for ourselves is too much work. So, we defer to the first credentialed person who has endorsed views we want to believe. It doesn't matter why the credentialed expert believes it is this way. All that matters is that the person is "highly respected in the field" and that this person is serious scholar. Disagreement with the expert, in this way of thinking, can only come from another expert with distinctions of approximately similar honors. Any other attempts for a non-credentialed person to argue with the established expert are dismissed as an appeal to an illegitimate authority. This is so wrongheaded that it actually commits a logical fallacy in an attempt to call one out. Namely it commits the fallacy of <i>ad hominem</i> circumstantial.<br /><br />The <i>ad hominem</i> circumstantial fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a person's argument due to circumstances of the person (e.g., gender, height, place of origin, familial relations, vocation, hair color, etc.). If a person has given an argument with supporting reasons, then an appropriate logical response requires showing that either (1) the reasons that have been given are false or (2) the reasons that have been given do not imply the conclusion that they are supposed to support. Pointing out that a person lacks a credential or some certified expertise does not show that the critic's argument either relies on false claims or unsound reasoning.<br /><br />So, when does expertise matter? It matters when the argument rests in whole or part on the person's authority alone (X is true because I say so, and my authority justifies you in believing that it's so). This is why it is wrong to dismiss Tim & Lydia's arguments related to NT scholarship on the grounds that they lack credentials. Their arguments do not rely on trusting their expertise. If they argued, for instance, that based on their study of the Greek texts, Hebrews could not have been written by Paul because, after all, they have a feel for the Greek writing style and they are experts in Greek manuscripts, so their opinion must be given its due -- then an assessment of their credentials becomes relevant to accepting or rejecting their opinion. In the case at hand, no argument given by Tim or Lydia makes this kind of appeal to expertise where one must simply trust their expert judgment. Once again, to dismiss their arguments because they lack the appropriate credential just commits the <i>ad hominem</i> circumstantial fallacy. If Tim or Lydia have made claims that lack support or that are ignorant of recent work in NT studies, the appropriate response to to refute them with the relevant knowledge.<br /><br />So what is it that Tim & Lydia don't know that NT scholarship knows? What premise do they assert that is false or how do their claims not imply the conclusions that they draw? The Licona (or his defenders) should address these questions.<br /><br />By the way, I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I have taught logic & critical thinking for years. So, you should take my word that Licona's rejection of Lydia's arguments because she's not a NT scholar are logically fallacious.Johnny-Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636554916718241492noreply@blogger.com