05-07-2017, 03:41 PM
(05-05-2017, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I have to run, but I'll give a quick response to these points right now.
1. You asked for a list of what qualities one must possess for me to acknowledge him/her a serious scholar etc. I gave you a list of those qualities linked to supporting examples. I do not have "personal" standards for scholarship separate from those currently prevailing in the type of institution to which I referred. I am not sure why universities and scholarly organizations are "vague" to you. You do not know what universties are, or are you not sure they support scholarly standards? And I didn't just "refer" to them. I explained what the standards are. Here are some specific scholarly organizations for you: The Modern Language Association https://www.mla.org/, The Middle East Scholars Association http://mesana.org/, and the Association for Jewish Studies http://www.ajsnet.org/mission.htm. All would agree with my criteria for what scholarship is. If you think not, then specify which along with your evidence.
So, to be clear, you have a clearly delineated, narrow view of what makes someone a "serious scholar". A person can be extremely educated, erudite, articulate and knowledgeable on a subject, but unless they've published in peer reviewed journals or completed a dissertation they can't be considered a "serious scholar"?
Let us use Mirriam Webster's definition of "scholar".
Definition of scholar
- 1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
- 2a : a person who has done advanced study in a special fieldb : a learned person
- 3: a holder of a scholarship
Quote:You asked for an example of someone I considered a serious scholar. I gave you three examples with links to their published work.
You did, much appreciated. Now, could you please provide me with an example of a "serious scholar" who disagrees with you and agrees with me on this issue?
Quote:And all this was not "sufficient" for someone given primarily to bald assertion. Once again you asked a question and got a pretty thorough, well supported reply which treated your question with respect. As usual, you denied that I answered you, threw in personal attack, and took it a step farther this time by insisting that while providing answers, examples, definitions, and criteria I was somehow "stifling debate."
Please calm down with your histrionic about personal attacks. You and GM make this accusation so often it has lost all meaning. Disagreement with your assertions, as illustrated above, is none of the things you just claimed. As for stifling debate, you're doing it again right here. The funny thing is you don't seem to realize this.
Quote:2. One difference would be that Chomsky has spent a lifetime producing scholarship, starting with his work in linguistics. If you studied linguistics, you would have to read Chomsky at some point to understand current problems in the field. Hitchens is a journalist. He has spent a lifetime writing personal essays and journalistic exposes.
Both have studied subjects extensively and produce cogent, well researched and supported argument. You later use Hitchens support fot the second Iraq war in an odd attempt to discredit him. I could use Chomsky's unflagging support for the socialist hell in Venezuela in the same manner.
Quote:I think now it is about time now that you tell me what you mean by "scholar" or "scholarship." Seems like you can't really keep up or follow my points, so you just keep asking questions and highlighting "copypasta," while I do all the work of defining, explaining, linking examples and the like. Which of Hitchens works would qualify as scholarship and why?
Yes, I am far too stupid to keep up with an obvious razor sharp intelligence such as you display on a frequent basis. I gave my definition above, a well learned, erudite person who can speak with authority on a subject citing examples as they do. The need for the formal circle jerk of peer review, which any college professor, of which I know several, will tell you is as much an insiders "Mean Girls" arena as you are likely to find.
Quote:3. If you have a "potentially dodgy source" from which my "quotes" were taken, then show me. That will prove your point. Otherwise your charge "is all opinion, and poorly substantiated" to boot. I just walked you through examples of scholarship, with links to the works and authors referenced. I specified the criteria which make them scholarly. Rather than acknowledge your question sufficiently answered, or disputing the examples of criteria for scholarship, you again turn to personal attack. Do you think I made up the term "peer-reviewed"? You assume I cannot, myself, in my own words, explain what peer-reviewed means or how scholarship is related to a "field"?
Uhm, that was kind of my point, no source was provided. Also, again, calm down with your histrionics regarding personal attacks. Reiteration does not equal truth.
Quote:I refer to my own post 119 and you even call that "copypasta." My god, WHY DO YOU NEED A LINK TO MY OWN POST IN THIS THREAD???? Copypasta directly from some outside source? I refer to MY POST 119 in this thread and that is plagiarism??
I'll own this one, my bad. The quote in question does not indicate copypasta.
Quote:In general, I would say its time to stop asking me questions and start putting up something yourself besides assertions and personal attack. Highlighting and ENLARGING words does not demonstrate plagiarism anymore than just calling them "copypasta." Is it possible that beyond pointing and asserting, you do not now how to construct arguments based upon textual evidence? Are you making up plagiarism charges that you cannot prove because you cannot believe that I really know what I demonstrate I know? That's a very bad move for someone who concerned about declaring debates "over" before they begin and "exposing weaknesses" before debate even begins.
I just apologized for the inaccuracy in my allegation.
(05-06-2017, 12:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Well I've set forth the requirements of serious scholarship above. I am not aware of any contributions Hitchens has made to any field of scholarship. If he did, that would qualify him as a serious scholar. Has he published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal? Has he researched and then advanced scholarly knowledge in some field with a publication accepted by an academic press? Has he learned some subject area and then published a text introducing it to students of that area? Did he write a dissertation or masters thesis? That might at least make him a scholar, if not a serious one.
So authoring numerous books on historical subjects, people and religion doesn't make one a scholar? I'd refer you to his bibliography, especially two superb works;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson:_Author_of_America
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine%27s_%22Rights_of_Man%22:_A_Biography
Both excellent, I would say "scholarly" pieces of work.
Quote:I have not read everything Hitchens has published.
Then you admit to arguing this point from a position of profound ignorance. Yet this hasn't kept you from your strident claims that the man cannot be considered a "serious scholar" You essentially just admitted you have no argument, well done.
Quote:What I know of his work, as said before, would fall under the category of investigative journalism (like books on Kissinger and Mother Theresa) or personal essays. He wrote a ton of magazine and journal articles, many supporting the Iraq war for example. Could you perhaps nominate something of his as "scholarship"? Has he contributed something to Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies that I am unaware of?
And while you are at it, perhaps you could lay out what you think counts as serious scholarship. Do your standards differ from mine?
I just cited two examples above and I've answered the second question in this very post. I would add one thing for certain, arguing that a person cannot be considered a "serious scholar" when you haven't read a single thing they have written exposes you as a person with a set point of view, one reached with no really evidence or factual basis for their position. Again, not very scholarly.
(05-06-2017, 01:03 AM)Dill Wrote: This is quite a long way from saying "anyone who disagrees with me is an islamophobe and not a serious scholar." Especially when you just got a set of critieria for scholarship which is independent of anyone's stance on Islam.
It is absolutely not. You flat out state that the opposition to you on this issue can count no one among them that could be considered a "serious scholar". By making such a claim you completely invalidate the position of the other side before debate has even been joined. The fact that you don't see this, or realize but fail to admit your error, doesn't speak well for you.
Quote:And are you saying there are no islamophobes?
A phobia is an unreasonable fear. As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.
Quote:Or are you saying there ARE islamophobes, but some of them are serious Islam scholars. You know this and can provide examples?Islamaphobia is your term, not mine.
Quote:Calling people "assholes" and telling them to shut their pie hole declares discussion over, certainly, but merely asserting that Islamophobes will put forward experts to advance Islamophobia does not, in itself, do anything like that, even if I suggest their scholarship is not good.
I did tell you, facetiously I might add, to shut your pie hole. I did not call you an "asshole". Mixing lies in with truth is not a good way to convince people you are right.
Quote:Do you think both sides of every issue are "equal" in knowledge and quality of argument? I have never read a good argument in support of racism, not even by "scientific" Nazis, certainly not a scholarly one, though I have read Nazi scholarship. Oops--did I just declare a discussion over before it begins? No. I'll listen to what the Nazis have to say. If can identify logical inconsistencies and factual errors and unwarranted claims then I will. If I cannot I will reconsider my objections to racism.
No, but you did use a Nazi comparison, an analogy so intellectually lazy and lacking in nuance that one wonders why you couldn't conjure up an example not so obviously loaded. Your blatant attempts to equate your opponents with racism, a common tactic by your ilk or Nazi style fascism is noted though. Nothed and sadly predictable.
Quote:I do a pretty good job of letting all comers "discuss the subject" with me. Presenting good arguments with support does not shut down discussion with people who want good arguments with support.
If you say so.
Quote:And my post said that once we start talking about "expertise", Islamophobes will nominate their team and that will become a fight over criteria of expertise. Obviously that didn't shut down discussion as you stepped right into the fight over expertise, demanding to know why people who have no scholarly credentials on the subject of Islam can't be experts too and demanding to know what my criteria are. You got those criteria and so far have supplied none of your own.
Excedpt when the "other side" nominates a spokesperson you immediately dismiss them as not a "serious scholar". Are you beginning to see the problem here?
(05-06-2017, 10:47 AM)Dill Wrote: Some questions here you are not answering. Is Harris' work more like that of Adamson and Gunther and Al Hiri, or is it more like Gabriel's?
This is your chance to show us all what a well substantiated, fact-based case looks like. I hope you don't let us down.
I'm not familiar with any of the people you've mentioned so, unlike you, I wil not make a judgment from a position of ignorance.
Quote:Are you saying Harris is not sharing his thoughts on Islam by pointing to translated quotes as the basis for condemning an entire religion?
Until you can show that, then my words are not "all opinion."
He's using "quotes" from islam's "holy" books. He's using real world examples and he's using the stated opinions of millions of muslims. Remember, you seem to trust polls when they say things you like.
Quote:Which Middle East scholars have responded to his work? I am getting the impression that "opinion" is your word for any argument you disagree with but cannot refute. Are we going to see anything like an extended argument from you? I don't mean you just quoting me and calling it all "copypasta" or "opinion." I refer you again to Masterp's posts. He speaks to the subject matter, exploring the Islam-US politics issue. Focused on the facts of the case, he doesn't substitute accusation for argument.
I do to, just not in a way you like.
Quote:Or is all discussion, dialogue, argument just over once you cannot call "opinion" or "copypasta" on what you don't like or don't understand?
I love it when you condescend to me, it turns me on.
Quote:Don't claim you can't carry on a discussion with someone who plagiarizes or some such excuse and bail out on me. Don't claim you have "already addressed" anything. Don't tell me to "scroll up" and look at another unsupported assertion. If you cannot really argue yourself, can you put up something by Harris in text form which refutes anything I have said? I don't mean a lazy link to a youtube video with a vague verbal gesture like "that's what I think."
See, here's the problem. You like to cherry pick what is and is not acceptable. You like one poll but not another; polls are good but now they're bad. A well reasoned and argued point on YouTube, or anywhere else, is not negated by the medium they are transmitted. You come off as very elitist in this discussion. Only "serious scholars" need apply. Only "peer reviewed" opinions are valued, regardless of their veracity or how well educated the speaker is on the subject. That's fine, you do you, just don't expect the rest of us to kow tow to your preconceived ideas of what is, and is not acceptable and who is, or is not, educated enough on a subject to deign to have an opinion about it.
