Mister Scratch wrote:FARMS *is* peer reviewed, but not in the conventional sense.
Y'know, Dr. Peterson addresses just this issue in the intro to the new FARMS Review. He points out some interesting stuff. Peer reviews are supposed to represent the peers of those for whom the publication is intended, as well as the peers of the scholars. Peer reviews are not conventionally understood to be reviews by people both sympathetic and antagonistic toward any cause or particular point of view. For instance, evolutionary scientists do not have creationists review their work, they have other evolutionary scientists do it. Christian journals do not have atheists or Muslims review their work, they have other Christians do it. Medical journals do not have holistic practitioners review their work, they have other medical doctors do it. Freudian psychiatrists do not have anti-Freudians review their work for Freudian Psychology journals, they have other Freudian psychiatrists do it. The idea that a journal intended to make LDS people aware of the scholarship that is out there and provide brief reviews of it needs to be reviewed by non-Mormons to be considered "conventionally" peer reviewed is a fallacy. FARMS is peer reviewed in the strictest sense of the word and in the most common and accepted manner.
team friendly wrote:One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one?
Yeah. It sounds like typical FARMS arrogance and like he's saying, "No one is good enough to review our stuff!"
But then again, I don't like the tone of their works.
That's a fallacy. An evolutionary biologist does not get offended because a pathologist prefers another pathologist review an article instead of him. He doesn't think the pathologist thinks he's "not good enough," he just knows the pathologist is actually trained and practicing in the field. A Mormon who writes an article about the Book of Abraham isn't going to take it to a biologist, an Eskimo, a biblical scholar or an Egyptologist, because none of them are trained in and practicing in the field of the Book of Abraham. That doesn't mean they're not "good enough" (good enough at what?). I think your statement is absurd.
Mister Scratch wrote:FARMS *is* peer reviewed, but not in the conventional sense.
Y'know, Dr. Peterson addresses just this issue in the intro to the new FARMS Review.
Yes, and I responded to his intro at length in a thread in the Terrestrial Forum.
He points out some interesting stuff. Peer reviews are supposed to represent the peers of those for whom the publication is intended, as well as the peers of the scholars. Peer reviews are not conventionally understood to be reviews by people both sympathetic and antagonistic toward any cause or particular point of view. For instance, evolutionary scientists do not have creationists review their work, they have other evolutionary scientists do it. Christian journals do not have atheists or Muslims review their work, they have other Christians do it. Medical journals do not have holistic practitioners review their work, they have other medical doctors do it. Freudian psychiatrists do not have anti-Freudians review their work for Freudian Psychology journals, they have other Freudian psychiatrists do it. The idea that a journal intended to make LDS people aware of the scholarship that is out there and provide brief reviews of it needs to be reviewed by non-Mormons to be considered "conventionally" peer reviewed is a fallacy. FARMS is peer reviewed in the strictest sense of the word and in the most common and accepted manner.
There are also a number of things which conventional academic journals do which FARMS Review does not. Please check out the other thread, Mak.
There is one organization that, if they peer reviewed FARMS, i would be more than accepting of what they produce. That would be the "James Randi Educational Foundation". They are a school based on skeptical studies and are extremely down to earth on things and VERY thorough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rand ... Foundation
EDIT: actualy, ill even say this. If the James Randi Foundation reviewed Mormonism(overall) and gave it a stamp of approval. I would be back in church repenting the next day. No joke! (but knowing that they hold things to a base level of scrutiny that should be expected of all scientific studies, this isnt exactly going to happen :P )
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew
Kerry, are you suggesting that only Mormons should review Mormon papers?
I agree with you to some extent, but there are areas of coverage that step outside
of lds boundaries. Ancient Egypt, Ancient American studies are the obvious ones that come to mind
where it would be really beneficial to get the paper reviewed from a wider source base.
Mister Scratch wrote: There are also a number of things which conventional academic journals do which FARMS Review does not. Please check out the other thread, Mak.
Marg:
Kerry, are you suggesting that only Mormons should review Mormon papers?
Kerry:
No, and it isn't only Mormons who review the FARMS materials either. However, I do think the majority of reviewers are Mormon, which makes a lot of sense.
Marg:
I agree with you to some extent, but there are areas of coverage that step outside
of lds boundaries. Ancient Egypt, Ancient American studies are the obvious ones that come to mind
where it would be really beneficial to get the paper reviewed from a wider source base.
Kerry:
Which is entirely sensible, and if I remember correctly, this does occur with some of the FARMS materials.
With all the concern I hear from critics about peer review of apologetic material, I wonder if they have submitted their material for peer review?
And, I wonder how many of those concerned about this issue, have sufficient scholastic experience (at least that can be demonstrated, if not empirically established) to really be in a position to judge?
To me, this concern appears to be a cheap way of summarily dismissing apologetic material.
wenglund wrote:With all the concern I hear from critics about peer review of apologetic material, I wonder if they have submitted their material for peer review?
And, I wonder how many of those concerned about this issue, have sufficient scholastic experience (at least that can be demonstrated, if not empirically established) to really be in a position to judge?
I do, Wade.
To me, this concern appears to be a cheap way of summarily dismissing apologetic material.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I know that it "appears" that way to you, just as it "appears" that way to countless other TBMs. I suggest you read the actual thread, and get yourself up to speed.
One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one?
This sounds odd to me as well. No, I don't think that Dr. Peterson has a good argument here for the very reason you are stating:
It seems to me that those contributing to FARMS make some claims by default that outside scholars could certainly critically examine (i.e. Native American descent, the mere existence of Nephites and Lamanites, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc.).
How did Dr. Peterson respond when you presented this argument?
Scholarly review should be based on scholarly knowledge of the subject matter. If I had my PhD in Religious Studes and had published extensive research material on Catholicism, would my reviews be disallowed because I was Mormon? This doesn't make sense.