PageRank Logic and Apologetics

[_EAllusion]

For what it is worth, the quantitative methods for qualifying the worth of scholarship, at least in science, are based on a similar system to google's ranking system. I don't know much about the history of google, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were specifically inspired by it. It's not without its flaws, but lest anyone thinks Gad's comparison is a shallow one, it is really spot on. And it is set up to minimize the value placed on isolated fringe communities attempting to mimic the peer review system but remaining incestuous in nature with no broader impact, be it homeopathy, Atlantean archaeology, creationism, communication with the dead, or Mormon apologia. It's not enough to generate a lot of citations from your own cottage industry.

To quote Steve Novella, "It has become increasingly common, in our society for those who have an ideological adherence to specific ideas, or who simply prefer their own idiosyncratic beliefs to the consensus of opinion of the scientific community, to manufacture the trappings of legitimate science for themselves to inhabit. Unable to surmount the necessary hurdles of quality control within the halls of real science, they simply build their own halls and falsely label them as science. They create institutes, start their own journals, make up their own degrees, build museums, create their own funding organs (or, even worse, bamboozle the government into creating one for them, like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine), and pressure universities into giving them departments...

Creating an ideologically dedicated peer-reviewed journal is an especially insidious attack on science. The scientific literature is in many ways a transparent record of the collective scientific progress of our species. It is far from perfect, it has many recognized problems, but it is the official record and serves our species best when quality is kept as high as possible. Anything that poisons the literature causes confusion and retards scientific progress. The purpose of peer-review is to create a quality control valve - allowing into the body of recognized literature only those papers that have met some minimal criteria for quality and legitimacy. It is by no means a guarantee, but it is a recognized seal of approval.

The problem with peer-review, of course, is that it is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing. So anyone with the resources can create their own journal and have it peer-reviewed by people who have the same ideological agenda as them. This is like the proverbial foxes guarding the hen house. Having young-earth creationists peer-review articles by other young-earth creationists is, of course, worthless. It serves only to give a false imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to a religious anti-scientific ideology."

The methods used to measure quality of scholarship do control for this, but as a lay person, you have to be more savvy than a lot of people are to be able to tell the difference. I like this analogy towards that end.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think you are familiar with Scientology's understanding of the history of the world, then.

Well, EA, I suppose I am going to have to bow to your superior knowledge on this one, my friend. Here is a follow up question for you: Have you seen the program Dirty Jobs, hosted by Mike Rowe? If Rowe had to work as an apologist for either the LDS Church or Scientology, which one do you think he'd pick? And why?

[_EAllusion]

I haven't seen the show, but I assume you are asking me which is the more difficult job. I think the answer is Mormonism, but only because I consider the possibility of justifying theism a more trenchant problem than Xenu or body thetans. If we move passed that basic issue, then Scientology has an awful lot of claims that there is no evidence for or there is a mountain of evidence against comparable to what Mormonism is uniquely offering in the pantheon of religion. I would say that Xenu is a tougher sell than Lamanites, though both are so low on the probabily scale that these distinctions get academic. Plus, it's founder is even more obviously behaving in a way that suggests he's winging a religion by pulling from his personal creativity and cultural milieu, which is quite a feat.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the additional information EA. It looks like at this point one of the advantages Mopologetics has is that it can at least say it's ignored, from the quote you provided, it sounds like some of these larger movements like creatonism have extended themselves far enough to hit the radar and get condemnation.

[_Markk]

Hi DS,

Have you seen the program Dirty Jobs, hosted by Mike Rowe? If Rowe had to work as an apologist for either the LDS Church or Scientology, which one do you think he'd pick? And why

?

The easy answer is Mormonism, it would be for the green Jello and funeral potatoes for lunch. But then again he might want to hang with John Travolta and Tom Cruise instead on Donnie and Gladys?

MG

[_moksha]

But, let's get real: how much legitimacy would actually be gained simply by having a ziggurat-shaped building on the BYU campus?

That would depend on how many professors you could get to lounge on lawn chairs and hammocks on the open space of each Ziggurat level.

[_The Nehor]

Larry Page, the founder of Google, formalized the simple intuition that it doesn't matter how often you talk about something, it matters how often other people who talk about that something talk about you.

Can we also apply this to the critics here?

[_Gadianton]

Absolutely Nehor, I wouldn't have it any other way. Though, it might not buy you what you're looking for. None of the critics I know well and respect appeal to their own authority so it's a moot point.

[_EAllusion]

Thanks for the additional information EA. It looks like at this point one of the advantages Mopologetics has is that it can at least say it's ignored, from the quote you provided, it sounds like some of these larger movements like creatonism have extended themselves far enough to hit the radar and get condemnation.

You know, it's not the size per se that's the issue. Of course, creationists have more and larger institutes, museums, "peer-reviewed" journals, honoraria, conferences, and so on. It isn't even close. But what really distinguishes them and why they draw a lot more fire is the creationist movement as a whole is trying very hard to insinuate itself into our culture and public institutions with a real chance of them having meaningful success. That's arguably the main thing that keep scholars interested in combating it. Ditto for something like homeopathy. If it were more like Atlantean archeology the response might simply be a somewhat vicariously embarrassed dismissiveness.

The worst thing that could happen to FARMS type apologetics is for it to become too successful with lay-Mormons. They might then become a victim of their own success by convincing people that their arguments are good enough that this information deserves to be included in our public institutions. After all, if they were good, they should be. Not that someone like DCP wants this at all, but if there were a push in Utah to teach arguments found in FARMS apologetics for the historicity of the Book of Mormon in public schools, that would bring the scholars out of the woodwork to combat it. The best LDS apologists can hope for here is a sort of dismissive indifference. It would not be in the interest of the Maxwell Institute (heh) if a bunch of people like Beastie, only with Ph.D level educational backgrounds, were out there organized and responding to them 'round the clock because they are afraid of schools being infused with dubious religious apologetics.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The worst thing that could happen to FARMS type apologetics is for it to become too successful with lay-Mormons. They might then become a victim of their own success by convincing people that their arguments are good enough that this information deserves to be included in our public institutions. After all, if they were good, they should be. Not that someone like DCP wants this at all, but if there were a push in Utah to teach arguments found in FARMS apologetics for the historicity of the Book of Mormon in public schools, that would bring the scholars out of the woodwork to combat it. The best LDS apologists can hope for here is a sort of dismissive indifference. It would not be in the interest of the Maxwell Institute (heh) if a bunch of people like Beastie, only with Ph.D level educational backgrounds, were out there organized and responding to them 'round the clock because they are afraid of schools being infused with dubious religious apologetics.

You know, I never thought of it this way, but this is very insightful. What if the apologists began to demand that FARMS materials be taught in Utah schools? I think you're right, EA, that the Mopologists secretly don't want their stuff to receive mainstream acceptance, even Utah mainstream acceptance. They have hinted all along that their main goal is simply protecting testimonies, so it makes sense that they would stop short at actually standing behind their claims in a truly forceful and truth-embracing way. (Think of the way that DCP admitted that apologetics "have no place" in the academy.)

The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that you have just dealt a devastating blow to the apologists.