Orthopraxy in Apologetics?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I've always assumed that the Mopologists genuinely want to establish their legitimacy. Thus, I assume that they would want to do everything in their power to show just how careful they are being in their work.

I don't think it could be reasonably expected that such a desire would extend to addressing the requests of ax-grinding Internet cranks.

Well, hey---that's fine. As I've said all along, the apologists can refuse to engage in the sort of transparency I've been discussing. That's their prerogative, of course.

The same features that exist in standard peer review---especially reviewers who are chosen principally for expertise rather than ideological fealty.

And do you have some suggestions on who such individuals would be?

Sure. LoaP's article, for example, could have been sent to an EV scholar. Or someone who is more sympathetic to McCraney.

by the way, I notice you still haven't addressed the fact that you completely misrepresented LoaP's words in your first post in this thread. You seem to keep trying to bury that fact.

No; it's just that I disagree with you. I based my judgment entirely on the (apparently very poorly chosen) words that he used. He could have said at the outset that he received "the peer reviewers' comments," but, obviously, that's not what he said.

[_ttribe]

No; it's just that I disagree with you. I based my judgment entirely on the (apparently very poorly chosen) words that he used. He could have said at the outset that he received "the peer reviewers' comments," but, obviously, that's not what he said.

You were wrong. Why is that so hard to admit? Furthermore, you made no effort, whatsoever, to seek clarification form LoaP himself. Whether that was strategic, or just plain lazy, it doesn't matter. It led you to an erroneous conclusion regarding the presence of an "admission" that he never made.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No; it's just that I disagree with you. I based my judgment entirely on the (apparently very poorly chosen) words that he used. He could have said at the outset that he received "the peer reviewers' comments," but, obviously, that's not what he said.

You were wrong.

That remains to be seen. If LoaP posts the materials, we can all judge for ourselves whether or not FARMS uses a "deviant" peer review process. LoaP's admissions pertaining to the way his "review" was handled say a lot, imho.

[_ttribe]

That remains to be seen. If LoaP posts the materials, we can all judge for ourselves whether or not FARMS uses a "deviant" peer review process. LoaP's admissions pertaining to the way his "review" was handled say a lot, imho.

Wrong. You are deflecting again. You claimed that LoaP made a particular admission about the process. You were wrong about that claim. End of story. Stop being disingenuous and own up to it.

[_mfbukowski]

I guess no one wants to answer my previous post.

I really find it ironic that on this "wild and wooly" forum for free thinkers anyone would be concerned about receiving institutional imprimaturs from those who are already pre-convinced of the truth, or perhaps more absurd, pre-convinced of the falsity of a position before publishing it.

The precise reason that there are multiple types of academic journals in any given discipline is so that one can submit publications to a sympathetic audience for verification by one's true "peers" (ie: those with similar training and sympathetic points of view) to be assured that there are no glaring errors or major arguments against one's position which have not been covered.

The notion that somehow "orthopraxy" as discussed in this thread is suspect intellectually is absurd. It is the way the world of ideas works.

[_Nimrod]

It seems to me there may be a dimension of orthopraxy in apologetics that I'd never contemplated until recently. Now, fair warning here, this is going to be sort of a mind-bending discussion and quite speculative. I offer these thoughts as points for contemplation and discussion, please do not take them as an indication that I've rejected the Standard Model -- Internet/Chapel Mormonism.

Yeah, uh huh.

You guys crack me up. Shocking news! People listen to people who are on their own side in religious debates! Horrible news!

A quote from John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty:

Such considerations point to the conclusion that the ultimate ground of the quest for cognitive certainty is the need for security in the results of action. Men readily persuade themselves that they are devoted to intellectual certainty for its own sake. Actually they want it because of its bearing on safeguarding what they desire and esteem. The need for protection and prosperity in action created the need for warranting the validity of intellectual beliefs.

So I suppose you believe in the fiction of an "objective observer"- is that what you are saying?

Good luck with your fantasies. And I thought you guys were the ones who didn't believe in Santa Claus.

MFB, it it were not for many human scholars and scientists recognizing their biases and actively working in the face thereof at achieving a credible degree of objectivity for evaluating new information, the world would still be flat, the universe would all revolve around the earth at the center, and we wouldn't even have Newtonian physics. So I cannot accept your premise that since no human being can be completely, 100% objective, scholars and intellectuals must discard the entire 'pretense' of objectivity and wallow and glory in their subjectivity as Mormon apologists do.

I find useless a publication that would, at best and by its own admission, simply contain information reinforcing a previously established and espoused belief. That is blatant reverse engineering. If by definition, the publication would not contain and present new facts and evidences that would challenge my existing thoughts, then what's the point. For an LDS Inc believer to read FARMS Review is nothing more than mental masturbation. That FARMS hankers for academic and scholarly legitimacy in the face of its avowed purpose is simply madness. FARMS wants it both ways.

For a non-LDS spectator, I find FARMS simply pathetic. It is a rah-rah huddle of intellectual wannabe's shackled by their common beliefs in the myths of Joseph Smith and his LDS Inc successors.

[_ttribe]

Sure. LoaP's article, for example, could have been sent to an EV scholar. Or someone who is more sympathetic to McCraney.

Assuming it was a blind process (and I have reason to believe it was), how would we know it wasn't sent to one of the types of people you suggested?

by the way, did you forget that McCraney himself read Blair's rough draft? (Reminder - viewtopic.php?p=303673#p303673) How much more sympathetic to McCraney can someone else be than McCraney?

[_Doctor Scratch]

That remains to be seen. If LoaP posts the materials, we can all judge for ourselves whether or not FARMS uses a "deviant" peer review process. LoaP's admissions pertaining to the way his "review" was handled say a lot, imho.

Wrong. You are deflecting again. You claimed that LoaP made a particular admission about the process.

He did, and I remain suspicious of the FARMS process on account of what LoaP said. Can you guess why I continue to think this? I'll give you five tries.

[_ttribe]

He did, and I remain suspicious of the FARMS process on account of what LoaP said. Can you guess why I continue to think this? I'll give you five tries.

I don't care why you are suspicious of FARMS. I am addressing your misrepresentation of Blair's words.

Here - http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 09#p305409

You said -

...in his recent brief stint on the board, LoaP admitted that his FARMS essay was not peer-reviewed in the normal fashion.

You (apparently) based this conclusion on the the following statement:

He was (apparently) never shown the reviewers' comments.

This statement has been shown to be utterly false. However, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that fact. You are a hypocrite of the worst kind who decries the alleged defaming of FARMS' critics but takes great strides to defame Blair, in this case.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You said -

...in his recent brief stint on the board, LoaP admitted that his FARMS essay was not peer-reviewed in the normal fashion.

You (apparently) based this conclusion on the the following statement:

He was (apparently) never shown the reviewers' comments.

This statement has been shown to be utterly false.

There are multiple reasons why I believe that he "admitted" to problems with the process. Further, it has not "been shown to be utterly false." For that to happen, we would need to see the physical evidence. For a variety of reasons, I tend not to take apologists at their word. I have been lied to by them way too many times, so, you'll have to pardon me, but I'm going to need to see real evidence here.

After all, why should we trust LoaP on this? His experience with peer review is quite limited---and, as I've said, some of the things he's "admitted" just don't square with the way things work in the real world of academic publishing. Plus, he could be lying wholesale about the entire thing, or distorting the facts somewhat. He has been known to do that in the past. The only way to know for certain would be for him to post the materials.

However, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that fact.

What "fact"? Neither you nor LoaP have established any "facts" whatsoever.

You are a hypocrite of the worst kind who decries the alleged defaming of FARMS' critics but takes great strides to defame Blair, in this case.

You need to calm down, ttribe. Criticism of FARMS's peer review process isn't a "defaming" of LoaP.