The Dude is suspended from MAD. Is this "goading"

[_asbestosman]

Dr. Peterson already answered on that thread. It appears I was right. Dr. Peterson did not intend to do a review in that thread. He only offered information about someone else who had and who he seems to hold some degree of respect for.

In other words, Dr. Peterson didn't just pull down a review from the internet. Dr. Peterson has reason to believe that the reviewer knows what he's talking about.

[_harmony]

Dr. Peterson's latest contribution to the thread in question:

Over on a board that appears to be largely dedicated to obsessive-compulsive derision of this board and where accurate reading seems to be in short supply, there has been some cackling about my purportedly miraculous ability, in this thread, to comment negatively on Richard Dawkins's book without yet having read it. Of course, I've made precisely no comments directly about Dawkins's book. I simply called attention to a review of Dawkins by Alvin Plantinga, and summarily mentioned one or two of Plantinga's arguments.

I much prefer it when people respond to what I've written rather than to what they imagine me to have written. Unfortunately, that's surprisingly rare -- and particularly so on the board where these folks are making their remarks. (I'll pass over in charitable silence their latest conspiratorial speculations about me.)

Isn't this kinda like Peter, James, and John? They visit us, take note of our activities, most of us don't even know they're here at all, leave no evidence of their presence, then return from whence they've come and report on our activities? Feels kinda creepy, for a guy who has repeatedly expressed disdain and disinterest in us and this board.

For a guy who refuses to post here, Daniel sure feels the need to comment about our comments. And in the process, shows his obvious self-absorbion.

Daniel.. hon, sweet thing, dahlink... read my lips: it's not always about you. Sometimes (like this time), it's about someone else (The Dude, specifically). Try to understand. We love you, really we do, but sometimes we like to talk about other people too! It's not a reflection on you. And we aren't taking anything away from your world-renown-ness just because we want to talk about The Dude for a change. So quit trying to make it all about you, for pete's sake, and try to curb your natural inclination to be on stage. I promise we'll get back to you soon. Really, we will.

[_beastie]

Dr. Peterson already answered on that thread. It appears I was right. Dr. Peterson did not intend to do a review in that thread. He only offered information about someone else who had and who he seems to hold some degree of respect for.

In other words, Dr. Peterson didn't just pull down a review from the internet. Dr. Peterson has reason to believe that the reviewer knows what he's talking about.

Just how does one evaluate whether or not a reviewer "knows what he's talking about" when one hasn't read the book in question?

[_asbestosman]

Just how does one evaluate whether or not a reviewer "knows what he's talking about" when one hasn't read the book in question?

How about this: Dr. Peterson may have a good idea as to whether the person is a qualified philosopher and would be qualified to spot fundamental logical errors.

I don't think Dr. Peterson said that the review was correct. He only offered it as information. I see nowhere in that thread where Dr. Peterson said that Dawkins had been thorougly refuted. But then again, I apparently don't have the knack of seeing the emperor's new clothes like many people on this board do.

[_Mister Scratch]

Just how does one evaluate whether or not a reviewer "knows what he's talking about" when one hasn't read the book in question?

How about this: Dr. Peterson may have a good idea as to whether the person is a qualified philosopher and would be qualified to spot fundamental logical errors.

I don't think Dr. Peterson said that the review was correct. He only offered it as information. I see nowhere in that thread where Dr. Peterson said that Dawkins had been thorougly refuted. But then again, I apparently don't have the knack of seeing the emperor's new clothes like many people on this board do.

I have seen His Highness engage in this sort of low-rent, "scholarship by implication" before. He did it on a thread dealing with Mike Quinn's book on homosexuality. DCP refused to offer up any commentary on the Quinn book beyond the barb, "it is tendentious and embarrassing," but he *did* direct people to a couple of reviews (which were published in FARMS Review---the journal which DCP himself edits). He apparently did this in order to take the burden of explanation and argument off of himself. Moreover, as Professor P. repeatedly pointed out, one of the reviews was quite "long." I took the time to comb through both of the reviews, which turned out to be smear pieces constructed on shaky logic. So, I would be somewhat wary at DCP's "references" to other scholars.

Also, any time that Prof. P. begins saying, "You repeatedly misunderstand me!" or, "You continuously misread what I wrote!" you can know for certain that he has been backed into a corner. His recent flailing about in utter desperation has been a sight to behold indeed.

[_moksha]

Asbestos, I too am confident that Dr. Peterson was merely trying to be helpful. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the MAD mods suspending The Dude? What do you make of this goading charge?

[_asbestosman]

Asbestos, I too am confident that Dr. Peterson was merely trying to be helpful. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the MAD mods suspending The Dude? What do you make of this goading charge?

I think if The Dude had left off the "Yes/No", then his question wouldn't have been seen as goading or barking orders. I don't think The Dude intended to goad. I think The Dude feels that Dr. Peterson often avoids giving straight answers and wanted to force him to be clear. However, by forcing a straight answer it could understandibly be supposed that an answer of "no" would have been followed by a discrediting of the information provded (I mean how could Dr. Peterson know if the review was worth reading if he hadn't read the book, etc).

I don't think that Dr. Peterson agreed with every word of Plantinga's review. I pointed out where it contradicts LDS theology.

[_moksha]

Asbestos, I too am confident that Dr. Peterson was merely trying to be helpful. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the MAD mods suspending The Dude? What do you make of this goading charge?

I think if The Dude had left off the "Yes/No", then his question wouldn't have been seen as goading or barking orders. I don't think The Dude intended to goad. I think The Dude feels that Dr. Peterson often avoids giving straight answers and wanted to force him to be clear. However, by forcing a straight answer it could understandibly be supposed that an answer of "no" would have been followed by a discrediting of the information provded (I mean how could Dr. Peterson know if the review was worth reading if he hadn't read the book, etc).

I can understand that. I too dislike being pinned down to straight answers. Like this morning, being pinned down to a choice of wheat or white seemed to oppressive. Waitresses should not goad one like that, should they? Best to leave the straight answers to Jersey Girl.

[_The Dude]

Asbestos, I too am confident that Dr. Peterson was merely trying to be helpful. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the MAD mods suspending The Dude? What do you make of this goading charge?

I think if The Dude had left off the "Yes/No", then his question wouldn't have been seen as goading or barking orders. I don't think The Dude intended to goad. I think The Dude feels that Dr. Peterson often avoids giving straight answers and wanted to force him to be clear. However, by forcing a straight answer it could understandibly be supposed that an answer of "no" would have been followed by a discrediting of the information provded (I mean how could Dr. Peterson know if the review was worth reading if he hadn't read the book, etc).

I don't think that Dr. Peterson agreed with every word of Plantinga's review. I pointed out where it contradicts LDS theology.

I thought that was an interesting point you made, asbestosman.

I do feel that Dr. Peterson would have avoided my question if I hadn't put in the "yes/no". But he answered it and handled himself well enough. I wasn't planning to go any further after him, once he made clear that he hadn't actually read the book yet. If he does, I would be interested in further discussion, but I won't try to engage him on MAD.

Why? Read Orpheus' attitude about me:

I spend some time reading The Dude's posts from the last few days. Maybe if his cheerleaders would it would make more sense why we have had enough for now. Calling Pres. Hinckley's comments "weird crap" isn't going to get you far on this board when nothing of much substance is there. There sure isn't any research being put up with all the put-downs. I think Mr. Dude might be trying to get the boot.

It's the death knell for my time on MAD if Orpheus really thinks I'm trying to get the boot. I've lately felt that the moderating has been quick to intrude without being called upon, and now that I see Orpheus admitting that my posts are being read in the worst possible light, it may be too stifling over there for me to continue. In the thread where I used the phrase "weird crap" I was directly quoting the sharp-tongued "Confidential Informant" who said every religion believes in "weird crap."

I don't think Dan Peterson complained about me goading him. From his witty reply it's clear he doesn't need such protection.

I could go on and on about the unfair benefit that goes towards the LDS posters, some of who are uncivil as a rule (Pahoran, Hammer/Serious) or downright creepy (YH8), but I've seen the moderators go after them now and then, so my complaints would be weakened. I've even complained about them on one or two occasions and, after a lag of 6-12 hours, seen the moderators act. But the difference here is that I had to take steps to complain about personal attacks and insults. It would really benefit the MAD board for the moderators to first let complaints come from the posters (who are actually participating in the thread and are imbedded in the context of the discussion) before they meet out punishment on individuals. (Taking action and closing a whole thread is maybe a different matter, since it affects everyone the same.)

As for the book review in question, I think it's pretty lazy for Dan to waltz in and toss out "a nice little review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (titled "The Dawkins Confusion") in the March/April 2007 issue of Books & Culture. Among other things, Plantinga faults Dawkins for fundamental logical errors" -- with no intention to discuss the actual book. It was a drive-by post (Nevo actually provided the link) just like we see from overeager anti-mormons who want us to read their latest "Jesus Saves" rant. Furthermore, the example of "bad logic" that Dan gave doesn't seem to be anything Dawkins actually said, so should we trust Dan to trust Plantinga's ability to comprehend Dawkins' arguments and pick apart his logic? I don't think that quite adds up.

Asbestosman, you read the book; do you think that was a good representation of Dawkins?

[_Jersey Girl]

Dude,

Unravel Orpheus' ball of yarn for me....where did you say Hinckley's words were "weird crap" on MAD or on this board?

Jersey Girl