DiscussMormonism.com

Mister Scratch wrote:juliann routinely rejects arguments on the basis of credentialism. Case in point: her claim that Brent Metcalfe, one of the most important Book of Abraham scholars in the world, isn't a credentialed handwriting analyst (or whatever her term was), so therefore his arguments don't matter, aren't valid, etc. For juliann (and many other Mopologists), credentials are critical, and can, in effect, be said to function as an emblem of a person's intelligence. (At least according to them.)

What do people think about this? How important are credentials for

1) Historians
2) Scientists
3) Inventors

richardMdBorn wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:juliann routinely rejects arguments on the basis of credentialism. Case in point: her claim that Brent Metcalfe, one of the most important Book of Abraham scholars in the world, isn't a credentialed handwriting analyst (or whatever her term was), so therefore his arguments don't matter, aren't valid, etc. For juliann (and many other Mopologists), credentials are critical, and can, in effect, be said to function as an emblem of a person's intelligence. (At least according to them.)

What do people think about this? How important are credentials for

1) Historians
2) Scientists
3) Inventors

This seems to be an easy question. Credentials are essential for any area where you expect me to trust that what you say is correct. If you expect me to take what you say when I don't have the required expertise, then you should convince me by the weight of your credentials that you know what you are saying.

Historians should therefore be able to present their credentials to establish that basis of trust.

Since I don't read Egyptian heiroglypics, if I am to take someone's word that their translation is accurate, I want him/her to show me that I can reasonably trust them.

If you can present an object you have invented, the thing is the proof itself. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, what good are credentials?

Any scientific endeavor I can think of requires some background knowledge. But the research should stand for itself, as the invention would.

One might say I have good credentials (xD) but doesn't mean I am always right. People ought not to choose not to listen to a person based on credentials, otherwise we would get nowhere.

charity wrote:

richardMdBorn wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:juliann routinely rejects arguments on the basis of credentialism. Case in point: her claim that Brent Metcalfe, one of the most important Book of Abraham scholars in the world, isn't a credentialed handwriting analyst (or whatever her term was), so therefore his arguments don't matter, aren't valid, etc. For juliann (and many other Mopologists), credentials are critical, and can, in effect, be said to function as an emblem of a person's intelligence. (At least according to them.)

What do people think about this? How important are credentials for

1) Historians
2) Scientists
3) Inventors

This seems to be an easy question. Credentials are essential for any area where you expect me to trust that what you say is correct. If you expect me to take what you say when I don't have the required expertise, then you should convince me by the weight of your credentials that you know what you are saying.

Historians should therefore be able to present their credentials to establish that basis of trust.

Since I don't read Egyptian heiroglypics, if I am to take someone's word that their translation is accurate, I want him/her to show me that I can reasonably trust them.

If you can present an object you have invented, the thing is the proof itself. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, what good are credentials?

Any scientific endeavor I can think of requires some background knowledge. But the research should stand for itself, as the invention would.

What in the world is with all this rational-speak from one who has previously made pontification with absolute certainty?

If you want “credentials,” you also should want objectivity from those with the credentials. Someone with a PhD. from BYU in religion lacks the credentials of someone with a PhD. in religion from an accredited university with no religious bias (or with some other religious bias), someone with a non-colored view of history and from a neutral perspective.

What’s with all this pandering to science after discrediting science in favor of religious dogma?

Are you realy “charity”? Or are you an imposter. Or are you charity with a new and improved grasp of educational and informational excellence?

Questions, questions, questions!

JAK

charity wrote:

richardMdBorn wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:juliann routinely rejects arguments on the basis of credentialism. Case in point: her claim that Brent Metcalfe, one of the most important Book of Abraham scholars in the world, isn't a credentialed handwriting analyst (or whatever her term was), so therefore his arguments don't matter, aren't valid, etc. For juliann (and many other Mopologists), credentials are critical, and can, in effect, be said to function as an emblem of a person's intelligence. (At least according to them.)

What do people think about this? How important are credentials for

1) Historians
2) Scientists
3) Inventors

This seems to be an easy question. Credentials are essential for any area where you expect me to trust that what you say is correct. If you expect me to take what you say when I don't have the required expertise, then you should convince me by the weight of your credentials that you know what you are saying.

Historians should therefore be able to present their credentials to establish that basis of trust.

What about their arguments? I constantly read books by credentialed historians which are full of mistakes. Let's take the case of a statement by a notable non-historian. Brad Parkinson is credited by many with being a co-inventor of GPS. Yet he has made important mistakes. He asserted that

Unlike the various Navy systems, 621B provided altitude, as well as latitude and longitude. "To the Navy, navigation is essentially a two- dimensional problem, but the Air Force was definitely interested in the third dimension," Parkinson said.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95 ... c5183.html

I proved this to be wrong in an article I had published last August.

1) In his Electronic and Aerospace Convention (EASCON) address about
Timation on October 29, 1969, Roger Easton said, This paper discusses the
genesis of a mid-altitude system for continuous 3 dimension navigation.‰
2) Buisson and McCaskill discuss in detail the 3D results for 105 different
constellations in this study
J. A. Buisson and T. B. McCaskill, TIMATION Navigation Satellite System
Constellation Study, NRL Report 7389, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
D.C., 27 June 1972.
3) Phil Klass wrote the following in "Plans for Defense Navsat Reached",
Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 20, 1973, 65-66
"As additional TIMATION satellites are deployed, it becomes possible to make
position determination on a three-dimensional basis (including altitude) on
a more frequent basis.

Finally, with a total of 27 spacecraft deployed, a full 3-D continuously
available position-fixing capability is provided."

4) Simple logic leads to the conclusion that Timation was 3D. The GPS
clocks on the satellites are from TIMATION. The basic orbital
configurations are from TIMATION. GPS's 12 hour orbits have slightly better
coverage than the optimal TIMATION proposal of 8 hour orbits. The only
major difference between TIMATION and GPS is the signal, which has no effect
on the dimensionality. Consequently, one can validly assert GPS is 3D,
therefore TIMATION was 3D.

Credentials are not the key element since frequently folks with strong credentials take opposing positions; good arguments are.

JAK wrote:

What in the world is with all this rational-speak from one who has previously made pontification with absolute certainty?

If you want “credentials,” you also should want objectivity from those with the credentials. Someone with a PhD. from BYU in religion lacks the credentials of someone with a PhD. in religion from an accredited university with no religious bias (or with some other religious bias), someone with a non-colored view of history and from a neutral perspective.

This is where you lost your crediblity. You really think that a person looking at anything LDS comes to the table with no biases? A neutral perspective? First, their mere choice of what to study or examine indicates a bias of some kind. This is so well known in scientific circles that there is even a phrase for it--"experimenter bias."

JAK wrote:
What’s with all this pandering to science after discrediting science in favor of religious dogma? [/quoe]

It has always been my opinion that there is no conflict between true science and true religion.

JAK wrote:
Are you realy “charity”? Or are you an imposter. Or are you charity with a new and improved grasp of educational and informational excellence?

You just didn't know me at all.

Credentials are ultimately meaningless to the LDS apologist. The internal spiritual witness is the ultimate and only credential. Apologetics is an attempt to give purely faith-based thought processes a rational facade. Why do apologists attempt to do this? Because reasoning is ultimately not necessary--only faith is.

No credential will ever be acceptable if that credential backs an argument which contradicts the internal spiritual witness. Apologetics is pure mental masturbation.

it depends on what you are talking about. If you are someone who studies archaeology you don't have to be a physicist/metallurgist/etc to discuss the lac of steel in pre 1492 america.

amantha wrote:Credentials are ultimately meaningless to the LDS apologist. The internal spiritual witness is the ultimate and only credential. Apologetics is an attempt to give purely faith-based thought processes a rational facade. Why do they do this? Reasoning is ultimately not necessary--only faith.

No credential will ever be acceptable if the credential backs an argument which contradicts the internal spiritual witness. Apologetics is pure mental masturbation.

amantha, you really should only speak about what you know.

We use the word testimony, or spiritual witness when that is appropriate. I am sure you know, or at least should know, that most of the apologists have fully credible degrees from institutions not BYU. They don't get those degrees by bearing their testimonies to their dissertation committees.

To name just a few:

Daniel C. Peterson, ph. d. UCLA
John Gee, ph. d. Yale
William Hamblin ph. d. UMinn
John L. Sorenson ph.d. UCLA
Hugh Nibley, ph.d. UCBerkeley
Terryl Given, ph. d. University of Richmond

I have read articles/books by these men. None of them mentioned a testimony or spiritual witness in their published works.

Your obscene remarks reflect back on your quality of thinking.

charity wrote:

amantha wrote:Credentials are ultimately meaningless to the LDS apologist. The internal spiritual witness is the ultimate and only credential. Apologetics is an attempt to give purely faith-based thought processes a rational facade. Why do they do this? Reasoning is ultimately not necessary--only faith.

No credential will ever be acceptable if the credential backs an argument which contradicts the internal spiritual witness. Apologetics is pure mental masturbation.

amantha, you really should only speak about what you know.

We use the word testimony, or spiritual witness when that is appropriate. I am sure you know, or at least should know, that most of the apologists have fully credible degrees from institutions not BYU. They don't get those degrees by bearing their testimonies to their dissertation committees.

To name just a few:

Daniel C. Peterson, ph. d. UCLA
John Gee, ph. d. Yale
William Hamblin ph. d. UMinn
John L. Sorenson ph.d. UCLA
Hugh Nibley, ph.d. UCBerkeley
Terryl Given, ph. d. University of Richmond

I have read articles/books by these men. None of them mentioned a testimony or spiritual witness in their published works.

Your obscene remarks reflect back on your quality of thinking.

The truth hurts, doesn't it Charity! Why else would you raise your hand and identify yourself as being pained by my remarks?