Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_Yahoo Bot]

It's suspiciously convenient that believers tend to find credentials are warranted only in critics.

Do you think that believers and apologists are monolithic, and all think the same?

I think Michael Coe has impeccable credentials, and I read what he writes with interest, but I think as a person he's a kind of a jerk.

I think John Gee has great credentials but his conclusions are difficult to follow.

I think Edward Ashment, whom I knew at the University of Chicago, has no credentials, having failed to complete his doctorate and turning instead to selling insurance, is a force with whom to be reckoned as an anti-Mormon.

When it comes to the Book of Abraham, which is a matter of faith to Mormons, credentials are not all that significant. Certainly Will has no credentials but I read what he writes. You have no credentials. So what?

[_Yahoo Bot]

You can answer that for yourself, but for the purposes of this discussion, let me say that one can put the face of any one of the dozens of posters, apologists, or critics, who waste our precious time with petty issues, problems, and conundrums of no consequence.

But, that is the nature of apologia and counter-apologia. Why are you here?

Did St. Helena find the true cross? Let's debate that.

[_Trevor]

But, that is the nature of apologia and counter-apologia. Why are you here?

Did St. Helena find the true cross? Let's debate that.

[_Some Schmo]

I, for one, will be a little sad and amused when the story breaks of Wade's impending Ted Haggard moment.

"It started off as completely innocent therapy sessions... we discussed his SSA, and my empathy got the best of me. I had an idea from the start that seeing him lay on my couch situated in the backlit portion of the room was a bad idea..."

[_wenglund]

Hey Wade,

Would you agree that someone who is not trained in the relevant field(s) may nevertheless be capable of gaining the requisite knowledge by consulting experts or expert publications?

Yes. However, because of the lack of credetialed training, it is reasonable to question whether someone actually has the requisite knowledge or not and has accurately and fully understood the experts one has consulted or read, particularly when compared with someone with the credentialed training. Right? Otherwise, there would be no point ito credentials, and no formal way to establish expertice.

The major benefit of being trained in a field, from where I'm sitting, is that it gives you a general background knowledge and a familiarity with the methodological tools of the discipline.

It also provides a formal way of establishing that someone has gained the requisite knowledge and skills to warrant credentials.

What it does not do is automatically make one an expert in all of the discipline's subject areas. For example, Egyptologists do not generally graduate knowing the average length or thickness of a papyrus scroll. This is something that even an Egyptologist would have to investigate and consult the literature to determine. I, as a non-Egyptologist, am capable of consulting the same literature. The main advantage Gee has over someone like me in this regard is that he could get access to large collections of papyri if he wanted to make an assessment of his own, whereas an outsider to the discipline like myself is more limited to previously published data. That is a meaningful advantage, perhaps... but only if Gee avails himself of the opportunity.

As you said, it is the "main advantage." There may be other advantages as well--not the least of which is he has formally been determined to have the requisite knowledge in the field and a credetialed understanding of the experts, something you do not have.

This does not mean that you can't be right and Gee wrong in some instances. It just means that it is not unreasonable for people to generally and comparatively question your expertice in relation to him because of your lack of credentials. It doesn't mean that what you say on the subject should be dismissed out of hand because of your lack of credential in the field, but that it is not unreasonable for people to give deference to those with credentials.

Trust me, I know where you are coming from. I am self-trained in the area of counselling and cognitive behavoral therapy, and as Beastie will attest, it is not uncommon for people to question my expertice because of my lack of credentials, and to give deference to people who have credentials, even though the credentialed people may be incorrect or not apprised of best practices. I think the defference is reasonable as long as what I have to say isn't dismissed out of hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Trust me, I know where you are coming from. I am self-trained in the area of counselling and cognitive behavoral therapy, and as Beastie will attest, it is not uncommon for people to question my expertice because of my lack of credentials, and to give deference to people who have credentials, even though the credentialed people may be incorrect or not apprised of best practices. I think the defference is reasonable as long as what I have to say isn't dismissed out of hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL. Well, at least there isn't some institution somewhere to blame for your mess of psycho-babble.

[_wenglund]

It is hypocritical only if they have a history of arguing the opposite [deleted verbose response]

Kevin, I was looking for a simple yes/no/depends answer to my general question. I couldn't tell from your response what your answer was. Could you please clarify.

Here is the abbreviated question agtain: is it hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, but not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted?

Once we establish the general area of agreement, then we can delve into specific instances and assess them according to our general agreements. Sound fair?

1a. Again, it depends on which expert you're talking about.

I am confused. The first time you answered question #1, you answered with an emphatic "no". Now, in response to my clarifying question to #1, you are answering, "it depends". Which is it?

And, does your differing answers somehow make you a "liar"?

If you go with the "it depends" answer, would you please explain what general criteria you propose for deciding in which cases the credentialed and recognized experts should be trusted over regular "Joes" like myself?

Again, once we establish the generally agreed upon standards, we can look at the specific instances you are so eager to explore.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I have nothing against occasional dabbling in psycho-babble and do it myself, but you engage in it repeatedly, almost in every post. Of course, I recognized what you were doing long ago. For whatever reason, you've decided against simply asserting that apostates are inspired by Satan and sin, and have slightly adjusted the prejudicial teachings of the LDS church into a twisted form of psycho-babble: there's something psychologically dysfunctional with apostates.

Yep. That's exactly right. For me, it's enough to know that Wade pushes my buttons and knows he's pushing them. There's really little difference among Wade's "mental defect" attacks, Juliann's wacky "fundamentalist" accusations, and Pahoran/selek's assertions that we're just plain evil.

It's just a slightly different form of the same silly old dance. And, by the way, while I don't view the LDS church as a cult over-all, the persistent tendency to demonize apostates, whether by Satan-association or mental dysfunction, is a hallmark of cults.

There's definitely an underlying contempt for ex-Mormons among an awful lot of Mormons, and that is by design. The church has consistently taught for 180 years or so that those who leave and publicly criticize the church are the worst of the worst, Satan's minions, whatever.

I've always thought it interesting that even rabid anti-Mormon EVs, such as Aaron Shafovaloff, are treated at least more politely than ex-Mormons. Perhaps this is because such people are considered deceived or blinded, but their hearts are in the right place. That's never an assumption made about ex-Mormons. We are the deceivers, not the deceived, and our hearts are never in the right place. And it's all right to treat us like crap because, if we take offense, it's our fault for choosing to be offended.

This is not to say that there isn't plenty of contempt for believers among many critics. But there is a difference: we didn't start out with contempt as a baseline for judging people. I admit I feel some contempt for a small number of apologists, but that's because they have earned my contempt (and I've likewise earned the contempt of others).

But it's a damn shame that an organization teaches its members to treat a growing number of people as inherently contemptible.

[Gadianton]

Wade,

Speaking of credentials, why are you insinuating here that you have some sort of training that enables you to be qualified to engage in your constant stream of psycho-babble when apparently you have no training? In other words, your eye is untrained as well. Regardless of whether or not credentials are required for conversation about a given matter, one should not insinuate one has had training when one has not.

I can't reasonably answer your question because of the several presuppositions that I view as false. In other words, your question presupposes things about which, as usual, you have little or no clue, and which you ironically aren't in a credentialled position to say.

At least you are consistent in one respect.

The question is also being posed ironically on a thread you started about the hypocrisy of selectively questioning degrees and credentials (as you are doing here), and where in the last paragraph of your OP you attempt to distance yourself from your own criticism, but ended up unwittingly failing in that attempt not three pages into your thread. Nice going!.

[Deleted off-topic snears and babble]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yep. That's exactly right. For me, it's enough to know that Wade pushes my buttons and knows he's pushing them. There's really little difference among Wade's "mental defect" attacks, Juliann's wacky "fundamentalist" accusations, and Pahoran/selek's assertions that we're just plain evil.

There's definitely an underlying contempt for ex-Mormons among an awful lot of Mormons, and that is by design. The church has consistently taught for 180 years or so that those who leave and publicly criticize the church are the worst of the worst, Satan's minions, whatever.

I've always thought it interesting that even rabid anti-Mormon EVs, such as Aaron Shafovaloff, are treated at least more politely than ex-Mormons. Perhaps this is because such people are considered deceived or blinded, but their hearts are in the right place. That's never an assumption made about ex-Mormons. We are the deceivers, not the deceived, and our hearts are never in the right place. And it's all right to treat us like crap because, if we take offense, it's our fault for choosing to be offended.

This is not to say that there isn't plenty of contempt for believers among many critics. But there is a difference: we didn't start out with contempt as a baseline for judging people. I admit I feel some contempt for a small number of apologists, but that's because they have earned my contempt (and I've likewise earned the contempt of others).

But it's a damn shame that an organization teaches its members to treat a growing number of people as inherently contemptible.

That is an interesting perspective, rich with irony. And to think this off-topic rant was evidently prompted by me paying you a genuine compliment couched in facetiousness that wasn't directed at you. Seems I did push your button, though I can assure you that it wasn't intentional, and I didn't know that I had pushed your button until your excessive and unwarranted reaction. You are obviously still raw with emotion, and so I will try not to aggitate you even with a well intended compliment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-