The difference is that Stubbs is publishing a book _because_ he doesn't want to engage academic scrutiny. That process allows an individual to publish without the criticism that comes from peer review, but the book will be used by many of his readers as if it held the same weight as if it was published at an academic press simply because of his degrees.
...You do a self published book so that you don't have to engage the editing or peer review process. It is the fact that no one else in his field will have looked at the book through a formal process to make suggestions. It's not that no one can believe Stubbs' arguments, but the way he is publishing his work is not academic and therefore holds little value in an academic light.
The sentence I bolded illustrates Peterson's tactic.
Did Brian Stubbs ever receive his PhD? As I understand it he completed the course work but not the dissertation and was never awarded a doctorate degree.
John S. Robertson wrote:As a practitioner of the comparative historical method for 40+ years, I believe I can say what Stubbs’s scholarship does and does not deserve: It does not deserve aprioristic dismissal given the extensive data he presents. It does deserve authoritative consideration because, from my point of view, I cannot find an easy way to challenge the breadth and depth of the data.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
tapirrider wrote:Did Brian Stubbs ever receive his PhD?
krose wrote:Not that it matters much, but no.
It might matter to those with doctorate degrees who have spent their lives in research being challenged by someone lacking the degree or experience in ancient Middle Eastern languages who is proposing just another variation of a long discarded theory.
So what is the simple bottom line- is there real scholarship here or is it hypothesis building to make a leap that language connections are possible? and to what end? i am sure DCP sees bullseyes for the Book of Mormon in this pile of horsesh*t.
Next week on the Patheos, Wacky Hour, Icelanders produce proof of the existence of fairies.
Hey, if there can be "three Nephite" sightings, there can be fairy sightings. And at least Tinkerbell got a staring role in more than one major motion picture. And really, I bet there have been as many sightings of the three Nephites as there are for Bigfoot. Perhaps the Jaredite barges were really ancestors of Bessie that they rode across the ocean to the new world. If Mopologists have taught us anything, they have shown how complicated interpreting the Book of Mormon really is, so you really can't discount anything. Even Trump's secret tweet is understood by many, for I have it on good authority that he revealed the Nephite word for wine:
7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with covfefe.
But since this is Donald Trump it is quite possible that it is the word for "whine". Sigh... These linguistic studies can get so complicated.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
tapirrider wrote:It might matter to those with doctorate degrees who have spent their lives in research being challenged by someone lacking the degree or experience in ancient Middle Eastern languages who is proposing just another variation of a long discarded theory.
Of course. I just mean it's not a factor I considered myself when judging his conclusions as fanciful.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton