To Celebrate 500 Weeks in a Row, "Interpreter" Reviews the 1st (and Last) 10 Pages of a Book About God's Genitals

[Philo Sofee]

Is this anything that we didn't know before?

Did DCP expect that primitive humans would develop abstract logical thinking while spending most of their time running from wild animals?

The shame isn't that primitive humans believed in an anthropomorphic God, but that 21st century retired professors do.

Straight for the jugular.... but hey, if other non-Mormons talk about it, then it must be real... objectivity and all that you know... Peterson is on a roll!

[Moksha]

Sneak Peek at the new Book of Mormon Animal Taxonomy to be published in the Interpreter:

[Doctor Scratch]

He also quotes several reviewers (likely whatever turns up first in a Google search).

Daniel’s intellectual habits are unequivocally in a decrepit state. Your timely observation here immediately brought to mind this comment Daniel made in a March 19th blogpost:

Incidentally, the notes I’ve been posting here are being cited by certain of my critics as proof of my lack of originality. And I must confess that I’m so very unoriginal that it had never so much as occurred to me that notes drawn from one’s reading ought to be original. They’re notes, after all.

He truly doesn’t understand the purpose of taking notes when it comes to research. Simply preserving another copy of what someone wrote constitutes research in the same way requesting a book through the interlibrary-loan system, a rote activity that requires only the barest amount of effort.

Notes are where creativity is born and where one’s analysis begins in earnest, it is your first contact with a text and recording your initial impressions and questions is a crucial first step in actually coming up with a thesis to write about or a programme to execute.

This review serves as a perfect example of the meretricious effects of skipping that stage of research/writing.

Well said, Dr. Stak. It seems to me that Dr. Peterson's strength as a Mopologist lies in two arenas: writing attack pieces, and serving in an administrative function. His "best" writing is behind him: it's stuff like "Text and Context," or "The Witchcraft Paradigm." Terrible as those essays were, they at least had a verve and energy to them. His daily blogging has seemingly sapped all of his strength as a writer. And that's bearing in mind that a very small percentage of any given blog posting is actually his own "original" writing. The standard post is normally just him posting quotes that he's harvested from elsewhere: that seems to take up 80% of what he posts these days.

Meanwhile, I noticed that he approvingly posted some thing from Steve Smoot about how peer review is "flawed." Fair enough: it's imperfect when it's done the right way, but that's not really the complaint that has been leveled at the Mopologists. The Mopologists' peer review is crap because they do a poor job at it, and because of how incestuous it is.

[PseudoPaul]

I haven't read the book either, but I did watch a few interviews with the author. She mentions in the Hebrew Bible, God sometimes shows off his genitals to certain people, which is an LDS context seems like an odd way to "support" LDS doctrine.

[Philo Sofee]

I haven't read the book either, but I did watch a few interviews with the author. She mentions in the Hebrew Bible, God sometimes shows off his genitals to certain people, which is an LDS context seems like an odd way to "support" LDS doctrine.

Well, it's all they have, so who can blame them for at least trying to go with it...

[Moksha]

The Mopologists' peer review is crap because they do a poor job at it, and because of how incestuous it is.

Don't forget the general subject matters such as Bayes Theorem proving the Book of Mormon is true, and its twin blockbuster Converting Matter Into Mormonism via the Joseph Smith Particle Accelerator at BYU. The latter was even republished in the science journal The Onion, with peer consultation from the Interpreter Institute.

[drumdude]

The Mopologists' peer review is crap because they do a poor job at it, and because of how incestuous it is.

Don't forget the general subject matters such as Bayes Theorem proving the Book of Mormon is true, and its twin blockbuster Converting Matter Into Mormonism via the Joseph Smith Particle Accelerator at BYU. The latter was even republished in the science journal The Onion, with peer consultation from the Interpreter Institute.

NUCLEUS IS BUTTHEAD

[Philo Sofee]

Dr. Scratch
Meanwhile, I noticed that he approvingly posted some thing from Steve Smoot about how peer review is "flawed."

Next thing we know they will be complaining that scholars are biased against them... oh wait...

[Father Francis]

Sneak Peek at the new Book of Mormon Animal Taxonomy to be published in the Interpreter:

I thought they were all penguins...

[Moksha]

I thought they were all penguins...

Some researchers at the Interpreter might choose to make them all tapirs. That choice might help in terms of pulling Nephite steel chariots. From a common zoological perspective, there is great proselytizing power in Pandas.