Does DCP want a discussion?

[drumdude]

He has an open invitation to discuss here. He never takes it.

This is very important actually. He never takes it because he can't take it. His ego will NEVER allow him to agree or admit anyone has a point against any of his apologetics points, even if they are church members themselves. Peterson is always about being always correct, period. He cannot admit he is ever wrong on anything which he defends in scripture as if he alone has the total truth. I feel sorry for him. It is why he doesn't actually engage in discussion, that might mean someone makes a point against his point and his testimony would come crashing down. Therefore we see him doing the only thing he does so well, mocks and derides all others who disagree with him. He has become a pathetic bore, and at one point, I think he actually had a chance to make some significant contributions.

I think this is why he will never write another book. It opens him up to too much criticism.

He needs to keep shotgunning spurious arguments on his blog that he has no obligation to defend and can disengage from easily.

[Marcus]

Sigh. Peterson is again using dubious sources. Here's a critique of the NDE article in the Lancet he has referenced multiple times.

..Jason Braithwaite, a senior lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, issued an in-depth analysis and critique of van Lommel's prospective study published in the medical journal The Lancet, concluding that while Lommel's et al. study makes a useful contribution, it contains several factual and logical errors. Among these errors are van Lommel's misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the dying-brain hypothesis, misunderstandings over the role of anoxia, misplaced confidence in EEG measurements (a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity), etc.

Jason concluded with, "it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish, makes additional and unnecessary assumptions, misrepresents the current state of knowledge from mainstream science, and appears less than comprehensive in its analysis of the available facts."[6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_van_L ... rnal_links

Apparently DCP has found a kindred spirit.

[drumdude]

The Lancet is also a place where anti-COVID vaccine fears were spread, using the paper’s prestige as “solid evidence” to sow distrust of a valuable medical tool. One that Dan and the brethren publicly supported.

[Physics Guy]

I guess Gemli could be annoying. I haven't read any of his comments for a long time, but my impression was that he never offered much in the way of argument, but just constantly denied the premises of what other people said.

If somebody is claiming to prove something, then it could well be legitimate to point out that they have failed to prove one of their important assumptions. It could even be a profound contribution to the discussion.

Suppose, though, that a bunch of chess masters are talking about how some particular gambit is a losing plan against skilled opponents. They are quite serious that the gambit is demonstrably flawed, but they're not saying that its flaws are supposed to be obvious. If a novice keeps jumping in to declare that the masters are wrong, without ever even addressing any of the relevant issues, this is just stupid. Maybe one of the more patient masters might try to explain one of the problems with the flawed gambit to the skeptical novice, but if it appears that the novice doesn't even know the rules of chess, and has no interest in learning, then it would be understandable for the masters to start ignoring the intrusive idiot.

I don't actually think that Mormonism is like chess. Peterson and his regular commenters seem to believe that it is, though. So simply insisting over and over again that they're wrong isn't going to faze them at all. They don't expect anyone who isn't an expert in their intricate game to appreciate the profound things they say. And if a bunch of people who are earnestly talking about some nonsense all believe that they are discussing something complex and rigorous like chess, then there is no point in persistently saying stuff to them that is only going to come across to them as ignorance. Either leave them alone in their folly, or find things to say that will actually register with them.

[Marcus]

Interesting take on gemli's performance art. I don't think he considers his posts as attempts to change Peterson's mind, but rather an attempt to accomplish what Jenkins defined as an obligation to call out the falsely manufactured gravitas of psuedo-science for what it is.

[huckelberry]

As Robert Boylan loves to say, Interpreter is just “gish gallop.”

Or cad swallow...

I experienced a bit of minor confusion here and thus a touch of curiosity. google did not help on the cad business but I did find:

codswallop
British, informal
: words or ideas that are foolish or untrue : nonsense
The notion that Scott was waylaid by bad luck is "a lot of codswallop," said Roland Huntford, a British historian. —Kenneth Chang
"Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion …"

Merriam Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/codswallop

[Chap]

Um, "cods" is an obsolete British English term for "testicles".

So "codswallop" is ... well, I think you can work it out for yourselves.

[huckelberry]

Um, "cods" is an obsolete British English term for "testicles".

So "codswallop" is ... well, I think you can work it out for yourselves.

Something of this sort crossed my mind but I could not remember why.

Edit to add: I realize due to age my memory sometimes is delayed. Codpiece is the memory link. I checked google and it proposed modesty to explain the attire. I remember some art indicating some different intentions.

a New Yorker article is more open about it:

Thus the codpiece, designed for discretion, became instead a rigid contrivance. Historians have compared it to “a permanent erection,” noting that it was “so voluminous it could serve as a pocket.” And indeed it did, offering convenient storage for one’s hankie or a stray orange, in addition to “ballads, bottles, napkins, pistols, hair, and even a looking glass,” as the scholar Will Fisher has written. With great size comes great decorative responsibility, and men of means rose to the occasion. They brocaded, damasked, bejewelled, embroidered, tasseled, tinseled, and otherwise ornamented their codpieces until they became like walking Christmas trees. Puberty was no prerequisite: boys as young as seven could engorge themselves with silk and satin. On the battlefield, a codpiece signalled martial swagger; in the royal court, procreative swagger; and, everywhere else, swagger at large.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-tu ... -equipment

[huckelberry]

Trump as a walking codpiece.

OK this drifts off topic but DCP is a grimly boring subject, like discussing bunions.

[Physics Guy]

Interesting take on gemli's performance art. I don't think he considers his posts as attempts to change Peterson's mind, but rather an attempt to accomplish what Jenkins defined as an obligation to call out the falsely manufactured gravitas of psuedo-science for what it is.

I think that exactly that, calling out the fake gravitas, is indeed well worth doing. It is fake. All this “You haven’t engaged with all our weighty scholarship” is just trying to snow people.

Really substantial disciplines don’t just complain that you haven’t done your homework. They have a good six or eight show-stopping examples, at least, that any expert can explain in just a few lines, in a way that a lay person can clearly understand, and that will immediately make any casual mocker step back and admit that there must be something here after all. Math and science can do this, but for a field like ancient history I still think of Kishkumen’s quick mention here, in rebuttal to N.T. Wright’s claim that the historical evidence for Jesus is as good as for any ancient historical figure, that the Res gestae divi Augusti are still there carved into rock in Turkey.

Mormon apologetics has nothing like that. As we’ve all seen many times now, any seemingly impressive claim that they make always collapses on close inspection into trivial mistakes, like writing about evidence for wine grapes in ancient Mexico from a thesis in Spanish and confusing modern Spanish words with Latin botanical terms.

I just think Gemli may have gone on too long. When simply calling out doesn’t induce repentance, I’d either shake the dust off my sandals and move on, or dig deeper in taking people to task.

But maybe it is performance art on Gemli’s part. I guess that’s something else and maybe I just can’t judge.