Paradigms for Apologists

[_gramps]

Hmmmm. That is what I was thinking yesterday when LOAP ran off from the first vision thread. Thanks for expressing that much better than I ever could have.

What is he doing here?

Studying? Improving? Growing? Please don't discourage him.

I would never 'discourage' someone from studying nor improving nor growing. I will accept your charitable view of the situation and let it play out without 'discouraging' him in any way.

Whatever you may mean by 'discourage.'

[_harmony]

A paradigm is,

...a whole way of doing science, in some particular field.

I don't think Plate can be held accountable for his mistake, since many experts in several different fields contributed to his (and my) misunderstanding of what a paradigm is. I know when my agency was moving the goalposts for our annual reviews, "paradigm shift" was a popular catch phrase.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I finished Structure this afternoon. I'm going to revisit Barbour and then Christensen (Bokovoy, etc. are too tangential and rather irrelevant to my current purpose) and then post some thoughts, etc. And don't worry, my dear Gramps, soon the board will not have to worry about me because I will be "running away" shortly; after this paradigm discussion winds down sufficiently.

And to answer Scratch: I don't see "apologetics" as something really in and of itself, I think we use the term differently. As to why I study, write, and discuss religion, most notably my own, I can tell you: it is because I find it rewarding. It interests me. It's generally fun. It helps me understand myself, my religion, the way I see the world, and hopefully others' views as well. I have met great friends who also take interest in it. Do rugby players practice because they fear if they cease practicing they will suck? Or is it because they actually enjoy the game and hope to improve and have fun? How about professional swimmers? What drives them? How about historians or teachers? Why do we do what we do? Hopefully we do it more for the enjoyment and good fruit than for the simple eat, drink, and be merry alternatives.

Have a good new year. I'll be on soon to discuss the paradigm issue, hopefully to understand it better and help you understand how I see it better.

[_Sethbag]

I don't think that Kuhn gets to own the word "paradigm". Once contributed to the language, it is, like all other words, free for the use of all, and will inevitably evolve. This happens in language. There are undoubtedly meanings and usages of the word that vary from the intention of the coiner of the word, especially the further removed we become in time from the word's introduction, but that doesn't make them illegitimate.

Gad, have you got some compelling reason why the only legitimate meaning of the word paradigm should be the one that you get from Kuhn?

[_Mister Scratch]

And to answer Scratch: I don't see "apologetics" as something really in and of itself, I think we use the term differently.

Huh? "Apologetics" is a defense of something, no? And thus, "Mopologetics" is the defense of Mormonism. Perhaps you simply define "Mormonism" in an idiosyncratic way? Or, more generally, Mopologists rely on "paradigm flux" in order to defend their idiosyncratic, Internet Mormonism? Further, don't you think it would be wise to distance LDS apologetics from actual LDS doctrine and practice?

As to why I study, write, and discuss religion, most notably my own, I can tell you: it is because I find it rewarding.

You find it rewarding to call people "idiots" and failures, to accuse them of being embarrassments? Well, LoaP, I can understand now why you were so reluctant to explain your motivation for joining up with the Mopologists. Claiming that your posting behavior is somehow personally "rewarding" makes you seem rather like a sadist, or like a still very angry ex-missionary, still bitter after those years of bashing with Church enemies.

Do rugby players practice because they fear if they cease practicing they will suck?

Again, let us observe the parallel you chose: a violent sport. And is this an apt comparison? Well, clearly it is, in your mind. And it is also very telling that you would equate apologetics with "practicing" your religion.

Or is it because they actually enjoy the game and hope to improve and have fun?

Again: improve at what? Being a Latter-day Saint, or a Mopologist?

How about professional swimmers? What drives them? How about historians or teachers? Why do we do what we do? Hopefully we do it more for the enjoyment and good fruit than for the simple eat, drink, and be merry alternatives.

I would be interested in learning how and why you think Mopologetics is somehow comparable with professional swimming. Really, LoaP, your hubris here is pretty astonishing.

Have a good new year.

Same to you, Elder Hodges.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think that Kuhn gets to own the word "paradigm". Once contributed to the language, it is, like all other words, free for the use of all, and will inevitably evolve. This happens in language. There are undoubtedly meanings and usages of the word that vary from the intention of the coiner of the word, especially the further removed we become in time from the word's introduction, but that doesn't make them illegitimate.

Gad, have you got some compelling reason why the only legitimate meaning of the word paradigm should be the one that you get from Kuhn?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Gad is arguing that Kuhn is the sole proprietor of the word "paradigm." Rather, I think he's just pointing out that Mopologetic co-opting of the term is a gross distortion of Kuhn's views, and his stature.

[_Gadianton]

That is pretty much corect Mister Scratch. The problem isn't that the word can't be adapted to other situations, but the equivocation involved when often the topic of discussion is Kuhn, or the apologist seems to think that there was this revolution in the way science is understood that has something to do with this other popular usage of the word that they are relying on when in fact, it's not the case.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And to answer Scratch: I don't see "apologetics" as something really in and of itself, I think we use the term differently.

Huh? "Apologetics" is a defense of something, no? And thus, "Mopologetics" is the defense of Mormonism. Perhaps you simply define "Mormonism" in an idiosyncratic way? Or, more generally, Mopologists rely on "paradigm flux" in order to defend their idiosyncratic, Internet Mormonism? Further, don't you think it would be wise to distance LDS apologetics from actual LDS doctrine and practice?

I see a general spectrum rather than an either/or. Someone can "defend the faith" without providing counter-arguments, for example. You can feel free to disagree.

As to why I study, write, and discuss religion, most notably my own, I can tell you: it is because I find it rewarding.

You find it rewarding to call people "idiots" and failures, to accuse them of being embarrassments? Well, LoaP, I can understand now why you were so reluctant to explain your motivation for joining up with the Mopologists. Claiming that your posting behavior is somehow personally "rewarding" makes you seem rather like a sadist, or like a still very angry ex-missionary, still bitter after those years of bashing with Church enemies.

Actually you have pinpointed some of the reasons I'll be scaling back from participation on this message board. It isn't as rewarding as other things I do, not by a long shot. Sometimes it is literally a distraction from much more important things. And getting frustrated, calling people idiots (even if I believe they are acting like idiots) isn't the best use of my time. Sometimes it is rather astoundingly inane. (Threads on discounts, etc.)

Do rugby players practice because they fear if they cease practicing they will suck?

Again, let us observe the parallel you chose: a violent sport. And is this an apt comparison? Well, clearly it is, in your mind. And it is also very telling that you would equate apologetics with "practicing" your religion.

Actually the sport popped into my head. You can psychoanalyze it, as is your general wont, but as my further examples show (swimming, historians, etc.) there was nothing particularly purposeful about the rugby comparison. Sometimes it is apt. In that way I have become less and less interested in rugby-like discussion. You exist solely because of it. I am retreating from it. "Running away" if you will.

Or is it because they actually enjoy the game and hope to improve and have fun?

Again: improve at what? Being a Latter-day Saint, or a Mopologist?

It's an analogy, Scratch.

How about professional swimmers? What drives them? How about historians or teachers? Why do we do what we do? Hopefully we do it more for the enjoyment and good fruit than for the simple eat, drink, and be merry alternatives.

I would be interested in learning how and why you think Mopologetics is somehow comparable with professional swimming. Really, LoaP, your hubris here is pretty astonishing.

Well, I guess hubris is in the eye of the beholder. No hubris intended.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That is pretty much corect Mister Scratch. The problem isn't that the word can't be adapted to other situations, but the equivocation involved when often the topic of discussion is Kuhn, or the apologist seems to think that there was this revolution in the way science is understood that has something to do with this other popular usage of the word that they are relying on when in fact, it's not the case.

So far (and I need to revisit Christensen especially) I do not believe you represent how Mormons have referred to Kuhn accurately.

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually you have pinpointed some of the reasons I'll be scaling back from participation on this message board. It isn't as rewarding as other things I do, not by a long shot.

I understand. I'm sure you'll find arguing on the MAD board far more rewarding, since the atmosphere there is far more conducive to Mopologetic victories. You'll be less tempted to reveal your true colors.

Actually the sport popped into my head.

Oh, I'm sure it did. And with good reason.

You can psychoanalyze it, as is your general wont, but as my further examples show (swimming, historians, etc.) there was nothing particularly purposeful about the rugby comparison. Sometimes it is apt. In that way I have become less and less interested in rugby-like discussion.

Now you're retreating from your original position. Wasn't it you who was murmuring about "moving goal posts" just yesterday? Or is this a confession on your part that you exist--as do many Mopologists, I dare say--to engage in "attack dog," bashing behavior? Let us read on:

Again: improve at what? Being a Latter-day Saint, or a Mopologist?

It's an analogy, Scratch.

That doesn't answer the question at all. Not by a long shot. Here it is again: Do you engage in messageboard polemics to improve your life as a Latter-day, or your "skills" as a Mopologist?