Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_Yoda]

I believe that Dan is actually open to dialogue and feedback, as demonstrated Here.

I'm as guilty as anyone else, but maybe there comes a time when we really should listen more? You know, like, actually have dialogue rather than just "DCP-bashing"?

Amen, Ray! I agree wholeheartedly with everything you posted. :-)

Merry Christmas!

[_bcspace]

I freely admit: I post more in the Terrestrial so I can get off a real shot or two if I want. But that is more a holdover from the false decorum on another board. Righteous indignation (extant only in TBM's) should be allowed in the Celestial. I'm just not used to it is all.

Now we see the honest mind of a believer. The real CK is not really what it's talked up to be. God will be pretty lonely, ruling over the few who commit to live there for ETERNITY.

Yes. I'll be visiting you from my Celestial abode. But you failed to notice that there is a key Celestial attribute which is not allowed in the Celestial forum on this board and therefore, that forum is not a good analog of the actual CK.

[_EAllusion]

As for point 3, I don't believe it's because he "can't defend his position", but rather because he's been doing it for over 21 years, to his satisfaction, even if you or I don't accept it. We have differences of opinion (DCP and I), but I don't believe for one minute that DCP "can't defend his position". Maybe he just gets sick and tired of "groundhog day", for him.

That seems dubious when you consider that DCP is fond of discussing at length issues where his position is more defensible. He's an incredibly prolific poster who covers the same ground over and over, in fact. He'll spend all day beating up on your less lucid posters when the topic suits him. There's a near perfect inverse correlation between DCP's desire to discuss a topic and whether someone who will ravage him over his views is in the vicinity. Then he either turns the topic on his character or name drops something intellectual-sounding and vanishes in a puff of transparency. He's got a reputation as a scholarly sort to protect. It's what he uses to create a patina of credibility for his defense of his faith - and discussing his views on dowsing, intelligent design, thermodynamics, ethical theory, or his quote-mining habits isn't exactly going to help that.

For what it's worth, I kinda respect that he knows enough about how defensible his fundamentalist, fringe views are to know when to high-tail it out of there. But with that comes less respect for his advocacy in the first place.

[_Chap]

.... I often notice when I encounter an academic:

1) They mention or note their credentials
2) In conversation, they frequently reference and name drop experts in the field, even when it's not necessary to get the point across
3) They frequently reference published articles, even when it's not necessary to get the point across
4) When they come into my office, they first look at my diplomas, then at my bookshelf (a way for them to size me up, I think)

These things almost never happen when I work with non-academics. It's not that these things are inappropriate. Rather, I just find it highly annoying.

Yes, I agree that is a common but boring habit amongst some academics.

That is one reason why, on the whole, I think it is healthier for academics who post on internet discussion boards not to say much or indeed anything at all about any academic status or specialism they may have, but just concentrate on writing convincing, logical and well evidenced posts. None of that 'You clearly haven't read Shlockschplotz' stuff ... the more junior and anxious the academic is, the more he or she tends to do it. It's as if they were always saying - 'Hey! dontch'a wish you were an intellectual like me?', unaware of the fact that to most people the obvious response is 'Not really ...'.

Having said that, there are some very pleasant academic self-identifiers on this board who carry it off quite well. So it can be done gracefully too.

[_RayAgostini]

As for point 3, I don't believe it's because he "can't defend his position", but rather because he's been doing it for over 21 years, to his satisfaction, even if you or I don't accept it. We have differences of opinion (DCP and I), but I don't believe for one minute that DCP "can't defend his position". Maybe he just gets sick and tired of "groundhog day", for him.

That seems dubious when you consider that DCP is fond of discussing at length issues where his position is more defensible. He's an incredibly prolific poster who covers the same ground over and over, in fact. He'll spend all day beating up on your less lucid posters when the topic suits him. There's a near perfect inverse correlation between DCP's desire to discuss a topic and whether someone who will ravage him over his views is in the vicinity. Then he either turns the topic on his character or name drops something intellectual-sounding and vanishes in a puff of transparency. He's got a reputation as a scholarly sort to protect. It's what he uses to create a patina of credibility for his defense of his faith - and discussing his views on dowsing, intelligent design, thermodynamics, ethical theory, or his quote-mining habits isn't exactly going to help that.

For what it's worth, I kinda respect that he knows enough about how defensible his fundamentalist, fringe views are to know when to high-tail it out of there. But with that comes less respect for his advocacy in the first place.

EA, how many of Dan Peterson's books have you read? One? Two? Three?

Can you please do a tick/read list from the following?

Daniel C. Peterson.

Thanks.

[_Yoda]

Yes. I'll be visiting you from my Celestial abode. But you failed to notice that there is a key Celestial attribute which is not allowed in the Celestial forum on this board and therefore, that forum is not a good analog of the actual CK.

And what attribute would that be?

[_EAllusion]

EA, how many of Dan Peterson's books have you read? One? Two? Three?

Can you please do a tick/read list from the following?

Daniel C. Peterson.

Thanks.

Probably more than you think, but that's kinda embarrassing. First, what does this have to do with my statement? Let's say it was none. What would that have to do with the veracity of what you are quoting? We're all aware of Dr. Peterson's publishing history. It's how many of us are aware of his endorsement of a range of crackpot ideas in the first place. My assertion is about his online behavior, which many long-time posters have observed extensively. Your attempt to explain it away - that it's all old hat to him - doesn't make any sense given that he is a prolific poster who will come to the same issue over and over. He'll go over a wide range of topics when his interlocutors just happen to be your less thoughtful posters. Instead, we have a correlation - a rather obvious one with those with eyes to see - between his willingness to discuss substance and whether someone is present who will likely rake him over the coals on that substance. He's wise not to discuss his idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means a god "wound up" the universe with Tarksi, but if it was all margs around, he'd be happy to jump in that pool. Funny how that works out. That he defended this view in an article in Merdian Magazine doesn't change this dynamic at all.

The upshot here is if he was more a zealot about his own ideas he might not be able to recognize when he's about to get exposed in a debate. Yet he has a good sense of when to pull the rip-cord. It's like poor man's version of humility on display.

[_sock puppet]

As for point 3, I don't believe it's because he "can't defend his position", but rather because he's been doing it for over 21 years, to his satisfaction, even if you or I don't accept it. We have differences of opinion (DCP and I), but I don't believe for one minute that DCP "can't defend his position". Maybe he just gets sick and tired of "groundhog day", for him.

That seems dubious when you consider that DCP is fond of discussing at length issues where his position is more defensible. He's an incredibly prolific poster who covers the same ground over and over, in fact. He'll spend all day beating up on your less lucid posters when the topic suits him. There's a near perfect inverse correlation between DCP's desire to discuss a topic and whether someone who will ravage him over his views is in the vicinity. Then he either turns the topic on his character or name drops something intellectual-sounding and vanishes in a puff of transparency. He's got a reputation as a scholarly sort to protect. It's what he uses to create a patina of credibility for his defense of his faith - and discussing his views on dowsing, intelligent design, thermodynamics, ethical theory, or his quote-mining habits isn't exactly going to help that.

For what it's worth, I kinda respect that he knows enough about how defensible his fundamentalist, fringe views are to know when to high-tail it out of there. But with that comes less respect for his advocacy in the first place.

To borrow some verbiage from liz,

"Amen, EA! I agree wholeheartedly with everything you posted. :-)

"Merry Christmas!"

[_sock puppet]

EA, how many of Dan Peterson's books have you read? One? Two? Three?

Can you please do a tick/read list from the following?

Daniel C. Peterson.

Thanks.

Probably more than you think, but that's kinda embarrassing. First, what does this have to do with my statement? Let's say it was none. What would that have to do with the veracity of what you are quoting? We're all aware of Dr. Peterson's publishing history. It's how many of us are aware of his endorsement of a range of crackpot ideas in the first place. My assertion is about his online behavior, which many long-time posters have observed extensively. Your attempt to explain it away - that it's all old hat to him - doesn't make any sense given that he is a prolific poster who will come to the same issue over and over. He'll go over a wide range of topics when his interlocutors just happen to be your less thoughtful posters. Instead, we have a correlation - a rather obvious one with those with eyes to see - between his willingness to discuss substance and whether someone is present who will likely rake him over the coals on that substance. He's wise not to discuss his idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means a god "wound up" the universe with Tarksi, but if it was all margs around, he'd be happy to jump in that pool. Funny how that works out. That he defended this view in an article in Merdian Magazine doesn't change this dynamic at all.

The upshot here is if he was more a zealot about his own ideas he might not be able to recognize when he's about to get exposed in a debate. Yet he has a good sense of when to pull the rip-cord. It's like poor man's version of humility on display.

To paraphrase again from liz,

"Amen, EA! I agree wholeheartedly with everything you posted. :-)

"Merry Christmas!"

[_marg]

He's wise not to discuss his idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means a god "wound up" the universe with Tarksi, but if it was all margs around, he'd be happy to jump in that pool.

I'll refrain from commenting on DCP because I have virtually nil interest in him as a discussion topic. I don't read the MAD board, haven't for the last 7 or 8 years though for a few weeks last year I followed a poster there discussing a science topic but haven't looked at the board since. I rarely discuss Mormonism, God's existence, philosophy or use philosophical terms. My main interests have been polygamy in Canada, Spalding theory (which entails a number of tangential topics such as how memory works, Occam's razor concept), out of africa theory, NDE's with Ray, and some discussions on logic and scientific method. I have had a few discussions on Dawkins (or new atheists) typically with posters who are critical of them and generally my interest is to determine whether the criticisms are warranted. There have been a few other topics such as whether or not christianity had an impact on the development of science. I don't claim to know science, philosophy, or Book of Mormon.

Frankly EA I don't see you carrying on many discussions with anyone..except recently you've begun to post a little more than usual.

Do you really expect DCP to have sound arguments backed up by science for his worldview via Mormonism? Do you really think you are saying anything insightful with regards to DCP?

At least he puts himself on the line and lets everyone know who he is, unlike yourself. It really is very easy to criticize anonymously.

Added note: how did this morph into a thread on DCP?