Professors, PhDs, Lecturers and all Peer Reviewed Scholars!

[oldbadger]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

I debate with my own opinions and experiences quite a bit and only appeal to academics when I feel the need.

I think it's great to think with one's own mind instead of referring to others that do all the thinking for them.

I give you credit for wanting to use your own noogon! That's independent thinking and it's beautiful.

 

[Augustus]

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Because often we haven’t conducted the study, read the primary sources or don’t have the technical skills necessary.

Sometimes we can, but often we cannot.

 

[Stevicus]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

I haven't read Fred, but I've skimmed some of Barney's works. I've heard that Wilma also has a few essays and articles.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Contempt for relevant scholarship warrants contempt. Ones own (anecdotal) "discoveries" are likely to prove worthless in any meaningful debate and, to the extent that ones "opinions" are not informed by scholarship, they can be even more meritless.

 

[oldbadger]

Because often we haven’t conducted the study, read the primary sources or don’t have the technical skills necessary.

Sometimes we can, but often we cannot.

Of course, but how would you know which one is correct. Of course some are necessary.
A good example is with, say, translations......which one is right?

 

[oldbadger]

I haven't read Fred, but I've skimmed some of Barney's works. I've heard that Wilma also has a few essays and articles.

You Sir, are a proper scholar!

 

[oldbadger]

Contempt for relevant scholarship warrants contempt. Ones own (anecdotal) "discoveries" are likely to prove worthless in any meaningful debate and, to the extent that ones "opinions" are not informed by scholarship, they can be even more meritless.

Yes yes, we know all about that, but even you will accept some opinions by some scholars whilst rejecting others.
So you're back to square one.

So your post is worthless here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes yes, we know all about that, but even you will accept some opinions by some scholars whilst rejecting others.
So you're back to square one.

No, I'm seeking to have an informed opinion.

So your post is worthless here.

It is clearly worthless to you. Nevertheless, as I noted before: contempt for relevant scholarship warrants contempt. This is clearly no less true when the contempt for relevant scholarship is yours.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A good example is with, say, translations......which one is right?

Sometimes it's obvious.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I'm seeking to have an informed opinion.

We all seek the opinions of others.

It is clearly worthless to you. Nevertheless, as I noted before: contempt for relevant scholarship warrants contempt. This is clearly no less true when the contempt for relevant scholarship is yours.

Your post offered nothing, because you failed to explain how you differentiate between conflicting scholars. Hence it had no value.

I don't have contempt for 'relevant scholars' ...I only have contempt for academic snobbery.
We nearly all wish to discover information from others, but then we decide for ourselves from the findings/opinions that we've found.

Better to debate for yourself than to hide behind some scholar's opinion, because then some other debater will wave yet another scholar in reply. I call this 'scholar waving'. Maybe this is what you do,?

 

[oldbadger]

Sometimes it's obvious.

There lies a very deep hole.
It's only obvious if you can show why.

 

[PureX]

There are a number of common 'tricks' people try to use when they don't know what they're talking about but can't admit it. I see them all the time, and have been confronted by them many, many times. Just a few minutes ago on another thread, in fact.

It's absurd and even embarrassing the lengths people will go to just to avoid simply admitting that their thinking is weak, flawed, biased, unfounded, and or irrational. But we are what we are.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There lies a very deep hole.
It's only obvious if you can show why.

Perhaps the classic example is Isaiah 7:14.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't have contempt for 'relevant scholars' ...I only have contempt for academic snobbery.

The your OP should demonstrate less of it.

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, as someone who is a peer-reviewed scholar it sounds like you've basically run into the phenomena of the internet pseudointellectual - a particular species that is really just interested in grandstanding, posturing, and chest beating once you peel back the veneer of intellectualism (hence "pseudo"). Actual academics don't... well, for one they don't conduct themselves like that and for two they don't waste time doing it on some recreational website that has close to zero significance to the profession. Maybe all this isn't quite what you were aiming to point at, sure, but it is what I thought of. Used to drive me nuts when I was an active researcher.

There's another issue here I find more interesting though - and that is how when we do speak from that which we know most intimately (our direct personal experiences) that is often not taken seriously. This failure to respect our own (and others) experiences is a strange thing. It may be a cultural notion an it is certainly one that got in the way of my work on more than one occasion. I've learned, slowly, to get over it. If anything, in this era of disinformation and lies, my own direct experience is the only thing I can fully trust.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are a number of common 'tricks' people try to use when they don't know what they're talking about but can't admit it. I see them all the time, and have been confronted by them many, many times. Just a few minutes ago on another thread, in fact.

It's absurd and even embarrassing the lengths people will go to just to avoid simply admitting they that their thinking is weak, flawed, biased, unfounded, and or irrational. But we are what we are.

A good scholar and academic would take the time to explain things as best as possible rather than belittling their opponent in a snobbish sarcastic way.

I find independent thinking, even if it's flawed, there's a hell of a lot more honest and sincere take in the conversation then any pompous *** individual parroting intellectualism and academic-ism as if he or she has insiders knowledge and privilege, yet themselves has no independent critiquing thoughts outside an experts parameters.

 

[Augustus]

Of course, but how would you know which one is correct. Of course some are necessary.
A good example is with, say, translations......which one is right?

You can’t always know.

You use your judgement and intuition as best you can, or accept there are competing arguments/explanations and keep an open mind.

You don’t need to adopt a strong stance on every issue.

 

[oldbadger]

Perhaps the classic example is Isaiah 7:14.

You didn't offer the verse, so here it is:-
Isaiah: {7:14} Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. {7:15} Butter and honey shall he


And you think that this verse has obvious meaning amongst the scholars?
You do?
No.......
Surely, scholarship does not offer a unified opinion about almost anything, so if you ever needed to quote that in debate as a proof of anything you would come unstuck. Here is a fast response from the internet to a simple question:-

There are a number of interpretations of Isaiah 7:14, including:

• A sign for King Ahaz
  Some say that Isaiah 7:14 is a sign that God gave to King Ahaz to produce faith. The sign was supernatural and was meant to be astonishing enough to make King Ahaz believe. However, King Ahaz rejected the sign and refused to put God to the test.
  
  
• A foreshadowing of Mary and Jesus
  Others say that the woman and child in Isaiah's day foreshadowed Mary and Jesus. The child was called Immanuel, which means "God with us", and foreshadowed Jesus, who was literally God with us.
  
  
• A judgment on human nature
  Some say that the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 is a judgment on human nature as corrupt in Adam. The child born of the virgin would mean the birth of a new Adam, saving Israel and offering a fresh start to humanity.
  
  
• A timeframe centered around the child's age
  Rikk Watts says that the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 points to a timeframe that centers around the age of the child.
  
  
  I wonder if Galilean peasant kids got to eat butter and honey very often? !!!!!!!

 

[oldbadger]

There are a number of common 'tricks' people try to use when they don't know what they're talking about but can't admit it. I see them all the time, and have been confronted by them many, many times. Just a few minutes ago on another thread, in fact.

It's absurd and even embarrassing the lengths people will go to just to avoid simply admitting they that their thinking is weak, flawed, biased, unfounded, and or irrational. But we are what we are.

Let's not worry about such things as people who cannot agree with us. My country just voted for a new government and our people had several differing opinions about who should take control...they all had reasons for their decisions and so it can be with discussions/debates about anything from history to science subjects.
It is when people wave 'expert' flags at each other as some kind of proof that I'm talking about.
I'm talking about folks who parrot their favourite 'expert' in any subject like noisy macaws.