William Schryver Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 If you want to see what real ad hominem is like, take a look at Edwin Firmage rant in the Salt Lake Tribune comment section of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article on the "shake-up" at the NAMI:/snip Ed's comical harangue/It would be impossible to find anything even remotely like this in the FARMS Review. I thought this one was pretty good, too:Anonymous Poster [salt Lake Tribune comments on PFS article]:So Donut Dan finally got the axe. I'm amazed that he was allowed to function as an official church attack dog for so long. Evidently some of the boys on North Temple finally took a good look at the vicious attacks in concert with twisting of facts that is Dan's specialty. Goodbye Mr. Ad Hominem. Couldn't happen to a more deserving dirtbag. Nice to know that you're going kicking and screaming and ever insisting that you're so right...and everyone else is wrong. How's that self-righteous arrogance working out for you now fatboy?Link
Bill Hamblin Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I hope you've buried it somewhere so to avoid the contamination.It's in my safe in my basement with my porno DVDs. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 So Donut Dan finally got the axe. ... How's that self-righteous arrogance working out for you now fatboy?Now mocking people for being fat. No ad hominem there! That's scholarship!
Nunya D. Bidness Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 It's in my safe in my basement with my porno DVDs.Any such material in the possession of a wicked apologist must be filled with filthy ad hominems.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) I should note that we asked the critics to provide some examples of ad hominem from the FARMS Review. As far as I can tell they haven't provided a single example. One poor fellow even called me "venomous" while accusing us of being ad hominem. Instead, they provide examples of negative reviews, which they astonishing confuse with ad hominem. It boggles the mind!On the other hand, we've provided several striking examples of ad hominem attacks from apostates, without even lifting a finger. With a tiny bit of research on the Bedlam board I could provide hundreds more from the past couple of days alone. And this has been going on relentlessly for years.The accusation of "mean, nasty, ad hominem FARMS" is not accurate. It's not even an argument. It is, instead, purely and simply, a baseless ad hominem attack. Edited June 27, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 1
Popular Post Nunya D. Bidness Posted June 27, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 27, 2012 Obviously I don't usually post here (or anywhere else). I'm an academic and a liberal but believing Mormon who studies Mormonism and works at a non-Mormon university. Most of the negative reviews that I have seen in the FARMS Review are not terribly different from negative reviews that I have read, received, and written in other academic journals. As far as online behavior, I can't speak to that. But the FARMS review seems to be getting a bit of a bad rap. 6
Pahoran Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I should not that we asked the critics to provide some examples of ad hominem from the FARMS Review. As far as I can tell they haven't provided a single example. Instead, they provide examples of negative reviews. On the other hand, we've provided several striking examples of ad hominem attacks from apostates, without even lifting a finger. With a tiny bit of research on the Bedlam board I could provide hundreds more from the past couple of days alone. And this has been going on relentlessly for years.The accusation of "mean, nasty, ad hominem FARMS" is not accurate. It's not even an argument. It is, instead, purely and simply, an ad hominem attack.And frequently coming from people whose own attack tactics are untrammelled by anything resembling scruples.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Obviously I don't usually post here (or anywhere else). I'm an academic and a liberal but believing Mormon who studies Mormonism and works at a non-Mormon university. Most of the negative reviews that I have seen in the FARMS Review are not terribly different from negative reviews that I have read, received, and written in other academic journals. As far as online behavior, I can't speak to that. But the FARMS review seems to be getting a bit of a bad rap.Nunya,Welcome to the forum.Discussions can get a bit polarised around here, and it won't be staid or stodgy (despite the best efforts of the mods.) I hope you enjoy your visit.Regards,Pahoran
Bill Hamblin Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Obviously I don't usually post here (or anywhere else). I'm an academic and a liberal but believing Mormon who studies Mormonism and works at a non-Mormon university. Most of the negative reviews that I have seen in the FARMS Review are not terribly different from negative reviews that I have read, received, and written in other academic journals. As far as online behavior, I can't speak to that. But the FARMS review seems to be getting a bit of a bad rap.It's only people who have no experience in real academia that think the FARMS Review is abysmally ad hominem.I remember attending a session at the Society for Biblical literature once. A prominent biblical scholar was giving a paper, and another prominent scholar stood up during the presentation, and started passing out handouts with what he felt were examples of the first scholar's plagiarisms. It was an awesome event! 1
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 It's only people who have no experience in real academia that think the FARMS Review is abysmally ad hominem.I remember attending a session at the Society for Biblical literature once. A prominent biblical scholar was giving a paper, and another prominent scholar stood up during the presentation, and started passing out handouts with what he felt were examples of the first scholar's plagiarisms. It was an awesome event!I just gotta confess, this is one reason I do envy you academicians! FUN!
Bob Crockett Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 It's only people who have no experience in real academia that think the FARMS Review is abysmally ad hominem.I remember attending a session at the Society for Biblical literature once. A prominent biblical scholar was giving a paper, and another prominent scholar stood up during the presentation, and started passing out handouts with what he felt were examples of the first scholar's plagiarisms. It was an awesome event!One only need read Coe and Deaver to see examples of such.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Now mocking people for being fat. No ad hominem there! That's scholarship!Impeccably FAT scholarship at that! WOO HOO!
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 There actually are Democrats at BYU. I met one once. At least I think he was a democrat. I also am the proud owner of an "LDS for Obama" campaign button. In fact, it may be the only one.You met one once? Yes, but Nibley died years ago Bill.....come up to date will ya? 1
Nunya D. Bidness Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I have to say that the entire discussion of ad hominem is very strang to me. That is a very specific type of logical fallacy, and it's a pretty rare beast. I guess that, in this debate, the term is taken to mean "harshly negative" or something similar. 1
gtaggart Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I have to say that the entire discussion of ad hominem is very strang to me. That is a very specific type of logical fallacy, and it's a pretty rare beast. I guess that, in this debate, the term is taken to mean "harshly negative" or something similar.Nunya, mind if I use your quote in my signature? With attribution, of course.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I have to say that the entire discussion of ad hominem is very strang to me. That is a very specific type of logical fallacy, and it's a pretty rare beast. I guess that, in this debate, the term is taken to mean "harshly negative" or something similar.Indeed. The critics have never understood its real meaning, despite being told over and over. It's very strange.
Nunya D. Bidness Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Go ahead. But you might want to fix the typo. "Strang" is a particulalry unfortunate misspelling in Mormon circles.
David T Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) I have to say that the entire discussion of ad hominem is very strang to me. CFR that Strang used ad hominem in his writings..... Edited June 27, 2012 by David T 1
Bikeemikey Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Perhaps you have an overly-narrow and rigid perspective of what a book review is "supposed" to consists of--maybe owing to your limited exposure to academic reviews? However, I respect your point of view.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Funny how you respect his opinion while kind of engage the exact tone of response that he was criticizing, or at least pointing out, in the post you were responding to.Essentially saying you probably don't get it because you don't know enough.
Senator Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 As far as online behavior, I can't speak to that. Ahhh, yes. Let me introduce you to one Mr. Hyde.
cinepro Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 That's interesting. So you are saying you agree with us that claims that FARMS publications are nothing but relentless ad hominem are, in fact, grossly exaggerated (at best).Yes, yes I do. As I've said a couple times, I've regularly read the "Review" since the early 90's. Once I got my smartphone, I would regularly browse back issues during Church. While I haven't been interested in every article that was published, I've always enjoyed those I did read. There have only been a few times where I felt like the line was crossed for a "cheap shot," and those are the reviews I've enjoyed the most. I've shared the previous examples because obviously Bradford and others haven't enjoyed reading the Review as much, and want it to be different (or gone entirely). I may be totally wrong, and Bradford may have taken action based on a different set of observations. I'm only pointing out what I can see, with the hope that it might possibly help someone who isn't familiar with the situation to understand what is going on (if my observations are right). I suspect I'm wrong, since the substance of the Review could continue to be published if "tone" were the only thing that needed to be changed (and I'm sure DCP could adjust the tone quite easily as editor). But I thought I'd share what I have seen just in case.
robuchan Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 I should note that we asked the critics to provide some examples of ad hominem from the FARMS Review. As far as I can tell they haven't provided a single example. One poor fellow even called me "venomous" while accusing us of being ad hominem. Instead, they provide examples of negative reviews, which they astonishing confuse with ad hominem. It boggles the mind!On the other hand, we've provided several striking examples of ad hominem attacks from apostates, without even lifting a finger. With a tiny bit of research on the Bedlam board I could provide hundreds more from the past couple of days alone. And this has been going on relentlessly for years.The accusation of "mean, nasty, ad hominem FARMS" is not accurate. It's not even an argument. It is, instead, purely and simply, a baseless ad hominem attack.Why do you think Peterson got removed from his position? Let's get past the problems we're having with "ad hominem" and simply call it "tone". Do you think he was removed over issues related to tone?
Recommended Posts