maklelan Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 From Johns Hopkins University: "Hopkins Faculty Disavow 'Troubling' Report on Gender and Sexuality" 2
rockpond Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, maklelan said: From Johns Hopkins University: "Hopkins Faculty Disavow 'Troubling' Report on Gender and Sexuality" In a recent address, Dallin Oaks erroneously referred to the Mayer/McHugh article has having come from Hopkins University. Glad to see them disavowing it. It would be nice if Oaks would admit, retract, and/or apologize for his error. But I realize he won't. Someone with his educational background likely knew what he was doing when he made the false claim he was making. 3
Gray Posted September 28, 2016 Posted September 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, maklelan said: From Johns Hopkins University: "Hopkins Faculty Disavow 'Troubling' Report on Gender and Sexuality" I'm not surprised at this at all. Thanks for sharing! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 On September 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, rockpond said: In a recent address, Dallin Oaks erroneously referred to the Mayer/McHugh article has having come from Hopkins University. Glad to see them disavowing it. It would be nice if Oaks would admit, retract, and/or apologize for his error. But I realize he won't. Someone with his educational background likely knew what he was doing when he made the false claim he was making. See the other thread about this. The university has not denounced the report. It's three faculty members acting on their own part, writing an op-ed newspaper article and possibly six others named as "contributors," nothing more. This out of a total of about 580 faculty members in the university's School of Medicine.
rockpond Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: See the other thread about this. The university has not denounced the report. It's three faculty members acting on their own part, writing an op-ed newspaper article and possibly six others named as "contributors," nothing more. This out of a total of about 580 faculty members in the university's School of Medicine. Okay. Oaks' error was in claiming that it was a report from Hopkins University.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 3 hours ago, rockpond said: Okay. Oaks' error was in claiming that it was a report from Hopkins University. When a research project is undertaken by professors at a university, doesn't one typically regard the project as having come from the university?
rockpond Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: When a research project is undertaken by professors at a university, doesn't one typically regard the project as having come from the university? No. The paper itself makes no such claim. I am a member of the LDS Church, with a degree from the Church owned university, and a leadership position. If I publish something can I claim that it came from the Church? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, rockpond said: No. The paper itself makes no such claim. I am a member of the LDS Church, with a degree from the Church owned university, and a leadership position. If I publish something can I claim that it came from the Church? I recognize the paper doesn't make a claim of university endorsement. I'm saying that in popular vernacular, it is fairly common to speak of a project undertaken by researchers at a university as having "come from" that university. So when we hear, for example, "There is a study out of XYZ University that shows such and such," we generally understand that to mean that researchers or professors at the university did the work and, perhaps were funded by the university, not necessarily that the university formally endorses their findings. It's a shorthand way of saying, "Researchers at XYZU have done a study that shows thus and such." This matter strikes me as quibbling. Edited September 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I recognize the paper doesn't make that claim. I'm saying that in popular vernacular, it is fairly common to speak of a project undertaken by researchers at a university as having "come from" that university. So when we hear, for example, "There is a study out of XYZ University that shows such and such," we generally understand that to mean that researchers or professors at the university did the work and, perhaps were funded by the university, not necessarily that the university formally endorses their findings. This matter strikes me as quibbling. I disagree. And you avoided my question. For good reason as the answer doesn't support your point. This matter strikes me as Oaks attempting to give the Mayer/McHugh article a credential that it has not earned.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: I disagree. And you avoided my question. For good reason as the answer doesn't support your point. This matter strikes me as Oaks attempting to give the Mayer/McHugh article a credential that it has not earned. Your steadfast refusal to give Elder Oaks a charitable reading or the benefit of the doubt is noted.
rockpond Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your steadfast refusal to give Elder Oaks a charitable reading or the benefit of the doubt is noted. I believe his track record with respect to LGBT issues provides sufficient reason to not give that "charitable reading or benefit of the doubt".
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 56 minutes ago, rockpond said: I believe his track record with respect to LGBT issues provides sufficient reason to not give that "charitable reading or benefit of the doubt". A classic ad hominem attack. I find his "track record" to be consistent with the content of mormonsandgays.org, which combines heartfelt compassion with fulfillment of the obligation of God's anointed servants to declare the word of the Lord.
rockpond Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A classic ad hominem attack. I find his "track record" to be consistent with the content of mormonsandgays.org, which combines heartfelt compassion with fulfillment of the obligation of God's anointed servants to declare the word of the Lord. You referred to giving him the benefit of the doubt and a charitable reading of his remarks. That was you making it about him personally rather than about what he said. I responded explaining that based on his past statements and writings I didn't feel it was needed. That is not an ad hominem attack, Scott. It was a response to a point you made. I'm confident that you know the difference.
Recommended Posts