Reviewed: "The Witchcraft Paradigm" by DCP

[_Mercury]

As I indicated elsewhere, Mister Scratch, your essay was so thorough and comprehensive that I honestly can't add anything else. GOOD JOB!

I can, however, point out my favorite part:

I confess that I cannot understand why anyone would believe that sending an article out for a brief, anonymous, and confidential prepublication review from some non-Mormon reader is more important, for overall academic dialogue, than seeking to distribute our arguments and evidence to large audiences of non-Mormons.

Wait a second... Now he is disparaging the peer review process?

Now THAT had me LOL!

At a fundamental level Peterson rejects the peer review process with this statement. It is very telling and indicative that the head Mormon apologist is leagues behind what he believes to be his peers in the religious scholarship community.

[_Mephitus]

If they want a peer review from someone that will be taken ver seriously. They should do it with a skeptics foundation. Then you would know that the information meshes with science and teachings. Ill repost what i did in the "peer review" thread.

There is one organization that, if they peer reviewed FARMS, i would be more than accepting of what they produce. That would be the "James Randi Educational Foundation". They are a school based on skeptical studies and are extremely down to earth on things and VERY thorough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rand ... Foundation

EDIT: actualy, ill even say this. If the James Randi Foundation reviewed Mormonism(overall) and gave it a stamp of approval. I would be back in church repenting the next day. No joke! (but knowing that they hold things to a base level of scrutiny that should be expected of all scientific studies, this isn't exactly going to happen :P )

(James Randi is another of my heros, even if he would make fun of me if i met him in real life)

[_Runtu]

I've stayed out of this one, but Dr. Peterson's response is classic.

On another board, there is much hilarity over my introduction to the latest issue of the Review. It's plain to me, though, that the initiator of the revels has both failed to accurately grasp the thesis of the introduction as a whole and fundamentally misconstrued every single one of the constituent parts of it to which he refers. Moreover, it's obvious that his cheerleaders there either share his incomprehension or, more likely, haven't bothered to read the essay about which they're cackling, but are taking his very jaundiced word as gospel. Presuming that an author is an idiot based on an internet post by a demonstrably and unremittingly hostile anonymous critic, however, simply makes one look like a fool.

Essentially it boils down to this:

1. Scratch is misreading my essay.
2. Scratch hates me.
3. People who agree with Scratch are idiots.

Honestly, if I posted this kind of vacuous ad hominem, I'd be crucified for it.

It's ironic that this dismissive ad hominem comes a mere two posts after Dr. Peterson awards chonguey "the First Out of the Gate Ad Hominem Dismissal Award."

I generally like Dr. Peterson, but what a worthless response.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've stayed out of this one, but Dr. Peterson's response is classic.

On another board, there is much hilarity over my introduction to the latest issue of the Review. It's plain to me, though, that the initiator of the revels has both failed to accurately grasp the thesis of the introduction as a whole and fundamentally misconstrued every single one of the constituent parts of it to which he refers.

Wow... I didn't get even one single thing right? I gathered that his basic thesis was, "Despite the critics' claims, FARMS Review is a legitimate, well-put-together, scholarly journal." What part of that did I misinterpret? Does he mean that I overlooked the title, and its implicit reference to the critics and superstitious believers in nonsense?

Moreover, it's obvious that his cheerleaders there either share his incomprehension or, more likely, haven't bothered to read the essay about which they're cackling, but are taking his very jaundiced word as gospel. Presuming that an author is an idiot based on an internet post by a demonstrably and unremittingly hostile anonymous critic, however, simply makes one look like a fool.

Essentially it boils down to this:

1. Scratch is misreading my essay.
2. Scratch hates me.
3. People who agree with Scratch are idiots.

Honestly, if I posted this kind of vacuous ad hominem, I'd be crucified for it.

It's ironic that this dismissive ad hominem comes a mere two posts after Dr. Peterson awards chonguey "the First Out of the Gate Ad Hominem Dismissal Award."

I generally like Dr. Peterson, but what a worthless response.

I would be happy to continue discussing peer review and FARMS Review with the good Professor, but it's clear that he's thrown in the towel. A clear giveaway that you've won with DCP is when he starts this refrain of "You misunderstood me!" Well, it should be transparently obvious to everyone that I did not misunderstand. Rather, it was DCP who misunderstoond my response! Funny how these things work, isn't it?

Anyways, my one regret in this was in failing to take bets as to whether DCP would respond with his token "You misunderstood me!"