John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_dartagnan]

I agree that Egyptologists typically don't produce meaningless drivel... but Gee is not typical. He is an apologist using Egyptology to serve Mormon apologetics.

[_dartagnan]

You're blathering, CK. Please stop. It's embarrassing.

Well, it is good of you to finally admit you're embarrassed.

[_The Dude]

I think the editors of the FARMS Review would do well to be a little more careful about what they accept for publication. I mean really, this guy is embarassing.

Obviously, the editor of the FARMS Review doesn't agree.

I agree with CaliforniaKid. This same editor has published an article supporting intelligent design (embarassing!). As well, he put out a pseudoscientific DNA article by one David Stewart that (doh!) contradicts better scientific minds who have associated with FARMS in the past.

[_guy sajer]

Incidentally, the AAR/SBL is a perfectly enormous meeting, with many thousands attending. Many paper proposals are rejected; the vast majority of those in attendance are not presenting. (I myself will simply be attending this year; I presented a paper last year.)

And that's pretty much the evidence we need to conclude that presenting at such conferences does not necessarily mean much in terms of producing work that is fit for publication.

C'mon, Dan, presenting at conferences conveys often extremely little information about the quality of the research one does; my guess is that a very high percentage of research presented at such meetings never gets published (you being a case in point); at least that's true in the social sciences.

This is yet another example in which Dan attempts to make himself and others sound credible to audiences who lack the background information to assess what he is saying.

So, let's make it clear, shall we? Just about anybody, even the most mediocre or non-productive academic (DCP, case in point) can and does present papers at academic conferences, even at times conferences in which the standards are a bit higher (where hundreds of papers are presented--there simply aren't enough "top notch" academics to fill in all the presentation slots). Presenting at conferences conveys very little information about the quality of research someone is doing. The litmus test is peer-reviewed publication. Someone with 20 conference presentations and no peer-reviewed publications is less likely to get tenure than someone with a single good peer review publication.

I have no problem conceding that Gee is a very competent Egyptologist; I hope he has a long and distinguished career, but I am highly confident that his (apparent) attempt to mainstream Mormon Book of Abraham apologetics onto the scholarly agenda will fail, and fail miserably. Even the most intelligent person can still habor crackpot ideas; a Ph.D. from a credible school and a few good peer-review publications does not make someone immune to delusional flights of fancy.

Dan, as usual, is whistling past the Book of Abraham graveyard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

First of all, Paul may or may not be correct that some greater or lesser proportion of Egyptologists regard John Gee's work on the Book of Abraham as ridiculous. (Presumably at least some don't think about it at all, one way or the other.) I'm inclined to believe that this is because they're skeptical of Joseph Smith and of Mormon claims generally, rather than because they have closely studied his specifically Mormon work and rejected it (let alone because they find his implicitly Mormon-related Egyptological work poor, which, if they did, they could simply exclude from their conferences and publications). In any event, Paul should not imagine that they would view his own position on the Book of Abraham with anything approaching reverent awe.

What?!?!?!??!?! Are you saying that Gee's professional work is actually not the same thing as his Mormon apologia?

What?!?!?!??!?!

I said that his "apologia" and his professional work are not identical. I also said that there is significant overlap.

Well, now, how odd. . . .What an odd, irrelevant comment to make is, as you just asserted, Gee's professional work is not the same as his Mormon apologia.

How odd it is on your part to assume, simply because the set of John Gee's Egyptological work is not completely identical to the set of John Gee's apologetic work (Some X is not A) that John Gee's Egyptological work is wholly separate from John Gee's Egyptological work (No X is A). The fact that some mammals are not giraffes doesn't mean that giraffes are not mammals.

It's almost as if you're saying possessing a degree insulates one from all criticism on any topic, (except for by other degreed individuals, of course) and you couldn't possibly be making such a poor argument, what with your degree and all.

Almost. But almost is a very important word here, because, in fact, that's not what I'm saying. (I presume that you're still mystified as to why talking with you on this message board is not the focus of my intellectual life?)

I've been responding to the presumption here that John Gee and, now, David Bokovoy are simply blithering idiots where they are not merely liars. (See any number of posts from Brazil that routinely make that point.) The fact that Dr. Gee has the degrees that he does, and the fact that David Bokovoy is a doctoral candidate in the quite prestigious program where he's studying, suggest that the burden of proving their complete stupidity and incompetence in their areas of expertise -- and don't pretend that the criticisms here are not directly related to their areas of academic focus -- rests on the anonymous and pseudonymous experts here, who make the claim, and that the burden is substantial.

I'm curious as to the point of your apologia.

Sadly, I suspect that you're going to continue to be curious for quite some time to come.

If critics can't possibly be qualified to critique apologia without a certain degree, no matter how much study they've put into the subject, then how can equally unqualified believers be qualified to recognize that the arguments in the apologia are sound?

I don't accept the protasis of your conditional sentence, so its apodosis is irrelevant to anything I believe or have said.

Or do you agree with what I've long suspected - the purpose of apologia is not to produce materials that members can actually process and recognize as sound or unsound, but rather to produce academic-sounding material that reassures members, whether or not they're qualified to assess the soundness of the particular arguments, that "really smart and educated" people believe in these things, so you can feel good about believing in it, too!

Nope, I don't agree.

This same editor has published an article supporting intelligent design (embarassing!).

The same editor is eagerly awaiting the submission of an article critiquing that article. He doesn't believe in suppressing debate. Presumably you do?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What can I say? I'm crushed.

The illustrious Guy Sajer, Arabist and polymath, has carefully evaluated my work on medieval Islamic philosophy, sifted through my efforts in Qur’anic studies, and subjected my writings on the biography of Muhammad to rigorous analysis -- I wonder if his verdict takes into account the article on early legends about Muhammad's pre-existence, of which I sent out the final draft on Friday? -- and he has found it wanting.

Just to clarify, for the illustrious Guy Sajer: I never said that presenting at the AAR/SBL represents the acme of academic life. Neither, however, is it the kind of thing that, say, any random boy from Brazil can participate in after simply walking in off the street. I offered it as an easily accessible illustration of the fact that John Gee is an active scholar whose work is not summarily rejected by his giggling peers. John is perhaps one of the most actively-presenting scholars that I know, in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. (I'm guessing that he offers papers at about eight conferences annually.) And his work is published. But then, the illustrious Guy Sajer undoubtedly monitors all of that, and already knows it.

[_The Dude]

This same editor has published an article supporting intelligent design (embarassing!).

The same editor is eagerly awaiting the submission of an article critiquing that article. He doesn't believe in suppressing debate. Presumably you do?

2 things:

The fact that you think there's even a debate about intelligent design speaks to the credibility of your publications.
Has anyone sent you a critique of David Stewart's article (published ~ 1 year ago)?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact that you think there's even a debate about intelligent design speaks to the credibility of your publications.

The fact that you seem to think that there's not may speak to your credibility.

Most of what I read in critiques of ID is based on distortions and caricatures.

[_dartagnan]

I've been responding to the presumption here that John Gee and, now, David Bokovoy are simply blithering idiots where they are not merely liars. (See any number of posts from Brazil that routinely make that point.) The fact that Dr. Gee has the degrees that he does, and the fact that David Bokovoy is a doctoral candidate in the quite prestigious program where he's studying, suggest that the burden of proving their complete stupidity and incompetence in their areas of expertise -- and don't pretend that the criticisms here are not directly related to their areas of academic focus -- rests on the anonymous and pseudonymous experts here, who make the claim, and that the burden is substantial.

Dan continues to trounce on the straw man, addressing me while pretending he’s really not. Nobody here has denied that David Bokovoy is competent in Hebrew and John Gee is competent in Egyptology. That is what they were tested on before receiving their respective degrees, which is why they received them.

Dan needs us to be saying this so he can continue on with his only defense, which is a straw man. The fact is, Hebrew and Egyptology is not what they are doing anyway. They are using their expertise in each language and spinning it for apologetic purposes, trying to confuse believers and fence-straddlers into thinking that the Church must be true as long as smart people like them still believe. The fact is they are creating apologetic arguments that can be judged independent of any knowledge of Egyptian and Hebrew. This upsets Dan tremendously, because the end result is clear. Amateurs on message forums end up mopping the floors with them, documenting an online record of polemics and ridiculous theological apologetics. If the scholarly community ever caught wind of this, it would prove devastating and embarrassing to them and their careers. Just look at what happened to Juan Cole, who was rejected a position at Yale because the powers that be found out what an idiot he really is through his blog. It is his online persona as a polemicist, conspiracy theorist and anti-Israel activist, that ended up outweighing his resume.

The fact is both Bokovoy and Gee have been shown to produce ridiculous arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Most people who do this are censored or banned from MAD, while people like you keep blowing your horn from the Ivory Tower, suggesting that by merely reiterating their alma maters and noting that their critics are posting anonymously, that the debate has somehow ended. No background in Hebrew or Egyptian is required to make these criticisms because their use of both languages is only peripheral to the real issues. What, for example, does Egyptology have to do with determining whether the Kirtland Egyptian Papers represent the dictation manuscripts for the Book of Abraham?

Dan, you have yet to deal with the arguments that prove your protégés are bad apologists who make ridiculous arguments and often abandon all reasoning for theological expediency. You think it is acceptable to simply bypass that obligation while criticizing the critics in hypocritical fashion. Aren’t you the one who always says an argument should be judged on its merits? Now it should be judged by his alma mater, his status in the academic community, and of course, whether or not he or she posts anonymously. You are not interested in the veracity of the criticisms because you’d rather attack the critics. And you prove my point when you say that it can all boil down to a contest over academic credentials and the prestige of their alma maters.

What an idiotic defense you have provided here Dan.

PS: and you are a hypocrite for calling the scholar Serge Trivofic (sp?) "idiotic" on the FAIR board over a year ago. I suppose you think a valid defense would be to throw out his resume to prove he isn't.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nobody here has denied that David Bokovoy is competent in Hebrew and John Gee is competent in Egyptology.

David Bokovoy's expertise and training aren't merely in the Hebrew language. Nor are John Gee's merely in the Egyptian language.

This upsets Dan tremendously

Kevin Graham is plainly not a very accurate reader of minds.

Amateurs on message forums end up mopping the floors with them

Or, anyway, thinking that they do, as judged by their own amateur selves. They may be right, and they may be wrong, but some of them are never, ever, in doubt.

Most people who do this are censored or banned from MAD, while people like you keep blowing your horn from the Ivory Tower, suggesting that by merely reiterating their alma maters and noting that their critics are posting anonymously, that the debate has somehow ended.

That is, of course, something I've never said.

One effective way to win debates, I suppose, is to misrepresent the position of one's opponent and then declare victory.

I've simply reacted to the claim that Dr. Gee and Mr. Bokovoy are completely incompetent hacks -- which is the charge that is so routinely made here, by certain persons at least.

Aren’t you the one who always says an argument should be judged on its merits? Now it should be judged by his alma mater, his status in the academic community, and of course, whether or not he or she posts anonymously.

I've asserted neither of those things.

One way to win a debate, I suppose, is to distort the position held by one's opponent, and then declare victory.

You are not interested in the veracity of the criticisms because you’d rather attack the critics. And you prove my point when you say that it can all boil down to a contest over academic credentials and the prestige of their alma maters.

Except that I've never said that.

It's easy to "win" a debate, though, when one completely misrepresents the position of one's opponent.

What an idiotic defense you have provided here Dan.

Correction: What idiotic positions Kevin Graham has attributed to me here.

A very effective way to "win" a debate, I suppose.

and you are a hypocrite

This is really high quality discourse.

And Beastie wonders why I don't take message boards and their inhabitants all that seriously . . .