Dan Peterson vs. Robert Spencer

[_dartagnan]

A few days ago Dan took everyone by surprise and engaged Robert Spencer in a radio debate. Spencer is the author of numerous books on Islam, his recent being "Truth about Muhammad, the Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."

Dan Peterson wrote me off years ago for saying Islam was the most intolerant religion. He refused to discuss anything about Islam with me. Yet here he is discussing it with Spencer. Oddly enough, Spencer says the discussion went smoothly because it seemed Dan agreed with just about everything he said. Over at MAD Dan said he wished he had said different things and clarified his positions better. He also said, strangely enough, that he had no idea that it was supposed to be a "debate."

In any event, I emailed Spencer and asked him if he would be interested in picking up where they left off in an online debate of written format. He said he would love to, and that he would pitch it to frontpagemagazine.com. I asked Dan if he would be OK with it and it seems he is declining.

Why?

I don't get it. First he said “As always, there are points one wishes one had made, places where one wishes one had been clearer and more eloquent, and directions in which one wishes that the conversation had gone. Still, on the whole, it wasn't a bad discussion.” Well, now he has the opportunity. So why not do it?

Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB. This makes no sense to me. In my experience, nothing rewards glibness more than a book review, where someone is given a podium to speak and nobody can respond. He said he wouldn't debate McCue because he didn't like the man, but now he says he doesn't like debates. So why does he do debates at all then?

I think this would be a great opportunity for us to find out where Dan stands on certain controversial issues, and understand his logic for why he believes what he does. It is a golden opportunity in my opinion. I hope he changes his mind and takes it.

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=283

[_Runtu]

That's too bad. I would have enjoyed seeing such a discussion/debate. But then, heaven knows glibness has not been a rare commodity in these fora.

[_dartagnan]

The debate they had is supposed to be available online this week. It lasted an hour I believe.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB.

Since when does Dan not like debates? How many thousands of posts has he racked up online in the past decade?

Rewards glibness? Doesn't Dan realize that people have read his postings before? He's the King of the pithy comeback.

[_gramps]

He's not seemed to have a problem with "glibness" before now, has he? Maybe he is turning over a new leaf. the board really did get to him, it seems.

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, as I recall, DCP declined to do the McCue debate based on his assumption that McCue would "misunderstand everything" that he said. (Which, let's face it, is Prof. P.'s usual excuse when he backs out of debates.) And I agree with you wholeheartedly, Dart, that hiding behind the aegis of FROB is pretty weak, since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.

[_richardMdBorn]

I think that Dan knows that he would either:

A) Get clobbered by Relief Society or
B) Have to backtrack on his statements about the "religion of peace".

[_rcrocket]

since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.

Having been through the peer review process at Farms Review, and at other institutions, I can tell you the process is the same. When I selected peer reviewers for a nationally-prominent law journal, I handpicked them to make sure they were competent and would reflect my views without a whole lot of angst. FARMS Review was the same.

Tell me what your personal experience is with being a peer reviewer or submitting materials for peer reviewing?

In His Name,
rcrocket

[Gadianton]

A few days ago Dan took everyone by surprise and engaged Robert Spencer in a radio debate. Spencer is the author of numerous books on Islam, his recent being "Truth about Muhammad, the Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."

Dan Peterson wrote me off years ago for saying Islam was the most intolerant religion. He refused to discuss anything about Islam with me. Yet here he is discussing it with Spencer. Oddly enough, Spencer says the discussion went smoothly because it seemed Dan agreed with just about everything he said. Over at MAD Dan said he wished he had said different things and clarified his positions better. He also said, strangely enough, that he had no idea that it was supposed to be a "debate."

In any event, I emailed Spencer and asked him if he would be interested in picking up where they left off in an online debate of written format. He said he would love to, and that he would pitch it to frontpagemagazine.com. I asked Dan if he would be OK with it and it seems he is declining.

Why?

I don't get it. First he said “As always, there are points one wishes one had made, places where one wishes one had been clearer and more eloquent, and directions in which one wishes that the conversation had gone. Still, on the whole, it wasn't a bad discussion.” Well, now he has the opportunity. So why not do it?

Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB. This makes no sense to me. In my experience, nothing rewards glibness more than a book review, where someone is given a podium to speak and nobody can respond. He said he wouldn't debate McCue because he didn't like the man, but now he says he doesn't like debates. So why does he do debates at all then?

I think this would be a great opportunity for us to find out where Dan stands on certain controversial issues, and understand his logic for why he believes what he does. It is a golden opportunity in my opinion. I hope he changes his mind and takes it.

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=283

I suppose that the best way to congole Dr. Peterson into participating in online discussions like the one you propose, is with scoffing posts and threads like this. Works every time, doesn't it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.

Having been through the peer review process at Farms Review, and at other institutions, I can tell you the process is the same. When I selected peer reviewers for a nationally-prominent law journal, I handpicked them to make sure they were competent and would reflect my views without a whole lot of angst.

So you *do* admit that Farms Review engages in "stacking the deck." This is quite a different stance from your previous one!

FARMS Review was the same.

And how would you know this? Did you know who your reviewer was? Or are you just assuming?

Tell me what your personal experience is with being a peer reviewer or submitting materials for peer reviewing?

In His Name,
rcrocket

No, I am not going to tell you. I prefer not to provide ammo for ad hominem attack. Let's just say that, in my experience, peer review does not include "handpicked reviewers" who will do little more than provide a rubber stamp of approval.