DiscussMormonism.com

Why is it that the mysterious "I know something you don't, but if you knew it, you would totally agree with me that so-and-so doesn't know what she's talking about" is somehow an acceptable argument?

I was reading this thread over on MAD about Carol Lynn Pearson (since some people are entirely too worked up over whether she should be "allowed" to be LDS), along with the linked FAIR review of her book "No More Goodbyes". And toward the end, the reviewer writes this:

The Matises have provided this author with additional information about Stuart's suicide that was not included in their book. Perhaps, at some point in time, they will feel comfortable in sharing this information with the public--such information would negate Pearson's theories on suicides.

It seems to me that if you are publishing a paper that at least purports to be academic, this sort of statement should not be included. If I were ever to submit a paper for publication at any respected journal, I would never be allowed to get away with such a wink and nod to support my position. And yet, we see this same kind of "secret information" defense trotted out every so often on MAD.

If FAIR wishes to make any attempt to maintain credibility, it needs to get rid of such statements in its published works. Either the Matises need to give that reviewer permission to publish the information, or the reviewer needs to drop that paragraph from his work. It's intellectually dishonest.

I went to the review just to make sure the author wasn't Dr. Peterson. He's been known to engage in this in the past.

beastie wrote:I went to the review just to make sure the author wasn't Dr. Peterson. He's been known to engage in this in the past.

Must have been one of his little followers.

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:

beastie wrote:I went to the review just to make sure the author wasn't Dr. Peterson. He's been known to engage in this in the past.

Must have been one of his little followers.

Maybe it's in the publication's standards manual?

When you're defending something for which there's no proof or even a reasonable explanation, it's common to use the "I know something you don't know" strategy in order to add weight to your flimsy argument. If people are susceptible to the personal revelation "evidence" they'll certainly be receptive to that strategy.

In other words, these people will buy just about anything. Mormon apologetics are an exercise in joke telling, if you think about it.

Some Schmo wrote: If people are susceptible to the personal revelation "evidence" they'll certainly be receptive to that strategy.

LOL

skippy the dead,

I think I must agree. I certainly wouldn't consider it an 'argument' in any meaningful sense of the word.

skippy the dead wrote:Why is it that the mysterious "I know something you don't, but if you knew it, you would totally agree with me that so-and-so doesn't know what she's talking about" is somehow an acceptable argument?

I was reading this thread over on MAD about Carol Lynn Pearson (since some people are entirely too worked up over whether she should be "allowed" to be LDS), along with the linked FAIR review of her book "No More Goodbyes". And toward the end, the reviewer writes this:

Once again, I would like to remind everyone that not everyone on this board can read the MAD board. Some of us have been judged as so irredeemable, so evil that we are blocked from even reading it.

So please, if you must discuss a thread from MAD, post the relevant parts of the thread here, not a link, because many of us cannot read that board.

Thanks.

skippy the dead wrote:Why is it that the mysterious "I know something you don't, but if you knew it, you would totally agree with me that so-and-so doesn't know what she's talking about" is somehow an acceptable argument?

In my book it's just an unacceptable excuse.....if they're going to pull that crap they should either give up the "thing they know" or should shut up.

harmony wrote:

skippy the dead wrote:Why is it that the mysterious "I know something you don't, but if you knew it, you would totally agree with me that so-and-so doesn't know what she's talking about" is somehow an acceptable argument?

I was reading this thread over on MAD about Carol Lynn Pearson (since some people are entirely too worked up over whether she should be "allowed" to be LDS), along with the linked FAIR review of her book "No More Goodbyes". And toward the end, the reviewer writes this:

Once again, I would like to remind everyone that not everyone on this board can read the MAD board. Some of us have been judged as so irredeemable, so evil that we are blocked from even reading it.

So please, if you must discuss a thread from MAD, post the relevant parts of the thread here, not a link, because many of us cannot read that board.

Thanks.

I know something about MADB that you don't know.