BEASTIE: Please boycott the pundits forum!

[_Mister Scratch]

I just read the entire thread (at least what was left of it), and I found this to be the key reason for the breakdown in communication:

Beastie said:

You cannot simultaneously avail yourself of studies and research that was conducted based on the Bromley framework and then declare yourself free of his specific terminology. It just doesn’t work that way.

It’s as if the Bromley model is an intricate rug. You are trying to pull out several threads from the middle of the rug and pretend it does not unravel the whole piece.

The assumtion here is that threads from one sociological "rug" may not be used in creating another sociological "rug".

Were that true, then much of sociology would be "unravelled" and the sociologists would be forced, impractically, to create their own "rugs" from scratch, and this each time they create a "rug" (Bromley wouldn't be able to revise his "rug" because that would constitute borrowing from his previous "rug").

That, to me, is nonsense.

However, since Juliann appears to reasonably assumes that sociological threads can be borrowed to create new sociological "rugs", then as long as Beastie holds to the inane view that they can't, a discussion between these two has little or no chance of progressing beyond this dispute. Beastie will be fixated on Bromley and on supposedly preserving his "rug", and Juliann will be unable to "move on" with her use of Bromleyite threads (and those of others) in creating her own "rug".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You totally misunderstood the analogy, Wade. The point is that juliann's cherrypicking of certain "threads" wind up destroying the rug. In other words, the integrity of Bromley's theory gets utterly squashed by juliann's handling of it. By contrast, the scholars---such as Mauss, e.g.---have picked up on the theory and have extended it. What real scholarship consists of it contributing to the rug, not unraveling it.

[_beastie]

Wade,

The research done into "apostates" in the Bromley model was done within the proffered definition. The real research Juliann wants to use in her own theory is that oppositional coalitions put so much pressure on the apostate to conform to a certain narrative that there is a real risk that the apostate will exaggerate and even lie to accommodate the coalition.

If you change the definition of "apostate" and "apostate narrative", then that research cannot be used to support your new theory.. because they weren't studying the same population.

[_beastie]

I think the thread is officially dead. Juliann responded to my mentioning that she even used the term "atrocity narrative" in reference to dart's email exchange by asserting she was being sarcastic.

I replied:

Your use of the term has been so ill supported by the model that I thought you were serious. After all, you referred to my concern about religion being manipulated to make good people do bad things as an atrocity tale. You should label that as sarcasm, too.

[Gadianton]

I just read the entire thread (at least what was left of it), and I found this to be the key reason for the breakdown in communication:

Beastie said:

You cannot simultaneously avail yourself of studies and research that was conducted based on the Bromley framework and then declare yourself free of his specific terminology. It just doesn’t work that way.

It’s as if the Bromley model is an intricate rug. You are trying to pull out several threads from the middle of the rug and pretend it does not unravel the whole piece.

The assumtion here is that threads from one sociological "rug" may not be used in creating another sociological "rug".

Were that true, then much of sociology would be "unravelled" and the sociologists would be forced, impractically, to create their own "rugs" from scratch, and this each time they create a "rug" (Bromley wouldn't be able to revise his "rug" because that would constitute borrowing from his previous "rug").

That, to me, is nonsense.

However, since Juliann appears to reasonably assumes that sociological threads can be borrowed to create new sociological "rugs", then as long as Beastie holds to the inane view that they can't, a discussion between these two has little or no chance of progressing beyond this dispute. Beastie will be fixated on Bromley and on supposedly preserving his "rug", and Juliann will be unable to "move on" with her use of Bromleyite threads (and those of others) in creating her own "rug".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You totally misunderstood the analogy, Wade. The point is that juliann's cherrypicking of certain "threads" wind up destroying the rug. In other words, the integrity of Bromley's theory gets utterly squashed by juliann's handling of it. By contrast, the scholars---such as Mauss, e.g.---have picked up on the theory and have extended it. What real scholarship consists of it contributing to the rug, not unraveling it.

No, I didn't misunderstand the analogy at all. I just disagree with you that the Bromlyite threads that Juliann has used, cannot be used outside the context of Bromley's "rug". Furthermore, her use of the threads do not "unravel Bromley's rug", and scholarship consists of contributing to the general rug of sociology, and not necessarily contributing to Bromley's rug--your's and Beasties fixation with Bromley notwithstanding.

But, your's and my disagreement merely underscores my point about the futility of having a discussion with folks, such as yourself and Beastie, who can't think outside the Bromley box.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

If Juliann has moved "beyond Bromley", then why is she still using definitions of an apostate taken directly from that model?

[_wenglund]

Wade,

The research done into "apostates" in the Bromley model was done within the proffered definition. The real research Juliann wants to use in her own theory is that oppositional coalitions put so much pressure on the apostate to conform to a certain narrative that there is a real risk that the apostate will exaggerate and even lie to accommodate the coalition.

If you change the definition of "apostate" and "apostate narrative", then that research cannot be used to support your new theory.. because they weren't studying the same population.

That may be true if the new population was discrete from the old population. However, as I understand Juliann, the new population includes the old, and merely represents an expansion of the population. If so, then the research still applies to at least the portion of the population that has been retained, and if there are not substantial and relavant qualitative differentces between the retained and added populations, then the research may reasonably be extrapolated to new population as a whole.

But, as long as you see it differently, there is little hope in the discussion moving past that point. To your way of thinking, Juliann can't use the same terminology and research as Bromlyites unless she defines and uses the terms exactly as the Bromlyites (even though the Bromlyites differ, to some degree, in the terms they use and the way they define and use the terms--as Juliann has pointed out), and she doesn't believe she needs to be irrationally restricted in that way. There it is, and there it will stay, until one side or the other alters their thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

If Juliann has moved "beyond Bromley", then why is she still using definitions of an apostate taken directly from that model?

You mean, how can the parameters of Juliann's "rug" extend beyond Bromley's "rug", if she has used some of the definitional threads in the Bromley "rug"? Simply, by expanding those definitional threads beyond how Bromley had restricted them in his "rug".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Isn't this funny how it has evolved. First we have Juliann declaring herself as simply the Voice of the Scholars, ie, she is simply sharing "their" words. These are not "her" words!! If you want to engage, you have to engage the scholars, not Juliann! Now it is Juliann is "beyond bromley" and those who actually adhere to what the scholars have said are "bromleyites".

I think this is as close as we will ever get to Juliann admitting she goofed, and Wade admitting he followed her goof.

[_beastie]

You mean, how can the parameters of Juliann's "rug" extend beyond Bromley's "rug", if she has used some of the definitional threads in the Bromley "rug"? Simply, by expanding those definitional threads beyond how Bromley had restricted them in his "rug".

Let's try one more analogy, although with predictable results.

A medical study testing the effectiveness of a drug on disease X. Research is conducted utilizing one specific drug and one specific population. The scientists share their results.

Mr. Quack decides to "expand" the definitional threads of the study, and declares that the studies support his contention that the specified drug not only works as a treatment for disease X, but also disease Y and Z!!!

You have any problems with that?

[_Mister Scratch]

I just read the entire thread (at least what was left of it), and I found this to be the key reason for the breakdown in communication:

Beastie said:

You cannot simultaneously avail yourself of studies and research that was conducted based on the Bromley framework and then declare yourself free of his specific terminology. It just doesn’t work that way.

It’s as if the Bromley model is an intricate rug. You are trying to pull out several threads from the middle of the rug and pretend it does not unravel the whole piece.

The assumtion here is that threads from one sociological "rug" may not be used in creating another sociological "rug".

Were that true, then much of sociology would be "unravelled" and the sociologists would be forced, impractically, to create their own "rugs" from scratch, and this each time they create a "rug" (Bromley wouldn't be able to revise his "rug" because that would constitute borrowing from his previous "rug").

That, to me, is nonsense.

However, since Juliann appears to reasonably assumes that sociological threads can be borrowed to create new sociological "rugs", then as long as Beastie holds to the inane view that they can't, a discussion between these two has little or no chance of progressing beyond this dispute. Beastie will be fixated on Bromley and on supposedly preserving his "rug", and Juliann will be unable to "move on" with her use of Bromleyite threads (and those of others) in creating her own "rug".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You totally misunderstood the analogy, Wade. The point is that juliann's cherrypicking of certain "threads" wind up destroying the rug. In other words, the integrity of Bromley's theory gets utterly squashed by juliann's handling of it. By contrast, the scholars---such as Mauss, e.g.---have picked up on the theory and have extended it. What real scholarship consists of it contributing to the rug, not unraveling it.

No, I didn't misunderstand the analogy at all. I just disagree with you that the Bromlyite threads that Juliann has used, cannot be used outside the context of Bromley's "rug". Furthermore, her use of the threads do not "unravel Bromley's rug", and scholarship consists of contributing to the general rug of sociology, and not necessarily contributing to Bromley's rug--your's and Beasties fixation with Bromley notwithstanding.

You are still missing the point. The point is that juliann's use of Bromley effectively undoes Bromley's theory. She tosses aside key, important aspects of it. It would be like calling yourself a Mormon, despite the fact that you totally reject the Book of Mormon, and have never been baptized.

But, your's and my disagreement merely underscores my point about the futility of having a discussion with folks, such as yourself and Beastie, who can't think outside the Bromley box.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no problem "thinking outside the Bromley box." for what it's worth, according to the emails Kevin produced, it seems Bromley himself felt that his work was being misappropriated by juliann. Since Bromley is no doubt the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of his own theory, juliann has dug herself in deep on this one.

Let me see if I can clarify this a bit better for you, Wade. You yourself have said that reasonable people should be able to come to agreement, so I see no reason why we can't gain some headway on this.

The problem, as I have been saying all along, is that juliann wants to use David Bromley's very basic, theoretical schematic in order to help her to analyze apostates, and more specifically, "atrocity narratives." The trouble is that she is omitting key portions of that schematic. She is totally allowed to elaborate upon the schematic. She is allowed to build upon it. She is allowed to revise it. What's she's not allowed to do, from an integrity standpoint, is claim to be using the schematic while omitting key portions of it.

I'm sure you noticed in Beastie's citations from the text that the other authors deviated from the Bromley model. And yet they did not distort it in the way juliann did. So: I agree with you that no one has to follow Bromley to a 'T.' No one has to use Bromley at all. But if someone does decide to rely on his basic model, they need to do so responsibly. I hope this makes sense.