Enuma Elish wrote:He has now declared that it is an object of serious academic scrutiny for himself.
You’ve misunderstood the quote. Dr. Peterson did not claim that RFM provides an opportunity to gage his own work and/or self along the lines of a “serious academic scrutiny.” He said, “I'm interested, precisely, in the kinds of things that lead people out of the Church.”
That's not what I said... I interpreted his remark to mean that he takes his study of RfM quite seriously. Nowhere did I saying anything about him taking stock of himself.
Stunning, eh?
No, not at all.For those who wondered why he doesn't have more peer-reviewed publications in his chosen field of study, now you have an answer from the man himself.
Please explain how in the world you came up with this conclusion. I find the idea that Dr. Peterson would use the criticism raised by those at RFM as a type of “peer-review,” more than a little absurd. Very few people who participate in that forum have had any exposure whatsoever to LDS scholarship.
You’ve misrepresented the quote.
No, you've misread my statement. People have argued in the past that Prof. Peterson doesn't have as many peer-reviewed publications in his chosen field as one might expect from a fully-tenured professor. The reason for this, the argument goes, is that he spends the bulk of his time posting on FAIR/MAD and "researching" RfM. Nowhere did I say anything about him getting legitimate "peer review" by the folks at RfM.
But what kind of "laboratory" houses a scientist who routinely flings petty insults and mud at his object of study?
The alleged “petty insults and mud” Dr. Peterson flings could never compare to the hatred directed against him over at RFM.
This doesn't really answer my question.
However, as evidenced by his acceptance of such ludicrous titles as the “Crispy Crème [sic] King,” Dr. Peterson clearly has a sense of humor; he fails to take both himself and those at RFM too seriously.
Unless I'm mistaken, "Krispy Kreme King" was a self-applied label.
What could honestly be the purpose of this?
You’ll have to ask him. But in addition to the fact I find his signature lines quite funny, perhaps he intends to draw our attention to the absolute absurdity of the expressed opinion.
So... what? Are you saying that the purpose of his sig. lines is to ridicule his purported object of study? That certainly doesn't reflect very well on his seriousness as a scholar.
It's sort of pointless for me to cite these insulting quotes like this.
Insulting to who? Dr. Peterson? LDS Apologists?
Insulting to Prof. P. You must have missed the quotation marks which surrounded the citation.
In fact, it seems a tad sophomoric."
Dr. Peterson has continually expressed his view that contrary to the opinion held by many of their participants, message boards are not the place of serious scholarship.
Why did he say he regards RfM as his "laboratory," then?
What’s wrong with being a bit “sophomoric” in this environment?
Lighten up a little.
I could say the same to you.