The Yarn Spinners

[_Daniel Peterson]

Pretty rich coming from someone who no doubt would never refer to the sorry likes of John Gee, who is as marginalized as possible within what should have been his academic field, as a hack).

This typically gratuitous insult to a person utterly uninvolved in this thread, not participating on this board, and unconnected with this topic is, again typically, false.

I don't have a complete list of Professor Gee's publications, but I'm aware of these:

John Gee, "S3 mi nn : A Temporary Conclusion," Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58.

John Gee, "Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple," The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97-107.

John Gee, "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali," Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga: "Le lotus qui sort de terre" (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2002), 325-334.

John Gee, "Notes on Egyptian marriage: P. BM 10416 reconsidered," Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2002): 17-25.

And I'm aware of several more that are in the pipeline.

Dr. Gee has scarcely been "marginalized" as a "hack" among Egyptologists. His pace of publication and of presentations at Egyptological and other scholarly venues is, in fact, exceptionally vigorous.

Incidentally, he just presented an interesting paper on the Joseph Smith Papryi at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt that I hope to publish in a future issue of the FARMS Review, in addition to its eventual publication for an Egyptologist audience.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Barrel

My comments on Baron-Cohen were a reply to "I Am Truly Humbled To Be A Light Amidst Your Unfortunate Darkness"'s comment that he was a "hack". (Pretty rich coming from someone who no doubt would never refer to the sorry likes of John Gee, who is as marginalized as possible within what should have been his academic field, as a hack). No doubt Baron-Cohen has made some mistakes, but I am not sure that would qualify him as a "hack".

No, I didn't read all through your essay; I've gotten consumed with the David Hume thread. I'll have to come back to this or my head will explode!

In any case, my original point was that there is good evidence that there tend to be innate differences between male and female brains. (This of course does not rule the importance of environment). I'll come back and defend that once I get done with the other thread.

I've got to tell you, I only replied to this thread because I saw the mention of autism, Asperger's Syndrome and the discussion of differences of male and females. This is something very near and dear to my heart and I try to stay abreast of the latest. There is cutting edge research on this topic and a lot of "myths" that many in the medical community still hold onto.

Anyway, I don't really care what the differences in the brains are. I have no real comment on that. Are there some? Yes, most likely. Is culture a huge factor? Yes, most likely.

I'm in the field of special education and I recognize that groupings are done frequently. The only success I have with kids or adults of any stripe is when I see their brains and abilities individually.


That's just my .02 and carry on. :)

[_Daniel Peterson]

One popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while irrationally expecting a different result.

Still, I think I'll put this to the top in the hope that maybe Mr. Bachman will see my comment, above, and profit from it.

Silly me. Maybe I really don't believe in reality.

[_harmony]

Pretty rich coming from someone who no doubt would never refer to the sorry likes of John Gee, who is as marginalized as possible within what should have been his academic field, as a hack).

This typically gratuitous insult to a person utterly uninvolved in this thread, not participating on this board, and unconnected with this topic is, again typically, false.

I don't have a complete list of Professor Gee's publications, but I'm aware of these:

John Gee, "S3 mi nn : A Temporary Conclusion," Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58.

John Gee, "Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple," The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97-107.

John Gee, "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali," Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga: "Le lotus qui sort de terre" (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2002), 325-334.

John Gee, "Notes on Egyptian marriage: P. BM 10416 reconsidered," Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2002): 17-25.

And I'm aware of several more that are in the pipeline.

Dr. Gee has scarcely been "marginalized" as a "hack" among Egyptologists. His pace of publication and of presentations at Egyptological and other scholarly venues is, in fact, exceptionally vigorous.

I was with you, applauding loudly, right up to here. Then: *poof* it all goes away with the next statement.

Incidentally, he just presented an interesting paper on the Joseph Smith Papryi at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt that I hope to publish in a future issue of the FARMS Review, in addition to its eventual publication for an Egyptologist audience.

Oh Lord. I bet it was interesting all right.

[_guy sajer]

Pretty rich coming from someone who no doubt would never refer to the sorry likes of John Gee, who is as marginalized as possible within what should have been his academic field, as a hack).

This typically gratuitous insult to a person utterly uninvolved in this thread, not participating on this board, and unconnected with this topic is, again typically, false.

I don't have a complete list of Professor Gee's publications, but I'm aware of these:

John Gee, "S3 mi nn : A Temporary Conclusion," Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58.

John Gee, "Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple," The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97-107.

John Gee, "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali," Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga: "Le lotus qui sort de terre" (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2002), 325-334.

John Gee, "Notes on Egyptian marriage: P. BM 10416 reconsidered," Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2002): 17-25.

And I'm aware of several more that are in the pipeline.

Dr. Gee has scarcely been "marginalized" as a "hack" among Egyptologists. His pace of publication and of presentations at Egyptological and other scholarly venues is, in fact, exceptionally vigorous.

I was with you, applauding loudly, right up to here. Then: *poof* it all goes away with the next statement.

Incidentally, he just presented an interesting paper on the Joseph Smith Papryi at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt that I hope to publish in a future issue of the FARMS Review, in addition to its eventual publication for an Egyptologist audience.

Oh Lord. I bet it was interesting all right.

I cannot comment on the quality of Journals cited above in which Gee has published. If his field is like other fields, however, then the quality of Journals, and difficulty publishing in them, varies widely. In my experience, promotion and tenure committees consider both number and quality of journal publications. Conceivably, the Journals cited above might be A journals, but they might also be B or C journals or even vanity journals. I am suspicious of Journals with a foreign title viz their quality and reputation (that is for US academics, given the usual plethora of good quality English titled journals) but they might indeed be excellent journals.

It is also the case that just about anyone in academics can finagle a conference presentation. They are next to meaningless as an indicator of quality scholarly output. A non-trivial percentage of papers presented at conferences are never published, and many papers presented at conference are pure crap. This is the case even for sexy sounding conferences in far off exotic lands, such as Egypt. Although again I am not saying this was the case for Gee.

When Gee does publish his Book of Abraham apologetics in scholarship clothing in a mainline academic journal, please do alert the rest of us. This would be, I presume, the first of its kind, and certainly worth celebrating.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I cannot comment on the quality of Journals cited above in which Gee has published.

I can. They're major journals in his field.

I am suspicious of Journals with a foreign title viz their quality and reputation (that is for US academics, given the usual plethora of good quality English titled journals) but they might indeed be excellent journals.

Many of the finest journals in Near Eastern studies (e.g, Der Islam, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, the Revue de Qumran, etc.) are foreign.

When Gee does publish his Book of Abraham apologetics in scholarship clothing in a mainline academic journal, please do alert the rest of us. This would be, I presume, the first of its kind, and certainly worth celebrating.

Every article that I cited is relevant to some issue involving Mormonism or the Book of Abraham. That's why I happened to have a list of them. In the meantime, you'll be happy to know that some of the Maxwell Institute's publications on the subject are being distributed by the University of Chicago Press:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167925.ctl

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167911.ctl

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167919.ctl

[_guy sajer]

I cannot comment on the quality of Journals cited above in which Gee has published.

I can. They're major journals in his field.

Though I am not entirely convinced of your assurance, I'll take your word for it.

I am suspicious of Journals with a foreign title viz their quality and reputation (that is for US academics, given the usual plethora of good quality English titled journals) but they might indeed be excellent journals.

Many of the finest journals in Near Eastern studies (e.g, Der Islam, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, the Revue de Qumran, etc.) are foreign.

Again, I'll take your word for it; as I said. I have no reason to think that these foreign titled journals are sub-par, but I've seen others publish in such journals when they could not find takers among the quality mainline journals.

When Gee does publish his Book of Abraham apologetics in scholarship clothing in a mainline academic journal, please do alert the rest of us. This would be, I presume, the first of its kind, and certainly worth celebrating.

Every article that I cited is relevant to some issue involving Mormonism or the Book of Abraham. That's why I happened to have a list of them. In the meantime, you'll be happy to know that some of the Maxwell Institute's publications on the subject are being distributed by the University of Chicago Press:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167925.ctl

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167911.ctl

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/h ... 167919.ctl

Without reading them, it's hard to judge to what extent they involve Mormonism, offer evidence of Mormonism's truth claims, or support Joseph Smith's "translation" of the PoGP. I suspect there's not much of the latter two, and there's a wide gap between articles "involving Mormonism" and articles offering credible evidence to support its various claims.

It is nice that the U of Chicago has agreed to print FARMS publications, but, if I understand correctly, these are books targeted to Mormon, rather than general audiences, and have not undergone the type of peer review that would be the case were the materials submitted to quality peer-reviewed journals. In other words, I don't see the links you've provided as evidence that the U of Chicago, or other non-Mormon scholars, are giving their seal of approval to any Mormon truth claims. I think Dan that it's still a bit premature to schedule the party. But when and if it occurs, put me down to bring the chips and O'Douls.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Without reading them, it's hard to judge to what extent they involve Mormonism, offer evidence of Mormonism's truth claims, or support Joseph Smith's "translation" of the PoGP. I suspect there's not much of the latter two, and there's a wide gap between articles "involving Mormonism" and articles offering credible evidence to support its various claims.

It's hard to speak knowledgeably without having read what's necessary to speak knowledgeably.

It is nice that the U of Chicago has agreed to print FARMS publications, but, if I understand correctly, these are books targeted to Mormon, rather than general audiences,

They're carried in the general University of Chicago catalog and displayed for sale in University of Chicago book exhibits at academic conferences. That's not an especially efficient way to sell to a strictly Mormon audience.

and have not undergone the type of peer review that would be the case were the materials submitted to quality peer-reviewed journals.

Someday, perhaps, I'll have to have you and Scratch give me a tutorial on peer-review procedures at the Maxwell Institute. I need to learn from people who know.

In other words, I don't see the links you've provided as evidence that the U of Chicago, or other non-Mormon scholars, are giving their seal of approval to any Mormon truth claims.

I don't believe that the University of Chicago Press gives its "seal of approval" to anybody's "truth claims," on any topic. It does, however, attempt to ensure that what it publishes and/or distributes meets its standards.

The University of Chicago isn't merely a two-year community college in the Upper Midwest, and its press doesn't take out ads in magazines saying "Become a Published Author!" If the powers-that-be at Chicago thought that these books failed to meet their quality standards, they would certainly not risk the reputation of what is perhaps the most reputable American academic publisher by distributing them.

[_guy sajer]

Without reading them, it's hard to judge to what extent they involve Mormonism, offer evidence of Mormonism's truth claims, or support Joseph Smith's "translation" of the PoGP. I suspect there's not much of the latter two, and there's a wide gap between articles "involving Mormonism" and articles offering credible evidence to support its various claims.

It's hard to speak knowledgeably without having read what's necessary to speak knowledgeably.

Which is precisely why I deferred to you viz the quality of the journals. Why the defensive retort?

I stand by what else I wrote that there exists a gulf between articles involving Mormonism and articles offering credible evidence for support its various claims. If these articles provide any kind of objective evidence in support of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the papyrus or his other claims viz Egyptology and the ancient world, please do cite them specifically so we can see for ourselves how Gee is demonstrating to an otherwise skeptical academic community that Joseph Smith really did produce a work of ancient origin.

It is nice that the U of Chicago has agreed to print FARMS publications, but, if I understand correctly, these are books targeted to Mormon, rather than general audiences,

They're carried in the general University of Chicago catalog and displayed for sale in University of Chicago book exhibits at academic conferences. That's not an especially efficient way to sell to a strictly Mormon audience.

OK, I'd have to see the sales figures for FARMS publications, but I'd be extremely surprised to find a substantial market for FARMS publications outside of the Mormon market. An exception being publications that address Mormonism in a scholarly way, or which address topics within their respective fields of expertise, but which are not apologetic in origin or intent, for which there does exist a market outside of Mormonism.

So, I guess we need to clarify just what type of product we're talking about here, so that we are talking about the same thing.

I don't think people doubt the scholarly credentials of FARMS authors within their fields of expertise (I certainly do not), the issue has always been, at least for me, the scholarly credibility of their apologetic work, which remains outside the scholarly mainstream and, as you yourself has admitted, ignored by their peers (for obvious reasons).

and have not undergone the type of peer review that would be the case were the materials submitted to quality peer-reviewed journals.

Someday, perhaps, I'll have to have you and Scratch give me a tutorial on peer-review procedures at the Maxwell Institute. I need to learn from people who know.[/quote]

Well, I've read your description of the peer review process at FARMS, and it does not leave me with a lot of confidence that you understand peer review well. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between copy editing and peer review.

Why don't you describe the process at the Maxwell Institute? I'd like to know.

I dare say that I understand the peer review process at least as well as you, given our respective peer-reviewed publication records.

In other words, I don't see the links you've provided as evidence that the U of Chicago, or other non-Mormon scholars, are giving their seal of approval to any Mormon truth claims.

I don't believe that the University of Chicago Press gives its "seal of approval" to anybody's "truth claims," on any topic. It does, however, attempt to ensure that what it publishes and/or distributes meets its standards.

By this I mean that I do not see that the U of Chicago is publishing evidence, and thereby granting it scholarly credibility, that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document written by Abraham. I could be wrong; if so, please show me how.

The University of Chicago isn't merely a two-year community college in the Upper Midwest, and its press doesn't take out ads in magazines saying "Become a Published Author!"

Well, no sh**. Thanks for the information. I must of missed it somehow.

If the powers-that-be at Chicago thought that these books failed to meet their quality standards, they would certainly not risk the reputation of what is perhaps the most reputable American academic publisher by distributing them.

That's not the point. I am not denigrating in any way the academic credentials of Gee, you, or any other FARMS author. I have no doubt that you are capable of meeting U of Chicago's high standards (as evidenced by the cited publications). I am referring specifically to the issue as to whether FARMS and other Mormon apologists/scholars have been successful publishing in mainline academic, peer-reviewed outlets credible, objective evidence supporting Mormonism's claims viz the Book of Abraham or, for that matter, its claims viz the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

So, should I bring the chips and O'Douls?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If these articles provide any kind of objective evidence in support of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the papyrus or his other claims viz Egyptology and the ancient world, please do cite them specifically so we can see for ourselves how Gee is demonstrating to an otherwise skeptical academic community that Joseph Smith really did produce a work of ancient origin.

I've cited them specifically. You have the full references.

I'd have to see the sales figures for FARMS publications, but I'd be extremely surprised to find a substantial market for FARMS publications outside of the Mormon market.

You're shifting your ground. You said that the books weren't targeted at a general audience, but only at Mormons. This is plainly not true. They're being marketed by a prestigious non-Mormon academic press to an overwhelmingly non-Mormon audience.

I have no idea, off the top of my head, what the sales figures for them are. But those figures are neither here nor there. Whether the marketing is successful or not, whether the audience is interested or not, the fact is that they are clearly, contrary to your initial claim, being targeted, to at least a significant degree, to a non-Mormon audience.

So, I guess we need to clarify just what type of product we're talking about here, so that we are talking about the same thing.

The books being distributed by the University of Chicago Press plainly and explicitly address the Book of Abraham.

Well, I've read your description of the peer review process at FARMS, and it does not leave me with a lot of confidence that you understand peer review well. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between copy editing and peer review.

You call anonymous content-review by two-to-four scholars (in addition to editors, etc.), resulting in the rejection of a substantial number of submitted manuscripts, "copy editing"?

Why don't you describe the process at the Maxwell Institute? I'd like to know.

I've published an account of it. It's not hidden.

I dare say that I understand the peer review process at least as well as you, given our respective peer-reviewed publication records.

I'm aware of your oft-expressed conviction of my academic inferiority.

I mean that I do not see that the U of Chicago is publishing evidence, and thereby granting it scholarly credibility, that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document written by Abraham. I could be wrong; if so, please show me how.

For one so vastly my superior with regard to academic publishing, I'm surprised that you seem to think that either the University of Chicago or the University of Chicago Press has, or should have, a "party line" of some sort. The University of Chicago publishes books arguing for various and often contradictory opinions on numerous subjects.

I am referring specifically to the issue as to whether FARMS and other Mormon apologists/scholars have been successful publishing in mainline academic, peer-reviewed outlets credible, objective evidence supporting Mormonism's claims viz the Book of Abraham or, for that matter, its claims viz the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

What on earth do you think these books are about?