John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Brackite]

Hi There Daniel Peterson,
Have you or John Gee yet had any luck at trying to find the ‘Missing Papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham’ on it??? Just Wandering!

[_Daniel Peterson]

as long as they didn't go around strutting and posing as scholarly giants, as is the case with our eminent friend here.

I have not, of course, claimed to be a "scholarly giant." That's merely your contemptible straw man caricature.

But, as I say, you wouldn't know a major contribution to the field of Islamic philosophy if it managed to climb onto your throne and nip your exceedingly smug posterior. You have essentially no idea what I'm doing, and, even if you did, you wouldn't be able to assess its worth to the field. Which doesn't stop you from pontificating, of course.

How stunningly pathetic.

Here's a clue, O illustrious one: You boast about your little collection of articles in academic periodicals. Well and good. Several people probably skimmed through them when they appeared. And, maybe, just maybe, they're not wholly ephemeral and already largely forgotten. Maybe. If so, bully for you. Up until now, by contrast, in terms of Islamic subjects, I've chosen to invest my time -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours -- in creating a complex, four-part, multilingual publication series that will be foundational to the field of Islamic philosophy (as well as to the history of medieval science, the study of eastern Christianity, and several allied areas) for at least a century to come. It has cost me substantially in terms of my own research and writing, but I'm confident that my long-term contribution will be recognized as quite significant. In some circles, it already is. (And my own research is beginning to appear, anyway.) Will anybody be reading your articles fifty years from now?

[_Daniel Peterson]

(Q: "has anyone sent you a critique of David Stewart's article (published ~ 1 year ago)?").

No.

[_rcrocket]

I didn't get on the case of the older, non-productive generation, as they clearly were hired under a different set of expectations; that is, as long as they didn't go around strutting and posing as scholarly giants, as is the case with our eminent friend here.

Weren't you denied tenure at BYU? Or, you resigned knowing that you wouldn't be granted tenure? [As I previously pointed out to you, maybe you had problems due to your grammar and spelling deficiencies in your authored pieces?]

Maybe your point of view is a little skewed, perhaps?

rcrocket

[_karl61]

Gee . . . is a truly nasty piece of work, full of hatred and bent on smearing

A message board post can't possibly get any richer than the one above.

the fact that Ritner walked off Gee's doctoral committee.

Is that a fact.

I think everyone has to read for themselves but he doesn't appear too kind in his review; the review gives Mister Scratch's thoughts some support.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=296
I also just read another review where someone wrote in very simple plain language the issues he had with a book written by Hugh Nibley. I hope Mister Scratch can provide those links to show how it is possible to disagree, explain your disagreements, but be respectful.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it would be prudent for critics to quit dwelling on the whole Ritner/Gee angle, just as it would be wise for defenders not to try to reshape it into something that smells the way they want it to. Having enduring the dissertation process myself, and having seen a few others endure it, with all of the vicissitudes therein, I can tell you that interpersonal committee dynamics can be a tricky thing, both between student and professor, and between members of the committee. As the student, you may sometimes feel that you are caught between gods who are throwing thunder bolts at each other that just may strike you dead in the process. Sometimes personalities don't mesh, and the results of that can be damaging without being patently obvious to every onlooker. Great minds don't always think alike.

So, it would seem best, from my perspective, which is one of some small experience, for both sides to quit dragging up Ritner/Gee. We were not there. We do not know exactly what happened. Whether it involved Gee's incompetence, his refusal to sleep with Ritner, or piss on someone's cornflakes, is unknown to us. I have been an onlooker as someone's personality conflict with a prof. became that student's incompetence in the professor's eyes. It happens.

Wow. Somebody speaks who actually understands academic life and graduate school politics.

I've not sought to turn the Ritner/Gee tiff into anything in order to support any Mormon position. But I have sought to blunt the effectiveness of this weapon in the hands of malicious gossips who desperately want to use it to malign Professor Gee, and I've warned some critics -- that's all I felt I could really do -- that there is a personal history that goes back to long before the JNES article. I've cautioned critics not to make more of Ritner's history with John Gee at Yale than they should. There are and have been issues here that would change views, if they were known, or would, at a very minimum, supply very instructive context. I was aware of this case as it transpired. I have never said all that I know -- this will drive poor Beastie mad, but there you have it -- and I don't know everything. But I know enough to understand that Dr. Ritner's departure from Dr. Gee's committee cannot -- should not, anyway -- simplistically be used to condemn Dr. Gee. It would be instructive for the whole story to come out some day. I don't know, however, that it ever will. Especially now that the threat of litigation has been raised. I was sued by an evangelical anti-Mormon a few years back for $4.5 million; the case was utterly without merit and was ultimately dismissed "with prejudice," but it still preoccupied me for two years -- two years that, if I hadn't needed to defend myself against a frivolous but malicious law suit, might even have enabled me to approach the first gentle foothills surrounding the towering academic Olympus on which the illustrious Guy Sajer sits enthroned in glory.

[_guy sajer]

I didn't get on the case of the older, non-productive generation, as they clearly were hired under a different set of expectations; that is, as long as they didn't go around strutting and posing as scholarly giants, as is the case with our eminent friend here.

Weren't you denied tenure at BYU? Or, you resigned knowing that you wouldn't be granted tenure? [As I previously pointed out to you, maybe you had problems due to your grammar and spelling deficiencies in your authored pieces?]

Maybe your point of view is a little skewed, perhaps?

rcrocket

Oh God, you mean we have to go over this again?

I believe I already explained this to you, what, about 10 times?

I was, in fact, tenured, the only candidate to receive a unanimous vote at the college level (so I was told) the year I went up for tenure (continuing status). (By the way, I thought you had bid adieu to this board. I'd say welcome back, but I'd be lying. Ever still the pretentious prick. Also, still the grammar and spelling asshole, I see. Maybe you and Danny-Boy can form a club and play at posing as superior to others because of your superior key punching skill, what ya say?)

I resigned in good standing completely of my own volition.

During my review for Full Professor, my dept voted against me not for anything to do with academic work (I was one of the top publishers in the college--unlike Danny Boy, I actually published in peer-reviewed journals--and averaged an "excellent" student evaluation score) but because they were "concerned that my testimony of the gospel was not strong enough" and some students were complaining that I was undermining their testimonies (despite never talking about religion in class). That was the ONLY explanation I was ever given, and they didn't provide for me a single example. So, the vote had NOTHING to do with academics.

The dept. vote is one of three levels, had I continued with the process, I would have then gone to the college and then the university boards, either one of which could have voted differently and overtuned the dept (this happens all the time). I could have also pressed for specific examples and made a stink, but I had already decided to resign, so I decided it was not worth it and I withdrew my candidacy for full professor. Even had I been turned down for full prof, I would have remained on the faculty as associate prof and kept my tenure.

I repeat this only because there are new participants to this board who might take your libel seriously.

I don't mind the give and take here on the board and the inflammatory rhetoric and insults--it's all in good fun, but I draw the line at libel. You've been informed of the facts, now stop libeling me.

Got that, s***h***?

[_asbestosman]

Most of what I read in critiques of ID is based on distortions and caricatures.

I'd like to think I have a half-decent grasp of statistics (did quite well in a graduate level stochastic processes class). That said, I admit I'm no PhD.

I would like to know what sort of distortions are made of ID.
I would like to know why the No Free Lunch theorems are applicable given that we know we live in a universe of natural gradients.
As a follow-up to that, if we are asking why we live in such a universe, why can we not simply invoke the weak-anthropic principle to show that we pretty much need some kind of stability in order to exist?
If we are worried about multiplying entities through multiple universes (to increase the probability producing a universe with natural gradients), then why is a designer who exists before the universe itself not a similar violation of parsimony, especially a designer who is kind, loving, etc? On the other hand, why wouldn't good qualities of a designer be seen as unlikely as a universe with natural gradients?
If we are worried about stability and infinite probability (that I might play piano as a pro by mere chance), then why can we not appeal again to probability to propose that in all universes where I exist, in very few will I display what appears as talent but is merely random chance?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

During my review for Full Professor, my dept voted against me not for anything to do with academic work (I was one of the top publishers in the college--unlike Danny Boy, I actually published in peer-reviewed journals--and averaged an "excellent" student evaluation score) but because they were "concerned that my testimony of the gospel was not strong enough" and some students were complaining that I was undermining their testimonies (despite never talking about religion in class). That was the ONLY explanation I was ever given, and they didn't provide for me a single example. So, the vote had NOTHING to do with academics.

Only at BYU. How it is still considered a "university" is beyond me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

asshole . . . Danny-Boy . . . Danny Boy . . . s***h***

The illustrious Guy Sajer, author of several souped-up magazine articles -- tremble before the majesty of his eminence, puny mortals! -- demonstrates the scholarly approach that carried him to unexcelled academic heights.

And Beastie wonders why I don't think this message board is a very intellectually serious place . . .