For Marg

[_Jersey Girl]

. I just think it's just strange how you've latched on to him. I can think of other critics who are civil (unlike me, I know I'm not civil) and actually make great arguments, why not one of them? Well, to each their own and all, I just don't understand it. But really, it's not like you owe an explanation there or anything.

I think it's just a matter of finding that you either have something in common with or appreciate a poster regarding perspectives, approach or style. I can think of at least a handful of posters with whom I shared similar perspectives, who I found an interesting "read", who I thought were good teachers, liked their humor or simply enjoyed sparring with. A handful in 8 years isn't very many.

I think that marg simply "clicks" with JAK or the way he writes speaks to her in such a way that others don't. I think they speak the same "language" and that's not a bad thing at all. There's like 2 posters in the entire universe who I can read, post to, and think with forever and who "read" me accurately across the screen. That doesn't happen often. They have posted on this board but aren't regulars, so that puts me in a room full of people who I think don't read me accurately or in any meaningful way. If JAK is that to marg, it's rare and good.

Which leaves me to wonder why I even post on this board....

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee.... Is "Joseph Smith" who is think it is? Hmmmm.....

Gee... would that be Joseph Smith?

Welcome back, Josh.

[_marg]

I didn't catch this until after I posted a response, so either I missed it or you added it later while I was writing a response.

His “if/then” construction is flawed as well.

To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.

Did the plaigerized portion of this paragraph help you understand how JAK reasoned to his position?

Well I understand what the above is saying even if only portions are JAK's words. The concepts which JAK has expressed over the years are reflected in there.

I'm not certain how people or philosophers interpret Godel's conclusion based on that mathematical theorem. What we dealt with mainly in that discussion was an interpretation of Godel's theorem by an individual. If Godel had actually put it into words then why weren't we using that instead of someone's interpretation of his mathematical theorem? That was an argument I made, that math doesn't necessarily map neatly and precisely onto words. And that is what the above is saying too, "ruse of words" used as if to argue for something logically which it does not do, because of word play.

You obviously take issue with the above and I'm not sure why. I suspect it has to do with the last line mainly, that Godel wasn't necessarily arguing via symbolic math to a God's existence, that's just an assumption made by some of those who interpret the theorem. That my impression.

(what should frustrate you as it does others is that because he so freely cuts and pastes without attribution, it's clear he isn't digesting the material at all and has no idea what he's talking about. At least Coggins, when he virtually copies wikipedia entries on John Sanders (not LDS) without attribution as his own presentation of Mormon theology, mixes it up enough that he shows understanding of what he's regurgitating)

Look Gad, I'm sure you feel you have put in lots of time studying Godel and have a much better understanding of Godel that JAK. But that wasn't the focus of that discussion. The focus was whether theology and in particular arguments for God are logically based. CC used Godel to say it was. What JAK does, and which you don't do is get to the basics. You complicate issues and make them sound so convoluted they are not understandable. JAK does the opposite. When he argues or discusses, he first typically ensures there is agreement on what various words actually mean in that discussion. He stays focussed on the actual issue, keeps it simple to the point the other person should be able to follow along and understand no matter what their background or point of view and he will repeat a concept over and over because often times people don't get the basics being as they often make assumptions they don't question.

I really don't know what your problem is Gad, and I would like to actually. I also don't understand what problem you are having with the above quote you took from the other thread.


I'll look at your next post and address it, if not today, tomorrow.

[_marg]

It doesn't matter if JAK also cites references. Sure, he does all the time. He also plagiarizes all the time.

I've been reading JAK for years, he presents the same concepts frequently in his own words. About 99% of his posts it's obvious it's his own words. He deals with logical concepts most often, not with details.

He does both. You mentioned something about wanting to see how the person reasoned to their positions. And as I said, you can never know if any given paragraph he writes is his own thought process or something he copied elsewhere. So I don't see how you can gleen a thought process out of his posts.

I see the same concepts over and over.

I just think it's just strange how you've latched on to him. I can think of other critics who are civil (unlike me, I know I'm not civil) and actually make great arguments, why not one of them? Well, to each their own and all, I just don't understand it. But really, it's not like you owe an explanation there or anything.

Of course there are other people I admire for their intelligence and in varying degrees. And by the way, not just critics. I could give you a list but I don't think that's going to make much difference.

On this particular board I have defended JAK, because some people here don't get him, some people are threatened by him. Many focus on process, many misinterpret what he says and make assumptions he's said something he hasn't. Too many are focussed on the details of a particular religion or Mormonism, that they don't see the flaws in their thinking on issues. They make assumptions and build their arguments upon those assumptions. JAK cuts through that and points out when assumptions are unwarranted or weak, but he does it with patience, simply, with clarity and step by step. So many of these arguments with religion are a function of poor critical thinking, they apply not just to Mormonism but to most other religions as well and other areas not just religion. The details of the issues are less important than concepts used to critically evaluate the issues. JAK doesn't concern himself with details often, which is why your complaints about quoting is shallow. And this leads me to one other point, there is also another issue involved I believe, and that is that Mormons, whether they are current or ex... seem on the whole to take exception to "outsiders" being involved in discussions dealing with Mormonism. I get that sense from you, you expressed something along similar lines in that "logic" thread. I'd have to search for a quote from you, which atm I don't feel inclined to do. So I suspect that is part of your attitude that I'm seeing from you.

And final point. You asked for an example. I gave you an example, two, actually. And. that's that. An example that fits the bill perfectly with the point I was making on the other thread. I would hardly expect you to do a 180 in your respect for a person you've known for years based on it.

Your examples Gad did not warrant you singling JAK out as if "plagiarizing" was a major offence coming from him. JAK is a high critical thinker, extremely articulate who does not rely upon plagiarizing in discussions to make his points. One of the examples you gave, a quote of a paragraph on some facts from an encyclopedia not only is not a good example of plagiarizing but is not the least bit representative of the majority of JAK's post which are obviously his own words and thoughts. Anyhow from the looks of it, you probably won't have to concern yourself over this, I get the impression for all intents and purposes JAK has pretty much left this board. And the way things are run presently I probably will as well. That's not a promise or guarantee, but this whole thing is pretty much a non-issue if we aren't going to bother much if at all with the board.

[_Gadianton]

I also don't understand what problem you are having with the above quote

I don't have a "problem" with it for the sake of this thread, it was merely a second example of JAK's plaigerism. Since someone reminded me about in PM, I thought I'd share it. I'm curious though, Marg, would you do what JAK does? Would you write a paragraph where one or two sentences are exact citations from Copi's book on logic, and without attribution?

some people are threatened by him

...makes it soo hard to restrain...

What else can I say? I do agree with you about focusing on concepts rather than details though. Concepts are bearers of meaning, as opposed to agents of meaning. And that should always be first priority. In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare, reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of understanding are essential and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. And surely that is of higher importance than merely memorizing and parroting details which could simply be things known from memorizing what's needed to pass a test rather than performing any kind of true analysis.

[_marg]

I don't have a "problem" with it for the sake of this thread, it was merely a second example of JAK's plaigerism. Since someone reminded me about in PM, I thought I'd share it.

Ya got a helper huh.

I'm curious though, Marg, would you do what JAK does? Would you write a paragraph where one or two sentences are exact citations from Copi's book on logic, and without attribution?

Probably not. I believe there was an occasion on this board when I quoted from a history text a small portion, but was too lazy to cite. And that's really all it boiled down to was laziness and it being in my opinion not important at the time. You have to admit that message boards on the Net are an entirely different set of circumstances to term papers, or professional work for which in both cases it is important to give credit to where it's due.

But what sentences in that paragraph were you referring to anyhow? I'm not sure I understand what your problem is with that paragraph. It may be that you misunderstood JAK.

some people are threatened by him

...makes it soo hard to restrain...

Good I'm glad you restrained.

What else can I say? I do agree with you about focusing on concepts rather than details. Concepts are bearers of meaning, as opposed to agents of meaning. And that should always be first priority. In order to make our mental images into concepts, one must thus be able to compare, reflect, and abstract, for these three logical operations of understanding are essential and general conditions of generating any concept whatever. And surely that is of higher importance than merely memorizing and parroting details which could simply be things known from memorizing what's needed to pass a test rather than performing any kind of true analysis.

Right.

by the way, did I get your name right? If not, am I at least close with the correct first letter?

[_marg]

I think it's just a matter of finding that you either have something in common with or appreciate a poster regarding perspectives, approach or style. I can think of at least a handful of posters with whom I shared similar perspectives, who I found an interesting "read", who I thought were good teachers, liked their humor or simply enjoyed sparring with. A handful in 8 years isn't very many.

Yes, I do appreciate JAK's style. He raises the level of discourse, makes sure there is clarification of terms, doesn't jump all over the place and go on tangents, has patience, keeps the discussion focused on issues, looks at the big picture and puts things into perspective within that big picture, is concise, extremely careful with the words he chooses, is articulate, doesn't use technical jargon unnecessarily, is straightforward, doesn't demean the other person..except on very rare occasions. He quotes so as to not misrepresent what another says. Addresses their exact words with care, not a misrepresentation of what they said. He doesn't make unnecessary assumptions. For me his posts, and how he approaches an issue are educational.

I think that marg simply "clicks" with JAK or the way he writes speaks to her in such a way that others don't. I think they speak the same "language" and that's not a bad thing at all. There's like 2 posters in the entire universe who I can read, post to, and think with forever and who "read" me accurately across the screen. That doesn't happen often. They have posted on this board but aren't regulars, so that puts me in a room full of people who I think don't read me accurately or in any meaningful way. If JAK is that to marg, it's rare and good.

Which leaves me to wonder why I even post on this board....

I do wish I could think as well, as clearly, be as articulate as JAK. But I think he's developed much of those skills through years of study and even self study. I'm a lazy reader, and thinker and doubtful I could ever come close to the high level of critical thinking he displays. On message boards such as this one, the issues really boil down to critical thinking and that's what JAK focuses on and that's what I'm interested in observing, as far as a message board goes.

[_Gadianton]

I didn't misunderstand JAK. I was clear about my "problem" with JAK's paragraph, if you don't see what I mean now, maybe it's just better to let it go.

I also think critical thinking is important. Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality. If this is what you see in JAK's writing, then I can understand why you admire him.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is transparently obvious that JAK has engaged in plagiarism. It would do him well if he just owned up to it and apologized. After all, if he is a professor, as Marg claims, he could lose his job (even if he is tenured!) if something akin to this came to light. What's far less obvious are the reasons why Marg continues, almost obsessively, to defend JAK. Is she in love with him? Is JAK a Marg sockpupppet? It is all so completely bizarre---not unlike some of the defenses one finds amongst LDS apologists.

[_marg]

I didn't misunderstand JAK. I was clear about my "problem" with JAK's paragraph, if you don't see what I mean now, maybe it's just better to let it go.

I also think critical thinking is important. Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality. If this is what you see in JAK's writing, then I can understand why you admire him.

There's lots I see in JAK's thinking which I admire. He isn't arrogant; doesn't try to sound intelligent by use of technical jargon; doesn't enter a discussion with the sole purpose of attacking someone, is truly interested in dialogue with intent to coming to a meeting of the minds, doesn't put people into black and white categories and carry grudges against certain groups and into discussions, does not use appeals to authority to win arguments, does not argue using fallacious tactics such as ad homs...the list goes on. You could learn a lesson or two from him.