User:Norseman/Stest

principles of weighing historical evidence and the Richard Dawkins professorship issue I believe a main weakness of the debating between the two sides of whether or not Dawkins is a professor approved by peer review is that neither side has appealed to the discipline of historiography (principles of weighing historical evidence). Now there is a Pulitzer prize winning historican by the name of David Hackett Fischer and he is a very logical and astute historian and I think he is a conservative as well (he cited Scripture in one of his works and we all know that conservatives are generally more logical :)  ).   Here is some background information:  Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics.

Here is a overview of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and please pay attention to the bolded portions below:  (1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.  (2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.   (3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."  (4) Evidence must always be affirmative.  Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.   (5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.  (6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."   (7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."   The above rules were taken from Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)

I think using rules 1,4, and 7 above the issue of whether or not Dawkins is most likely or not most likely a professor is very clear. I will let each side argue their case and afterwords I will offer my verdict on the situation. Hmmm, it's a good guide but is Dawkins' professorship historical? It's current. If you do want to use those rules, then the assertion that Dawkins is a professor meets #1, the assertion that Dawkins is not a professor fails on #4, and #7 is satisfied by it being more probable (considering OU calls him one) that Dawkins' is a professor than he isn't. I don't know what your investigative journalist is intending to uncover but if he's using those rules than I imagine not a lot. But then that's not what investigative journalists do. Ajkgordon 15:52, 22 October 2007 (EDT)  Ajkgordon, I would first say that I wanted to correct two things you said. First, I merely said the leader of the intelligent design movement was going to ask a investigative journalist to look into the issue of whether or not the peer review process took place in regards to Dawkins being a professor. There is no guarantee that the investigative journalist will have any interest. Second, there is a historical question here and namely it is did the peer review process take place in regards to Dawkins being a professor. Next, Dawkins makes the assertion that he is a professor and implies the historical assertion that a peer review process took place. Andy makes the assertion that "apparently" no peer review process took place. Now Andy is violating rule number #4 above because just because there is no direct evidence that the peer review took place doesn't it didn't take place (absence of direct evidence is not evidence of absence -rule #4). Also, Andy is not giving us any evidence that it did not take place so he is violating rule #1 by making the assertion that it apparently did not take place. Then applying rule #7 with the fact that the Oxford Gazette called him a professor, which is indirect evidence he is a professor, the probability that the peer review process took place is greater than it did not take place. Lastly, I think our rules of historical evidence should be applied uniformly. Do we have any direct evidence that Dr. Gary Habermas passed peer review to become a professor or that he obtained his doctorate? If we don't and we apply the same standard of evidence that we are using for Dawkins then rightfully we have to put in the Gary Habermas article that apparently Dr. Habermas did not pass peer review to become a professor and he apparently never obtained his doctorate. I think those two aformentioned assertions regarding Habermas would be unreasonable. Conservative 16:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT) I stand corrected. Twice! Thanks. Um, are you sure you want to do this? :) Ajkgordon 16:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT) AjkGordon, I think that when anyone makes an edit to a conservapedia article and they know the attendant talk page exist they are entering into a situation where they knowingly take the risk of being corrected.  I also believe that human error is a fact of life and that all conservapedians should be open to revising a mistake they made in regards to editing.  Fischer corrects professional historians in regards to historiography so I do think that Andy a non-historian should be open to modifying his post after he sees Fischer's sound historiography principles. Next,  Andy has changed his mind in light of evidence before in regards to his decisions (the American vs. English spelling of words commandment) so I don't think it would be disastrous to admit error here. In short, I don't think the whole Conservapedia project would end because Andy revised a post of his. Conservative 16:43, 22 October 2007 (EDT) Well, good luck. Personally I think that stance is eminently reasonable. Ajkgordon 16:48, 22 October 2007 (EDT) </dl> AjkGordon, I do think that I am acting in the best interest of Conservapedia here. I think that other conservative websites would be more likely to link to this article if the introduction were revised. Given my current contacts I am postive I could get one to two conservative websites with respectable web traffic to link to this article but currently my hands are tied. Conservative 16:43, 22 October 2007 (EDT) <dd>I think you are probably right. I have made the disrepute argument before but to no avail. Ajkgordon 16:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT) <dd><dd>Ajkgordon, I am not saying that anyone did anything disreputable. I do believe that in order to resolve disputes that cordiality and diplomacy should not be discarded. Conservative 20:13, 22 October 2007 (EDT) <dd>No, I meant that the article as it stands runs the risk of bringing Conservapedia into disrepute not that anyone was disreputable. I agree with you about cordiality and diplomacy. Ajkgordon 20:17, 22 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl><dd>I think this article has a lot of potential if it had a few revisions. There are a lot of people who would like to hear the other side in regards to Dawkins but currently the first 50 Google results seem to be totally monopolized by the Dawkins fan club. I do think if we created a dissenting view of the first 50 Google results that we might get a lot of traffic. I don't think much effort has been expended to do so in the past and I don't think it would be hard to do as a lot of people are not fond of what Dawkins promotes. Conservative 20:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl> <ul><li>I think you mistake your position here, Conservative. If you wish to relinquish your Sysop position, and gather forces to show Andy where he is wrong, go for it. If however you wish to remain a part of Conservapedia's administrators, you should stop your constant efforts to make him wrong, and be supportive. You are all about making deals with other sites to feature only content created and controlled by you. You are certainly not about promoting CP and what it stands for. Is this a clear enough statement (as you requested) as to if I agree with your silly historiography principles? If it isn't you just let me know. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 00:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dd><dd>TK, I don't think you showed that I am constantly trying to prove Andy wrong. Andy and I have disagreed on a total of 2 articles. Next, I don't believe that Andy wants to foster an environment where everything he posts is automatically correct. Such an environment is decidedly anti-intellectual, not realistic, and not befitting an encyclopedia. An environment like that is would be akin to a cultlike atmosphere like Jonestown and I don't believe that is what Andy wants. Lastly, I would appreciate it if you kept the focus on the actual article here. If you have a complaint against me I think my talk page or email is the appropriate place. Conservative 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl> <dd>TK, I would also state that I would be glad to work with others in regards to request for articles that I have on my plate right now. In fact, RobS and I worked together for an article that Concerned Women of America wants CP to produce. Conservative 00:53, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dd><dd>TK, in addition they are not my historiography principles but the principles given by an eminent historian and nobody has told me why the principles are unsound. Conservative 01:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl> <ul><li>Interesting confession, Conservative. Historians and their opinions on most anything are a dime a dozen. Some even claim that Evolution is the only possible way to explain life. Do you accept those opinions by eminent Historians? See how your own arguments are poppycock? Nice of you to inform the rest of us you are working for another site, though. Finally the truth comes out. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dd>First, Fisher is a Pulitzer prize winning historian. Next, you are committing the genetic logical fallacy so instead of engaging in fallacy show me where Fischer is unreasonable. You try to attack Fischer because you cannot attack his reasonable historiography principles. Next, I am creating content at CP which Concerned Women of American wants to link to and thus bring us internet traffic. Lastly, I wish to make a correction, RobS and I worked on something together that I think some other websites might want to link to (at least RobS and I thought it was a noteworthy topic). Conservative 01:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl> <dd><dd><dd>Conservative, we can't sell our principles just for a few web hits. Giving into Dawkins deceitful claim of professorship would be hypocritical. SSchultz 01:50, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dd>Schultz, I would kindly state that you are presenting a false dilemna. Show me where the above analyis using a sound methodology for answering historical questions is errant. I could just as easily say Dawkins is a professor and leave it at that but I think demonstrating my position using a sound methodology of deciding historical questions is a far more reasonable approach. Conservative 02:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dd>Conservative, the fact is that Andy has already made a decision on this page. He wants the facts regarding Dawkins' fraudulent professorship to remain. I don't understand why you're choosing to go against him like this. Moreover, all the talk about your methodology for deciding the question sounds a lot like the way evolutionists talk about defending their theories. SSchultz 15:27, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dd>To be fair, SSshultz, it doesn't appear to me that Conservative is "choosing to go against [Aschlafly] like this" - rather he using an historical research tool to ascertain whether the assertion that Dawkins is not a professor has any merit. It's just another angle to help editors with their judgement. Ajkgordon 16:17, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl></dl></dl></dl> <ul><li>Me, Me, Me!! It is like a broken record. The rantings of a Bot. Show you! Tell you! I think I need to complete my article on Internet Trolls. I certainly have more than enough material to masterfully demonstrate what one is. I hope Concerned Women and Peter will be interested in it as well. If not, I have been in contact with several very large sites, who all get millions of hits daily, who are interested in linking to it! Anyone who is interested in collaborating on it, please contact me. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 02:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dd><dd><dl><dd>TK, I have no desire to attempt to have unrelated discussions regarding your unsupported accusations that are unrelated to the article especially when I think they are unreasonable. Conservative 02:16, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd> I usually disagree with Conservative, and I've raised an eyebrow at his "millions of hits" claims. However, following Fischer's principles is an excellent means of resolving the discussion over Dawkins' professorship. Really, it has gone on far too long.--McIntyre 02:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl></dl> I was asked to weigh in this matter. Not sure if makes a difference, but at least I can try. <ul><li> First, the principle laid out by the historian Fisher aren't that different from what the CP guidelines try to achieve, except that his are more specific to history writing. There is nothing wrong to look at the best practice used by historians when you write biographical articles. I could even imagine that some of Fisher recommendations would make it into the CP guidelines, since they reflect common sense, used elsewhere as well. </li><li> As TK pointed out, historians are able to quibble over all kind of things. The nice things about sticking to such guidelines is that you quibble on a slightly higher level, and it increases the chances to stay on topic. In a charged atmosphere, like on this talk page, even the most benign observations become a litmus test on political loyalties, and can lead to personal insults. Take as example SSchultz' latest comment; it doesn't give any evidence on the matter, but instead calls you a hypocritical sell-out. Hardly illuminating any fact, other than SSchultz' idiosyncratic way to participate in discussions. </li><li> If you want to have lots of web hits, it might even be better say clearly what you accusations are. Bayes asked a few days ago what the allegations are what the allegations are, if not cronyism, bribery, or fraud, but no-one felt competent to answer it. If you would put into the article that you are accusing Dawkins, Simonyi or the University of Oxford of cronyism, bribery, or fraud, and you get some journalist to feature it prominently, you might attract a big deal of people who want to have a look. I mean, who does not enjoy a mud fight. If you don't want to look like some yellow press newspaper, you should of course have some evidence. The kind of evidence you find if you go to the archives of the University of Oxford and look up the minutes of the Distinction Committee. Its boring, I know, the kind of boring the set of rules by David Fisher are. Order 02:48, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>McIntyre, I want to stay on topic but I briefly will say that I think taking a defeatist attitude and saying Conservapedia cannot get millions of hits to various articles stifles creativity and initiative. One article for Conservapedia is getting 600 hits a day. I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to get an article like that to get 6,000 hits a day via various methods to grow its Internet traffic. Conservative 03:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl> <ul><li>Please document those 600 hits per day, Conservative. Can you provide realistic proof of that? Where are you seeing those hits? It is important that you stop, making statements without backing it up as you say it. Not later. Not by giving another answer, but directly stating how you arrive at that figure. If you are using the built-in counter on CP, we already know page counts have been artificially inflated, such as the Goat article with over 100,000 hits, several thousands per day. You have already been made aware of that, and acknowledged via email you knew of it. "Various" efforts smacks of pandering and manipulation of the numbers. Is that something we should aspire to? Do you consider "ratings" to be a scholarly effort? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 05:31, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>TK, I am not going to wrangle with you regarding whether this article or that article was artificially inflated. I do think getting web traffic to conservapedia is important as new traffic means new editors. And with new editors can come new expertise and a greater depth of the number of articles plus expansion of articles when needed. But again, please keep on topic in regards to this article.Conservative 06:53, 23 October 2007 (EDT)