Expertise: Dead as a Doornail on YouTube
In The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols declares that respect for experts is at an all time low. He provides an example of an expert whose specialty was chemical weapons. That expert answered a desperate call for information on a specific chemical from a young student doing her homework. He began by correcting an elemental error made by the student. In response, the student took offense at the correction and began savaging the expert, indicating he had no idea what he was talking about. The expert invited the student to look him up and confirm his credentials, but the student was so offended that she refused to do so.
Want to see this paradigm in action? Hop on over to YouTube.
The past week or so, I've been having it out with a fundy atheist there who styles himself, "The Messianic Manic" or TMM. Who is he? There's not a clue anywhere. His name is unknown. His credentials are unknown. He plays music, and he makes videos that are little better than PowerPoint slides which he narrates. They likely take him no more than five minutes to make, and he never, ever cites a scholarly source for his criticisms of the Bible (except for Bart Ehrman!).
I had it out with him initially over the premise that ancient law codes like Deuteronomy were never taken as ironclad enforcement manifestos. They always had behind them the leeway permitted by local judges, who had the discretion to enforce lesser penalties than the law code prescribed. I cited in this regard two leading scholars who had done detailed work on ancient law codes.
TMM's response? He said that Deuteronomy didn't "sound like" it allowed any leeway, it sounded like it wanted penalties literally enforced. He further presented himself as "critically engaging" the views of the scholars who disagreed with him.
TMM is just one of several fundy atheists at YouTube with this kind of attitude. It has gotten into their brains that just because they can get on YouTube and make pronouncements, this means that their pronouncements are automatically as good as those of experts who have studied their subjects for years.
Of course, experts are not always right, as Nichols points out. I would be the first to say so too, since I've taken on the likes of Ehrman more than once. However, to do so, I always rely on the testimony of other experts who are on the same level as Ehrman. I never rely solely on my own knowledge (unless the matter touches on something related to my expertise). Arrogant producers like TMM don't think they need the help of counter-experts. They think they are experts simply because they showed up and opened their mouths.
One final word. Before you atheists get too happy, keep in mind that Nichols reads this as a society-wide problem. You'll have the same problem convincing Christians that Richard Dawkins actually deserves the time of day when it comes to evolution. It's not a pleasant experience, now, is it?
Want to see this paradigm in action? Hop on over to YouTube.
The past week or so, I've been having it out with a fundy atheist there who styles himself, "The Messianic Manic" or TMM. Who is he? There's not a clue anywhere. His name is unknown. His credentials are unknown. He plays music, and he makes videos that are little better than PowerPoint slides which he narrates. They likely take him no more than five minutes to make, and he never, ever cites a scholarly source for his criticisms of the Bible (except for Bart Ehrman!).
I had it out with him initially over the premise that ancient law codes like Deuteronomy were never taken as ironclad enforcement manifestos. They always had behind them the leeway permitted by local judges, who had the discretion to enforce lesser penalties than the law code prescribed. I cited in this regard two leading scholars who had done detailed work on ancient law codes.
TMM's response? He said that Deuteronomy didn't "sound like" it allowed any leeway, it sounded like it wanted penalties literally enforced. He further presented himself as "critically engaging" the views of the scholars who disagreed with him.
TMM is just one of several fundy atheists at YouTube with this kind of attitude. It has gotten into their brains that just because they can get on YouTube and make pronouncements, this means that their pronouncements are automatically as good as those of experts who have studied their subjects for years.
Of course, experts are not always right, as Nichols points out. I would be the first to say so too, since I've taken on the likes of Ehrman more than once. However, to do so, I always rely on the testimony of other experts who are on the same level as Ehrman. I never rely solely on my own knowledge (unless the matter touches on something related to my expertise). Arrogant producers like TMM don't think they need the help of counter-experts. They think they are experts simply because they showed up and opened their mouths.
One final word. Before you atheists get too happy, keep in mind that Nichols reads this as a society-wide problem. You'll have the same problem convincing Christians that Richard Dawkins actually deserves the time of day when it comes to evolution. It's not a pleasant experience, now, is it?
Comments
A woman at Church once told me "I don't need that Greek garbage I have the bible."
who is Tom Nichols?
Evolutionists have known this is a problem for many years, JP; you are not telling us anything new. Joe might remember "ferengi" on CARM who epitomises this.
In fact I would suggest that the way creationists try to denigrate scientists has probably contributed to the problem. Not just them; climate change deniers and anti-vaxers are just as bad.
ferengi, those were the days my friend we thought they'd never end...
In fact I would suggest that the way creationists try to denigrate scientists has probably contributed to the problem. Not just them; climate change deniers and anti-vaxers are just as bad.
JPH is not a creationist,this is the result of a society that does not value learning. you can't lay it at the door of either side. The creationists sure do contribute and the climate deniers,and the atheists who mock and ridicule bible scholars these are all just symptoms.
Joe, I happen to have a higher level of academic achievement than you, plus peer-reviewed published papers IN SCIENCE, as well as a professional career. Compare that to your freshman-level courses in "science for liberal arts students" and "history of ideas". You're the one JP is talking about, not me. You're the ignoramus who acts like he knows it all.
Skeppo, Bart Ehrman isn't much better than Acharya S when it comes to being a source about the Historical Jesus. Yet, people still use them for some reason.
sorry JB I have to disagree iwth you there
Joe, I happen to have a higher level of academic achievement than you,
so you actually got your Ph,D ? where? I don't think you have a masters much less Ph.D.
plus peer-reviewed published papers IN SCIENCE,
I ran a peer reviewed journal. give me the source on your publications
as well as a professional career.
Unless you were a professor that is not academic
Compare that to your freshman-level courses in "science for liberal arts students"
You are only hurting yourself here, First that was not a freshman level never said that. it was senior level. Secondly I took it as an undergraduate,stupid,
and "history of ideas". You're the one JP is talking about, not me. You're the ignoramus who acts like he knows it all.
history of ideas is a valid academic discipline it has major thinkers in it, it's just showing us how irnogant you are Jethroe,
- You're the one who couldn't manage to get your degree, Joe. I didn't have that problem.
I ran a peer reviewed journal. give me the source on your publications
- I've seen it. It's a blog for poetry and opinion. It most definitely isn't any kind of scientific journal.
Unless you were a professor that is not academic
- That just shows what you know (which is NOTHING). Do you have any idea how much academic research is produced by government and private industry? Obviously not. You don't have a clue, because you clearly have never participated in any such ventures.
You are only hurting yourself here, First that was not a freshman level never said that. it was senior level. Secondly I took it as an undergraduate,stupid,
- I took higher level science courses in HIGH SCHOOL, stupid.
history of ideas is a valid academic discipline it has major thinkers in it, it's just showing us how irnogant you are Jethroe,
- First it isn't the same as studying science, and second, the one course you took makes you think you are some kind of expert, who is exactly the kind of person this post is about, Bubba.
so you actually got your Ph,D ? where? I don't think you have a masters much less Ph.D.
- You're the one who couldn't manage to get your degree, Joe. I didn't have that problem.
you don;t have one do you? if so tell me where its from? I passed the qualifiyuing exan with the highest score in the history of the department. one professor on committeeman said i did better on the oral than anyone he's seen, so I should have. It it was not school related reasons that prevented it.
I ran a peer reviewed journal. give me the source on your publications
- I've seen it. It's a blog for poetry and opinion. It most definitely isn't any kind of scientific journal.
Poetry is bud hu? it can't have any value cause it not science but you don[t have any asceticism, numerology worship science, it does not surprise that you think real academic work is mere opinion,
Unless you were a professor that is not academic
- That just shows what you know (which is NOTHING). Do you have any idea how much academic research is produced by government and private industry? Obviously not. You don't have a clue, because you clearly have never participated in any such ventures.
you have nothing,obviously your contribution to society has been nothing, you say what it is otherwise,
You are only hurting yourself here, First that was not a freshman level never said that. it was senior level. Secondly I took it as an undergraduate,stupid,
- I took higher level science courses in HIGH SCHOOL, stupid.
higher level courses in hard science do not qualify you to talk about ideas, you don;t know shit about ideas, you loath and totally disrespect all the disciplines that study ideas,so you know nothing about ideas,
history of ideas is a valid academic discipline it has major thinkers in it, it's just showing us how irnogant you are Jethroe,
- First it isn't the same as studying science, and second, the one course you took makes you think you are some kind of expert, who is exactly the kind of person this post is about, Bubba.
science does not qualify you to talk about philosophy of science,science does not make you worthy. It's not a matter of being worthy, It's a matter of what you know and you don[t knkow.
knowing what vernal equinox is does not mean you understand what paradigm shifts are
11/06/2017 07:22:00 AM Delete
are you as bad in science as you are in math? you see four astronomy, geomorphology,and the science for liberal arts and you go "one." It's not one science class it's six,
ok now let;s get out of insult mode,i know i should have said that you were like the guys JPH was talking about, that was wrong.
Oh dear, mouthing off in ignorance as usual. Read what I wrote carefully: "In The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols declares that respect for experts is at an all time low." I didn't say I was telling you anything new, Mr. Mental: What Nichols says is new is the EXTENT AND DEGREE to which experts are not respected. Next time try reading carefully before you mouth off in search of a giggly-girl gotcha quote to repair your damaged self-esteem.
Good parody, that's exactly what an ignorant fundy atheist would say! I commend your acting skills as usual. The obvious answer is that I use sources with credentials equal to or greater than Ehrman's. Of course, Ehrman himself often runs his trap well outside his specialization (textual criticism). He's not a "historian" at all; he's a Biblical scholar who specializes in textual transmission. But again, good parody: an ignorant fundy atheist wouldn't know the difference.
- No. Let's be honest. The only credentials you respect are theism. You automatically reject everything that doesn't agree with your own superstitions.
- Well, Mr. expert. You don't seem to have your facts straight. Ehrman is a historian of early Christianity - up to the fourth century, and not strictly a biblical scholar. But I never expected to hear any real facts from you, because you're not an expert in anything.
https://www.bartdehrman.com/barts-biography/
BART D. EHRMAN
PH.D., M.DIV.
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He began his teaching career at Rutgers University, and joined the faculty in the Department of Religious Studies at UNC in 1988, where he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department.
Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. An expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, has written or edited thirty books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. In addition to works of scholarship, Professor Ehrman has written several textbooks for undergraduate students and trade books for general audiences. Five of his books have been on the New York Times Bestseller list: Misquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus Interrupted; Forged; and How Jesus Became God. His books have been translated into twenty-seven languages.