Facts, Appearances, and Professor Peterson

[Analytics]

Ruskin said:

The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions.

The purpose of this thread is to make a fact-and-demonstration based evaluation of the quality of Dr. Peterson's apologetics.

I implore everyone to refrain from prejudging Dr. Peterson and his work on this thread. No name calling, sarcasm, witticisms, attacks, etc. Rather, the thread is dedicated to making a fair and substantial evaluation of the question at hand: what is the quality of Dr. Peterson's apologetics?

I'm going to propose a specific methodology for evaluating this question, and everyone who would like to make an honest and fair analysis according to the methodology I am going to detail is welcome to weigh in.

But before I detail the approach, I need a several volunteers to give me a random number between 1 and 39. A limit of one number per volunteer, please.

[Arrakis]

13

[Stormy Waters]

21

[malkie]

import random
print random.randint(1,39)
38

Of course, that's only pseudo-random - is that good enough?

[malkie]

Sorry, Analytics, I seem to have killed quite a few threads lately - I hope I haven't been the kiss of death on this one. (;=(

[Stormy Waters]

Sorry, Analytics, I seem to have killed quite a few threads lately - I hope I haven't been the kiss of death on this one. (;=(

It's because you used pseudo random numbers... it probably ruined everything.

[Doctor Scratch]

2.

And I have to admit, I'm very curious to see how this develops, since Dr. P. seldom ever does "apologetics" in the strictest sense. Normally, that sort of work gets delegated off to other people.

[sock puppet]

27

[Gadianton]

23

(obtained by adding up all the digits of the article number on a USPS delivery notice before the long string of zeroes start.)

[cwald]

25

[Gunnar]

12

[RayAgostini]

The purpose of this thread is to make a fact-and-demonstration based evaluation of the quality of Dr. Peterson's apologetics.

I implore everyone to refrain from prejudging Dr. Peterson and his work on this thread. No name calling, sarcasm, witticisms, attacks, etc. Rather, the thread is dedicated to making a fair and substantial evaluation of the question at hand: what is the quality of Dr. Peterson's apologetics?

Which is sort of like asking the denizens here for their opinion on whether Dr. Peterson has stopped beating his wife.

The question isn't whether he's capable of beating his wife, or whether he's inclined to beat his wife, but the hypothetical:

In your perception, do you think that Dr. Peterson beats his wife?

A little bit of sanctimoniousness rubs off on you well, Analytical.

Or in other words, let's not verbally denigrate Dan Peterson, while we continue to to find all the ways and means to denigrate him. An apostate point-scoring system seems like the way to go!

Let's vote!!

[RayAgostini]

The echo-chamber goes full steam ahead.

Lead by "Analytics".

[Kittens_and_Jesus]

23

(obtained by adding up all the digits of the article number on a USPS delivery notice before the long string of zeroes start.)

The Law of Fives rears its ugly head again.

[DrW]

9

May not be random, but it is a number between 1 and 39.

[Elphaba]

1

[Analytics]

The objective of this research project is to describe the quality of Dr. Peterson’s writings and as objectively as possible, given each essay a score on a scale from 0 to 6. The scale is taken from Paul Graham’s seminal essay, “How to Disagree.”

I encourage you to read the actual essay but in summary, the seven rankings are:

0 Points: Name Calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and includes anything from shrieking “echo-chamber” to eruditely pronouncing, “The author is a self-important dilettante.”

1 Point: Ad Hominem. This category of argument is especially important because of the frequency of the allegation. Quoting Paul Graham, An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

“Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

“This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

“Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.”

2 Points: Responding to tone: Responding to tone means you criticize the way somebody says something, rather than the ideas themselves.

3 Points: Contradiction: This is the lowest level that actually deals with ideas. However, it merely states the contradictory opinion, but doesn’t offer any evidence.

4 Points: Counterargument: Counterargument is offering a contradicting opinion, supported by reason and evidence.

5 Points: Refutation: To refute an argument, you need to quote or paraphrase the person you are critiquing, and then provide evidence for why it is wrong. “While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.”

6 Points: Refuting the Central Point: This is the way to soundly discredit something in a detailed review. You have to identify the central point, and refute it with evidence. “Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.”

To be continued….

[sock puppet]

So, if I had picked 1, you'd expect no more than ad hominem?

[Analytics]

There are a total of 39 issues of Farms Review published between its inception in 1989 and the final issue in 2011. Everybody who volunteered a random number is assigned to review the introduction to the corresponding issue.

Of the ten introductions randomly chosen, seven were written by Daniel C. Peterson, two by Louis Midgley, and one by George L. Mitton. The three essays not written by Dr. Peterson will be considered the control group: is the level of argumentation Dr. Peterson offers specific to him, or is it endemic to the editorship of the Review?

Your job is to evaluate the Introduction to the review to which you are assigned. Your evaluation should meet the following guidelines:

1. Focus on the essay itself—not the gentleman who wrote it
2. Be fair
3. Identify the person or people with whom the author is taking issue
4. Conclude by giving the essay a score of 0 to 6 on Graham’s scale
5. Be under 1,000 words

In terms of being fair, I presume that each of these essays have elements of positive parts (e.g. talking about positive ideas and lauding the scholarly achievements of their world), and negative elements (i.e. responding to and criticizing critics and others). While the main focus is on how the author responds to the critics in each essay, please indicate how much of the introduction in aggregate is negative.

For extra credit, you may write reviews of other essays, but all reviews must be limited to the following 10 essays. The assignments are:

Elphaba: Introduction to Volume 1, Issue 1
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... num=1&id=1

Doctor Scratch: Introduction to Volume 2, Issue 1
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... um=1&id=21

DrW: Introduction to Volume 7, Issue 2
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=186

Gunnar: Introduction to Volume 9, Issue 1
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=236

Arrakis: Introduction to Volume 9, Issue 2
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=256

Story Waters: Introduction to Volume 13, Issue 2
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=381

Gadianton: Introduction to Volume 15, Issue 1 (Louis Midgley)
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=482

cwald: Introduction to Volume 16, Issue 1 (George L. Mitton)
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=521

sock puppet: Introduction to Volume 17, Issue 1 (Louis Midgley)
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... l=17&num=1

malkie: Introduction to Volume 22, Issue 2
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=803

[Analytics]

import random
print random.randint(1,39)
38

Of course, that's only pseudo-random - is that good enough?

The good news is that I flipped a coin to determine the precise moment I posted the OP, so presuming your random number generator uses your computer's clock to generate the seed, the number should still be sufficiently random for our purposes.

[cwald]

Sounds fair.