PDA

View Full Version : Jonathan Sarfati - Logician or the greatest hoax on earth?



Rincewind
13-03-2010, 11:02 AM
In the marketing for Jono's latest book the claim is made that Jono is a logician.


Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, ...

Now my claim is that Jono is not any sort of logician and the use of the Dr title in that sentence is misleading which at the very least should mention that Sarfati earned his doctorate in physical chemistry. The omission of chemist and the inclusion of logician is (I argue) and deliberate attempt to mislead.

Regardless of whether you agree the claim was a deliberate attempt to mislead, I thought it would be interesting to see who thought it was fine to call oneself whatever we want to publish a book.

A logician is a specialist in the field of either philosophy or mathematics*. I personally know a professor of logic and have met a few others and they are generally serious and very clever people who have devoted their careers and a good deal of their life to the study of logic, including the discovery of new contributions. They are not people who simply use logic any more than someone who uses a car can call themselves a mechanic.

Anyway, that is what I think and now it's time to see what you think. Poll will be public.


* edit: possibly also computer science and linguistics.

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2010, 03:07 PM
In the marketing for Jono's latest book the claim is made that Jono is a logician.


Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, ...

Now my claim is that Jono is not any sort of logician and the use of the Dr title in that sentence is misleading which at the very least should mention that Sarfati earned his doctorate in physical chemistry. The omission of chemist and the inclusion of logician is (I argue) and deliberate attempt to mislead.
Obviously, the Dr referred to the first in that list: scientist. It didn't refer to chessmaster or author either. If people want to find out the field of my doctorate, they merely need to read the About the Author page (http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/about-the-author.php). Indeed, the OCD RW is giving far more publicity to the Logician angle than this page, so thanks :P

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 03:21 PM
Obviously, the Dr referred to the first in that list: scientist.

As many people would include logic as a branch of science that is not so. If you were interested in accuracy you should have said

"Chemist, chessmaster and author..."

You have a qualification as a chemist and chessmaster and rate as an author through publishing books. The claim of logician implies a level of skill with logic you do not possess.


It didn't refer to chessmaster or author either.

Of course not since chessmaster and authors don't require PhDs. However most professional logicians do possess PhDs and could be classified as scientists.


If people want to find out the field of my doctorate, they merely need to read the About the Author page (http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/about-the-author.php).

The point is you should not misrepresent yourself at all so that people HAVE to do further research to discern fact from fiction in your marketing guff.


Indeed, the OCD RW is giving far more publicity to the Logician angle than this page, so thanks :P

Any time you want me to point out embarrassing misrepresentations you have wilfully engaged in, just let me know. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2010, 03:28 PM
You have a qualification as a chemist and chessmaster and rate as an author through publishing books. The claim of logician implies a level of skill with logic you do not possess.
One can have skill without formal qualifications. Similarly, some chessplayers with FM skill (2300+ rating) don't bother to apply for the title, and others with the title have never had the skill.


The point is you should not misrepresent yourself at all not should people HAVE to do further research
Further research? Looking up "about the Author" with a mouse-click might count as onerous research for you, but probably not to most people.


to discern fact from fiction in your marketing guff.
I did not misrepresent myself, since someone else wrote that, and evidently used the lay understanding of the word "logician", as documented by Snail King:


Logician:
1. A practitioner of a system of logic.
2. A student or scholar of logic.
(ref: the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Logician:
a person who specializes in or is skilled at logic
(ref: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003)

Logician:
a person skilled at symbolic logic
(ref: www.thefreedictionary.com/logician)


Any time you want me to point out embarrassing misrepresentations you have wilfully engaged in, just let me know. ;)
Go for your life (maybe start with my new book, the subject of your recent flare-up in obsessive behaviour). When has anyone else here been obsessive enough to start a whole poll about a ChessChat member (at least one in good standing).

I also don't see the marketing material for the Dawk pointing out that his doctorate was in animal behaviour, for example.

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 04:47 PM
One can have skill without formal qualifications. Similarly, some chessplayers with FM skill (2300+ rating) don't bother to apply for the title, and others with the title have never had the skill.

No but they can either substantiate the claim or not by results, ratings and other objective measures. In your case you have no qualification, no experience and no objective claim to the term logician whatsoever.


Further research? Looking up "about the Author" with a mouse-click might count as onerous research for you, but probably not to most people.

The point is the statement is misleading particularly in the way that sentence was framed on that page. Saying the qualification is outlined elsewhere does not give you license to misrepresent yourself.


I did not misrepresent myself, since someone else wrote that, and evidently used the lay understanding of the word "logician", as documented by Snail King:


Logician:
1. A practitioner of a system of logic.
2. A student or scholar of logic.
(ref: the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Logician:
a person who specializes in or is skilled at logic
(ref: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003)

Logician:
a person skilled at symbolic logic
(ref: www.thefreedictionary.com/logician)

As I stated, when I answered Snail King's post of the same none of these definitions apply to you any more than the average person. In the marketing of the book you claim to be a logician and thus claim to have some particular knowledge or skill in logic which is total absent from your CV, either in qualification or experience. Claiming to be a logician is simply untrue.


Go for your life (maybe start with my new book, the subject of your recent flare-up in obsessive behaviour). When has anyone else here been obsessive enough to start a whole poll about a ChessChat member (at least one in good standing).

When you publish a book and make claims in the publicity of the same which are completely untrue you should expect some backlash from people who care about the truth and particularly (as I said) those from that or related disciplines.

As a mathematician and someone interested in fact over fiction, I am outraged that you would make such a false representation. Clearly other posters also believe your claim should be retracted including a PhD student in philosophy.

The purpose of the poll was to see what other people thought as I also care about that.


I also don't see the marketing material for the Dawk pointing out that his doctorate was in animal behaviour, for example.

I'm neither writing or checking Dawkin's publicity but I haven't seen him claiming to be anything other than a zoologist.

In any case, even if Dawkins had made misrepresentations in his publicity, it would not give you license for your present untruth.

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2010, 05:00 PM
As I stated, when I answered Snail King's post of the same none of these definitions apply to you any more than the average person.
They do so. The average person would not be a student of logic or skilled in formal logic. In any case, even if it fits an "average person", it would not make it false for me.


In the marketing of the book you claim to be a logician and thus claim to have some particular knowledge or skill in logic which is total absent from your CV, either in qualification or experience.
There's no pleasing atheopaths like you. Yes, it is omitted from my CV which lists only formal qualifications. For an informal description, it fits the dictionary definition.


As a mathematician and someone interested in fact over fiction, I am outraged that you would make such a false representation. Clearly other posters also believe your claim should be retracted including a PhD student in philosophy.
He might have some justification, but the description was never "formally qualified logician" or some such, and he is not a little biased anyway.


The purpose of the poll was to see what other people thought as I also care about that.
I don't. I don't care what an obsessive atheopath like you thinks, or what a schoolgirl like AzureBlue thinks (cf. A Childish Letter (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081798.html) by Dr Thomas Sowell).

Garrett
13-03-2010, 05:04 PM
A logician is a specialist in the field of either philosophy or mathematics*.

So says you. Dictionary.com says nothing of the sort.



* edit: possibly also computer science and linguistics.

Now you are starting to sound unsure and indecisive. On a lighter side, I have a masters degree in IT so maybe I can start calling myself a logician.

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 05:17 PM
They do so. The average person would not be a student of logic or skilled in formal logic. In any case, even if it fits an "average person", it would not make it false for me.

Clearly if you claim to be a logician in the blurb of the book you are making some representation as to why this book should be taken seriously. Logician is totally out of place and a misrepresentation of who you are.


There's no pleasing atheopaths like you. Yes, it is omitted from my CV which lists only formal qualifications. For an informal description, it fits the dictionary definition.

No it doesn't and you have no objective evidence that your skill and understanding of logic is any more refined than anyone else's.


He might have some justification, but the description was never "formally qualified logician" or some such, and he is not a little biased anyway.

Anyone interested in the truth has justification to be outraged by such misleading statements. other posters on the board who don't regularly participate in religious debate give a good barometer of general public opinion and not just that of the rationalists vs the religious.


I don't. I don't care what an obsessive atheopath like you thinks, or what a schoolgirl like AzureBlue.

Looks like your fast and loose ways with the truth are only matched by your arrogance. I congratulate you! :clap:

The truth is you are not interested in the opinion of anyone with a alternative point of view. If you were you would have seen YEC for the sham it is years ago. (c.f. tens of thousands of geologists can't all be wrong.)

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 05:26 PM
So says you. Dictionary.com says nothing of the sort.

Dictionary.com is hardly a reliable source. But even so even that definition does not apply to Jono in any notable way.

Further in the context of Jono's marketing statement he was listing logician up there with scientist and chessmaster both of which he is well justified in claiming.


Now you are starting to sound unsure and indecisive.

No just qualifying my statement with a wider view of logician. Traditionally logic was the realm of maths and phil, but computer science and linguistics are also related.


On a lighter side, I have a masters degree in IT so maybe I can start calling myself a logician.

You probably couldn't in any meaningful way but you would at least have a stronger claim than Jono since IT is at least related to computer science.

CameronD
13-03-2010, 05:31 PM
Whats wrong with you people. Attacking each other for no reason whatever.

You all need to get a life and a purpose.

Why dont you congratulate Jono for writing a book or keep quiet.

ps I havnt read the book and probably wont as it sounds way to academic and scientific for me. I have no confidence in science as its mostly people twisting things to fit what they think. Chances are the big-bang theory will be supersided in the next 50 years for something else.

------------------------------------------------------

I read in wiki on the Jono section

Ezekiel 18:20, which prohibits executing a child for the crime of his/her father — this means that even the tragic cases of pregnancies due to incest or rape are no justification for killing the innocent child conceived."

attributed to Jono

Yet Joshua 7 has children ordered to be killed by God for the actions of a single man.

24 Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold wedge, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, "Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today."
Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them. 26 Over Achan they heaped up a large pile of rocks, which remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from his fierce anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor [i] ever since.

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 05:39 PM
Whats wrong with you people. Attacking each other for no reason whatever.

Are you saying misrepresentation should go unchallenged because it is unseemly to criticise? That sounds like a tyranny of silence.

All I'm asking in this thread if Jono is a logician. People can either agree or disagree according to their judgement or sensibilities.

Desmond
13-03-2010, 06:57 PM
I notice that THE voted for the rectraction option. I think, from memory, he knows a thing or two about logic.

As for me I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. If it's another "preaching to the converted" book I doubt it will have much effect on who reads it and what conclusions they draw.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-03-2010, 08:12 PM
The whole thread looks stupid for the following reason:

1. These sorts of attack looks like nothing but petty grievance. (that's why I am not going to debate in this thread).

2. RW on quite a few occasions demonstrated gaping lack of logic (I won't quote to spare the embarrassment). While making mistakes is understandable and excusable (especially when they are acknowledged), attacking Jono on pretence he is not strong in logic is nothing but laughable.

Hobbes
13-03-2010, 08:36 PM
http://tinyurl.com/gb5ht

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2010, 08:42 PM
How about "amateur logician" or "logic buff"? I think a construction along those lines would have been fine (a la "amateur historian") but trying to claim to be a logician without any formal credentials, professional experience or indications of objective skill is stretching it a bit.

that Caesar guy
13-03-2010, 09:00 PM
http://tinyurl.com/gb5ht
LOL. That is all I have to say.

Rincewind
13-03-2010, 09:30 PM
How about "amateur logician" or "logic buff"? I think a construction along those lines would have been fine (a la "amateur historian") but trying to claim to be a logician without any formal credentials, professional experience or indications of objective skill is stretching it a bit.

I think either of the the expressions in the first sentence is fine.

Rincewind
14-03-2010, 09:26 AM
I think either of the the expressions in the first sentence is fine.

Upon reflection I think "logic buff" is better. "Amateur logician" implies someone who does what a logician does but in their spare time and without formal training and that seems less accurate in this case.

Tony Dowden
14-03-2010, 09:42 AM
Whats wrong with you people. Attacking each other for no reason whatever.

You all need to get a life and a purpose.

Why dont you congratulate Jono for writing a book or keep quiet.



:clap: :clap: Yes ... what is the problem?

Rincewind
14-03-2010, 09:51 AM
:clap: :clap: Yes ... what is the problem?

You mean apart from it being untrue?

I'm no lawyer but false representation and misleading conduct regarding the supply of goods is (I'm reasonably sure) against the law in many jurisdictions.

In this case it is being claimed that the book was written by a logician - it wasn't.

Spiny Norman
14-03-2010, 01:01 PM
As I stated, when I answered Snail King's post of the same none of these definitions apply to you any more than the average person. In the marketing of the book you claim to be a logician and thus claim to have some particular knowledge or skill in logic which is total absent from your CV, either in qualification or experience. Claiming to be a logician is simply untrue.
Your statement "none of these definitions apply to you [Jono] more than the average person" is hilarious. As evidenced by his posting record here, Jono references rules of logic more than any other person I can name, so even in such rarified air as this sheltered workshop we call Chess Chat, where higher degrees (Ph.D's no less) are found in abundance, he leads the pack when it comes to references to and the use of logic.

If you reasonably compare Jono to "the average person" (instead of intellectual elites represented on Chess Chat) it becomes quite apparent that you are ignoring plain facts and have somehow constructed for yourself a fantasy world in which Jono is some kind of atheistic Antichrist and can therefore do nothing right in your eyes.

You're becoming a Quixotic character, tilting at windmills, finding conspiracies where there are none. Get a grip man!

black
14-03-2010, 03:05 PM
I agree with Rincewind.

Rincewind
14-03-2010, 04:44 PM
Your statement "none of these definitions apply to you [Jono] more than the average person" is hilarious. As evidenced by his posting record here, Jono references rules of logic more than any other person I can name, so even in such rarified air as this sheltered workshop we call Chess Chat, where higher degrees (Ph.D's no less) are found in abundance, he leads the pack when it comes to references to and the use of logic.

Yes and perhaps his use of a motor vehicle is also exemplary, however his use of logic does not make him a logician no more than his use of a motor vehicle makes him a mechanic.

If Jono is a logician I challenge him to outline his contribution to the field of logic. It's not an unfair question and I'm sure he would have no trouble with doing the same with regard physical chemistry.

As far as his record here he has demonstrated the knowledge of a few Latin terms for various fallacies and syllogisms but apart from that I can't think of any remarkable knowledge of logic in his posts generally. Although I have to admit I don;t read most of his extreme right-wing political nonsense.


If you reasonably compare Jono to "the average person" (instead of intellectual elites represented on Chess Chat) it becomes quite apparent that you are ignoring plain facts and have somehow constructed for yourself a fantasy world in which Jono is some kind of atheistic Antichrist and can therefore do nothing right in your eyes.

You seem intent on this diversion into amateur psychology rather than arguing the facts but let's digress briefly...

Perhaps considering the circles you move in, chess chat may seem like some kind of intelligentsia. However, when almost everyone you work with has a PhD or higher degree, it gets old pretty fast. In any regard I would challenge the assertion that the mix of people on Chess Chat is all that removed from the average population.

As far as posters with PhD's go I can only think of around half a dozen, many of whom don't post regularly and in particular haven't posted in this thread.


You're becoming a Quixotic character, tilting at windmills, finding conspiracies where there are none. Get a grip man!

Conspiracies? I think you will have to substantiate that claim with evidence that I am putting forward a conspiracy theory.

All I claim is that Jono and/or his publisher have made a misleading statement in the marketing of his latest book. No need to invoke any conspiracy.

Spiny Norman
14-03-2010, 06:14 PM
Yes and perhaps his use of a motor vehicle is also exemplary, however his use of logic does not make him a logician no more than his use of a motor vehicle makes him a mechanic.
Correcting your faulty analogies is getting rather tiresome. If you can't see what's wrong with thinking that the reason a mechanic is called a mechanic is because they use a motor vehicle, then you're sillier than I thought. Mechanics are called thusly because they repair motor vehicles, not because they use (drive) one.

I am quite a good driver (excellent record over 25 years). I'm not a mechanic because I know nothing about how cars work and how to fix them when they are broken. I'm not a home mechanic. I'm not a bush mechanic. My next door neighbour though is a mechanic, as he fixes his cars himself, even though he is not qualified. The guy down the road, wher I take my car to be serviced and fixed, is a mechanic too ... he's a qualified mechanic. Both my neighbour and the guy down the road are mechanics.

Now if you want to make an argument that logicians should only be called logicians when they <insert your criteria here>, rather than just being people who are one of the following:

1) people who use logic (not just run-of-the-mill "if this, then that", but actually using and understanding the principles and rules of logic in an explicit way, as Jono does); or
2) people who study logic; or
3) people who have completed their studies and have a formal qualification in logic

which I documented quite thoroughly by means of standard dictionary definition, then go right ahead, and submit it to the compilers of dictionaries ... and when both the dictionaries and standard English word usage change over to use your criteria, I won't have anything to argue with you about.

Rincewind
14-03-2010, 07:53 PM
To repeat...

If Jono is a logician I challenge him to outline his contribution to the field of logic. It's not an unfair question and I'm sure he would have no trouble with doing the same with regard physical chemistry.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 12:35 PM
I agree with Rincewind.
From a guy who even whinged about the "chessmaster" epithet (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=273287#post273287) (unlike RW), this means diddly.

Spiny Norman
15-03-2010, 04:39 PM
If Jono is a logician I challenge him to outline his contribution to the field of logic. It's not an unfair question ...
It might not be unfair, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Tony Dowden
15-03-2010, 07:42 PM
You mean apart from it being untrue?

I'm no lawyer but false representation and misleading conduct regarding the supply of goods is (I'm reasonably sure) against the law in many jurisdictions.

In this case it is being claimed that the book was written by a logician - it wasn't.

No, I don't mean apart from it being untrue. Because it manifestly isn't. It appears that I was much too optimistic to hope that you would concede that were wrong to mount an uncalled for attack on the character of another ChessChatter.

I'm not interested in participating in this poll either. But do let me know if you decide to run another poll on whether its OK to attack the charcter of another person because their world view doesn't exactly agree with yours. That would be interesting.

arosar
15-03-2010, 08:04 PM
This has got to be one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Anyways, I get Rincey's general point, but I have to find myself agreeing with Igor's first point to be honest. I mean, c'mon, we're all friends here you know.

Look, didn't we have a discussion a coupla years ago about 'marketing puff'? Maybe that's an appropriate description of 'logician' in this context. I think most people will think of "logician" as simply someone who uses the tools of logic. Considering Jono's line of work (leaving aside what you think of it), most people will accept this without controversy. Lawyers, for instance, are a whole bunch of people who use logic. If they call themselves logicians, I really couldn't give a stuff. I just take that to mean that they use rules of logic. That's it.

Rincey, is there a department of logic in the same way that there is a department of, say, chemistry? I ask this question because I hadn't actually realised that there's a group of folks out there who could be potentially affronted by Jono's description of himself as being among them.

AR

Goughfather
15-03-2010, 08:28 PM
I must confess that I don't know of any lawyers calling themselves logicians, let alone doing so for the blurb of a book. Perhaps they are able to stand upon their actual qualifications?

Maybe we should open the floor to suggesting which titles may indeed be appropriate:

Propagandist?
Polemicist?
Pariah?
Prophet?
Parody?

Honestly, Rincewind, don't you think you're getting a little too worked up about this? Jono is simply employing the same type of literalism that he uses in his interpretation of the Bible. And while he may be stretching the truth when using the term in a context that most people would believe refers to formal qualifications, he is only employing the same level of honesty that his literalist audience expect from their apologists. It is a niche book preaching to those already converted to Young Earth Creationism and to those who are unlikely to change their perspective any time soon. Greater tragedies exist.

Rincewind
15-03-2010, 09:14 PM
It might not be unfair, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Not at all. I'm sure Jono would be among the first to jump down the throat of an author claiming to be a chemist without making some sort of contribution to chemistry.

If Jono is really a noteworthy logician then a contribution to logic is not out of keeping with the other descriptors deemed appropriate in that sentence (i.e. "scientist", "chessmaster" and "author").

Rincewind
15-03-2010, 09:19 PM
No, I don't mean apart from it being untrue. Because it manifestly isn't. It appears that I was much too optimistic to hope that you would concede that were wrong to mount an uncalled for attack on the character of another ChessChatter.

I've not attacked Jono's character (in the present debate) beyond pointing out that I think the sentence is misleading and untrue and hopeful that Jono would realise this and amend it.

Unlike you and Frosty, I haven't descended into and amateur (and amateurish) psychoanalysis of motives. I simply desire the truth and am somewhat affronted that specious claims such as these detracts from the real contributions of some close friends and many colleagues.


I'm not interested in participating in this poll either. But do let me know if you decide to run another poll on whether its OK to attack the charcter of another person because their world view doesn't exactly agree with yours. That would be interesting.

Ah, again with the amateur(ish) pop psychology. The last defence of those without a point.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 09:24 PM
I must confess that I don't know of any lawyers calling themselves logicians, let alone doing so for the blurb of a book.
There's probably a lawyer joke about this.


Honestly, Rincewind, don't you think you're getting a little too worked up about this? Jono is simply employing the same type of literalism that he uses in his interpretation of the Bible.
Yet evidently GF is using a very non-literal meaning of "literalism" if he describes the classic grammatical-historical approach of most Church Fathers and all the Reformers as that.


And while he may be stretching the truth when using the term in a context that most people would believe refers to formal qualifications,
Except, evidently, those who actually use a dictionary.


he is only employing the same level of honesty that his literalist audience expect from their apologists.
Well, the typical audience I have, which is considerable, expects great honesty from me. After all, they take seriously (GF might say "literally") God's command against false witness. But they wouldn't expect it from lawyer types.


It is a niche book preaching to those already converted to Young Earth Creationism and to those who are unlikely to change their perspective any time soon. Greater tragedies exist.
Actually, it's also designed to change people's minds. It has happened before. E.g. Richard F., Alberta, Canada, in a letter to CMI, received 30th January 2005, wrote the following:


A tattooed young man came to the mike and asked [the speaker]: "Do you believe in an old earth or a young earth?"
[The speaker] said that there were intelligent people on both sides and he was not going to get bogged down on that topic. The important topic he said is the resurrection of Jesus and not worry about Genesis.
After the service I approached the young man … He was not happy with [the speaker’s] answer. He said that he came to believe in a God and in Jesus as a result of reading Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Compromise.
He told me that for the last 15 years he had been an atheist and now he was half way through the book and as a result came to believe.
He mentioned how important he felt it was to believe in a young creation because of the difficulties associated with old earth belief and the effects of sin. A co-worker in the restaurant where he works had given him a copy of Refuting Compromise.

Of course, the likes of GF are more likely to accept everything Dawkins says uncritically.

Rincewind
15-03-2010, 09:37 PM
This has got to be one of the most entertaining threads ever.

As long as you are getting some cheap thrills, Amiel, it makes it all worthwhile.


Anyways, I get Rincey's general point, but I have to find myself agreeing with Igor's first point to be honest. I mean, c'mon, we're all friends here you know.

To be honest, I think Igor's position that it is unseemly to disagree is a bit counter-intellectual. If people publish a book then they put it out there to be read, discussed and opposing views to be aired. I must say one thing I can commend Jono on is that to my knowledge, he has never shied away from criticism. I like to think I annoy him sometimes, but in general I see where he is coming from and I think he sees me in a similar light.


Look, didn't we have a discussion a coupla years ago about 'marketing puff'? Maybe that's an appropriate description of 'logician' in this context. I think most people will think of "logician" as simply someone who uses the tools of logic. Considering Jono's line of work (leaving aside what you think of it), most people will accept this without controversy. Lawyers, for instance, are a whole bunch of people who use logic. If they call themselves logicians, I really couldn't give a stuff. I just take that to mean that they use rules of logic. That's it.

I know of no one other than practitioners of logicians (those who undertake scholarly study or by way of occupation) who would write a book describing themselves as a logician. Certainly some professions USE logic perhaps more than most but using logic does not qualify one as a logician just as using a car does not qualify one as a mechanic.


Rincey, is there a department of logic in the same way that there is a department of, say, chemistry? I ask this question because I hadn't actually realised that there's a group of folks out there who could be potentially affronted by Jono's description of himself as being among them.

Logic is not normally of a department size as it is a subdiscipline of (mainly) mathematics or philosophy (but nowadays sometimes also computer science and linguistics). There certainly are communities of logicians in maths and philosophy departments through Australia, New Zealand and the world who identify strongly with the term logician. There are logic conferences, associations of logicians and many peer-reviewed journals on logic and related disciplines. In fact, notable Australian chess player, Prof. Greg Hjorth is a logician in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Melbourne.

Rincewind
15-03-2010, 09:43 PM
Honestly, Rincewind, don't you think you're getting a little too worked up about this? Jono is simply employing the same type of literalism that he uses in his interpretation of the Bible. And while he may be stretching the truth when using the term in a context that most people would believe refers to formal qualifications, he is only employing the same level of honesty that his literalist audience expect from their apologists. It is a niche book preaching to those already converted to Young Earth Creationism and to those who are unlikely to change their perspective any time soon. Greater tragedies exist.

It's not that I don't appreciate the humour in what you write but to answer the question, perhaps I take this more personally than most because I work in mathematics and so I see it as a slight on the contribution of my friends and colleagues. Perhaps I really do just like people to tell the truth. But mostly I think these threads just take on a life of their own. People respond with their comments some of which I just wear but some of which seems misinformed and so I think take the time to explain to them the reason for my position.

Rest assured that I'm not losing too much sleep over it but I would like to see the book marketed on its merits and on the real qualifications and experience of its author.

Goughfather
15-03-2010, 10:33 PM
The rest of the post is not worth responding to, given that I've already pointed out the shortcomings of Jono's hermeneutic approach in the past, but I am astounded by this comment:


Of course, the likes of GF are more likely to accept everything Dawkins says uncritically.

If Jono really believes that, then he's either got me pegged wrong, or is just delusional. While "The God Delusion" was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, I'm sure I'm on the record as saying that I found Dawkins unconvincing, at least insofar as his theology and philosophy is concerned. I'm not qualified to speak with respect to his science, so cannot presume to comment.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 11:18 PM
The rest of the post is not worth responding to, given that I've already pointed out the shortcomings of Jono's hermeneutic approach in the past,
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: E.g. by making up Greek words that weren't even in the text in question! :lol: :lol: Or asserting biblical errors (http://creation.com/claimed-bible-errors) without the slightest evidence.


If Jono really believes that, then he's either got me pegged wrong, or is just delusional. While "The God Delusion" was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, I'm sure I'm on the record as saying that I found Dawkins unconvincing, at least insofar as his theology and philosophy is concerned. I'm not qualified to speak with respect to his science, so cannot presume to comment.
Seems very little difference for all practical purposes.

black
15-03-2010, 11:36 PM
From a guy who even whinged about the "chessmaster" epithet (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=273287#post273287) (unlike RW), this means diddly.

My question was valid. I know nothing about you and "chess master" is a title I'm not aware of. This does nothing to invalidate my unexplained reason for agreeing with Rincewind in this case.

There was no need to take my query about your title as some kind of personal attack. It's just that the term was vague and I was curious as to what it meant. When I had done a lazy search for your name, and seen next to the (wrong) name that it was not titled, and only around 2000, I posted that and asked if it was so.

It turns out that you're an FM. Good for you. That's all I wanted to know with my post there. (Maybe people, including yourself, have taken my post the wrong way due to your fame here. Sorry, I had no idea who you were or what your title was.)

Rincewind
16-03-2010, 06:32 AM
It turns out that you're an FM. Good for you. That's all I wanted to know with my post there. (Maybe people, including yourself, have taken my post the wrong way due to your fame here. Sorry, I had no idea who you were or what your title was.)

Which is why one should be careful with the claims one makes in the marketing of (let's say) books.

Desmond
16-03-2010, 08:47 AM
I think the choice of words "chessmaster" is perfectly reasonable. I mean if it were a chess book you might elaborate on which particular master title it is, but I would think that would only confuse things here, not clarify them.

TheJoker
16-03-2010, 11:01 AM
I am interested to know why the term Christian Apologist was eschewed in favour of scientist, chessmaster and logician. As this is your primary career is it not?

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2010, 11:22 AM
I am interested to know why the term Christian Apologist was eschewed in favour of scientist, chessmaster and logician. As this is your primary career is it not?
Yet scientist reflects my earned Ph.D., and chessmaster is a colloquial and accurate description of an FM, and logician applies in its dictionary definition. Lots of people don't know what apologist (http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers)means—they think it means Steve Fielding apologizing for being a Christian on the ABC with Dawko.

TheJoker
16-03-2010, 11:43 AM
Yet scientist reflects my earned Ph.D., and chessmaster is a colloquial and accurate description of an FM, and logician applies in its dictionary definition. Lots of people don't know what apologist (http://creation.com/christian-apologetics-questions-and-answers)means—they think it means Steve Fielding apologizing for being a Christian on the ABC with Dawko.

Fair enough, but a colloquial term such as "Defender of the Christian Faith" would seem to bridge that difficulty.

Isn't it important for your readers to know that you approach the subject from Christian Apologetics viewpoint.

Goughfather
16-03-2010, 01:45 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: E.g. by making up Greek words that weren't even in the text in question! :lol: :lol:

And yet you argued on the basis of my response for a number of weeks without even looking at the text, which seems to be in line with your general apologetic approach.


Or asserting biblical errors (http://creation.com/claimed-bible-errors) without the slightest evidence.

This is of course why I generally do not put up alleged errors for discussion. The apologist provides a half-assed response, then struts around like a peacock suggesting that the alleged error has been debunked, all the while oblivious to the fact that their intellectual gymnastics is only convincing to themselves and other literalists.


Seems very little difference for all practical purposes.

How do you figure this?

Rincewind
16-03-2010, 02:43 PM
...and logician applies in its dictionary definition.

Well look at enough dictionaries I'm sure you can find one that you believe fits. However there are two problems with that position.

First is the problem I point to in my first post. Scientist is a vague term and logician is a specific sort of scientist and thus the word ordering and use of the honorific "Dr" is misleading compared to say the perfectly reasonable sentence

Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author Professor Greg Hjorth, ...

The second problem with the dictionary defense is the definition you claim to be using is not a notable claim. Someone simply proficient in logic describes almost anyone in some sense and when it is embedded in with scientist, chessmaster and author you are dressing it up to a claim of comparable merit.

Now I trust you have made contributions to chemistry, I know of some of your contributions to chess and authorship. However it is clear that your claim to the term logician is not remotely of comparable note.

Therefore I ask again of the self-proclaimed logician...

Please briefly outline your contribution to logic?

Rincewind
16-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Isn't it important for your readers to know that you approach the subject from Christian Apologetics viewpoint.

Given the website and publisher I think most potential customers would know the angle.

But I agree that "scientist" is not entirely accurate. However it is no where near as misleading as "logician."

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2010, 03:49 PM
Well look at enough dictionaries I'm sure you can find one that you believe fits.
Come off it. SK found several dictionaries with that meaning. I do use logic in my work, including an article and DVD on it. I am also skilled in propositional, predicate and modal logic but have no pieces of paper to prove it.


Someone simply proficient in logic describes almost anyone in some sense and when it is embedded in with scientist, chessmaster and author you are dressing it up to a claim of comparable merit.
But even certain critics didn't know the difference between validity and truth, for example.


Therefore I ask again of the self-proclaimed logician...
Actually, I didn't proclaim myself (at least not until you made a fuss so I put it in my sig :P). Rather, the one who proclaimed me such was a layman in the area, so would be thinking of the dictionary definition.

But once upon a time, someone overseas wanted to proclaim me a chess grandmaster, overrating the significance of blindfold simuls. I immediately stopped that, precisely because grandmaster has a well-defined meaning which is much higher than my level.

Adamski
16-03-2010, 04:56 PM
Actually, I didn't proclaim myself (at least not until you made a fuss so I put it in my sig :P). Rather, the one who proclaimed me such was a layman in the area, so would be thinking of the dictionary definition.

But once upon a time, someone overseas wanted to proclaim me a chess grandmaster, overrating the significance of blindfold simuls. I immediately stopped that, precisely because grandmaster has a well-defined meaning which is much higher than my level.:clap: :clap:

Garrett
16-03-2010, 05:51 PM
Well look at enough dictionaries I'm sure you can find one that you believe fits.

How many does it take before the claim becomes defensible ?

Actually, Dictionary.com cites two separate dictionary references.

Compare the entry for 'logician' with the entry for 'physicist'. Quite different, and I could see your point if Jono is proclaimed to be a physicist. But he's not.

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2010, 08:01 PM
Fair enough, but a colloquial term such as "Defender of the Christian Faith" would seem to bridge that difficulty.
Sure, I'll start doing that—when most evo writers start calling themselves "defenders of the atheistic faith".


Isn't it important for your readers to know that you approach the subject from Christian Apologetics viewpoint.
They'll never work this out from my writings, so why reveal this? :P

Rincewind
16-03-2010, 09:45 PM
Come off it. SK found several dictionaries with that meaning. I do use logic in my work, including an article and DVD on it. I am also skilled in propositional, predicate and modal logic but have no pieces of paper to prove it.

We only have your word for that and certainly your "skill" in logic has never been publicly demonstrated.

The article you mention (singular I assume so we're not arguing cross purposes) is simply the regurgitation of some undergraduate material for the benefit of those without any training whatsoever in logic. I assume the DVD is of a similar level. If so then neither contributed to the subject of logic and containing no new concepts or ideas. You simply had to borrow an undergraduate text and present the material it contained for a lay audience. That requires no notable skill in logic.

By way of analogy I could do the same by reading say a text on chess, or chemistry, it would not make me a chessmaster or a chemist.


But even certain critics didn't know the difference between validity and truth, for example.

If you're referring to F. C. Kuechmann, I'm not sure that the problem was that but rather the author underestimated the utility of the syllogism as a form of logical argument.

However the that article (your original one being reviewed in this instance and as mentioned above) was hardly the work of a logician. It was simply the regurgitation of undergraduate material on logic.


Actually, I didn't proclaim myself (at least not until you made a fuss so I put it in my sig :P). Rather, the one who proclaimed me such was a layman in the area, so would be thinking of the dictionary definition.

You will note that the post you are replying to was posted after you changed your signature, therefore your point is...

However this discussion was regarding some marketing for a book of which you are the author. As it is making misleading statements you should certainly be concerned even if you didn't script them.

If it was a review of the book by some 3rd party, (I have noticed you get some very unbiased people to pen reviews, like your boss) Then the remark should be attributed to them and they can take responsibility for their misleading statements.

Sounds to me like Carl has called you a logician so many times now that you have started to believe your own propaganda. But I guess that is an occupational hazard.

Rincewind
16-03-2010, 10:21 PM
How many does it take before the claim becomes defensible ?

How many what? Dictionaries?

As pointed out above there may exist dictionaries which say that a logician is someone who simply uses logic. But that would not make the statement regarding Jono's book any the less misleading and wrong.

There are two misleading components. One surrounding the vague term "scientist" with the precise type of scientist "logician" and the use of the honorific "Dr". That is a very sloppy piece of work which leads the reader to believe that perhaps Jono's PhD is in logic.

The second problem is that in the context of that sentence it is clear that the claims are notable. Jono has a reasonable claim to the terms scientist (he was one once), chessmaster (he is a strong chess player and FIDE master) and author of perhaps the best selling creationist book (I assume he is not claiming the Bible is a creationist book). However he has no comparably notable claim to the term logician.

To look at the dictionary definitions in detail...


The American Heritage Dictionary...
1. A practitioner of a system of logic.
2. A student or scholar of logic.

He is certainly not a practitioner of logic since a practitioner is someone who does something as an occupation or profession. Also he is not a student of scholar of logic, if he were that he would be enrolled or engaged in scholarly discourse on logic. Writing one article and DVD for a lay audience would not qualify. So by the American Heritage definition Jono has no claim to the term logician.


Collins English Dictionary...
a person who specializes in or is skilled at logic

This is the vaguest definition and even in this case the first clause doesn't apply. He has not demonstrated any specialisation. So what we have is "a person skilled at logic." By this dictionary's definition everyone can call themselves a logician. You, me, Tony, almost everyone with a reading level above 10 has some skill at logic. However in the context of the statement in question this is not what is implied. Compare it to the sentence...

"Scientist, mammal, chessmaster and author, Dr Sarfati..."

or

"Scientist, earthling, chessmaster and author, Dr Sarfati..."

Notice something unusual with these phrases? One of the terms is not a notable claim and does not belong because the context of the sentence. The sentence is making notable claims about the author to inform the potential buyer as to why he is in a good position to write such a book and thus why it may be the sort of book they should purchase.

Clearly the book was written by someone who was a mammal, and earthling and someone with a reading level of greater than 10-years old. However, the claim of logician implies a practitioner or specialist in logic, and on this claim Jono falls flat. He has no evidence of experience or qualification which supports this claim at all.


Actually, Dictionary.com cites two separate dictionary references.

Yes but a dictionary does not do your thinking for you. The Collins definition is vague and in the context of noteworthy claims about the author a definition which can apply to almost anyone is not what is implied.

Further to that "logician" is a term which a large number of people identify with as their occupation and profession. If that applied to Jono then it would be a noteworthy comment and it is exactly that strength of claim that is implied in that sentence. (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logicians for a list of notable logicians).


Compare the entry for 'logician' with the entry for 'physicist'. Quite different, and I could see your point if Jono is proclaimed to be a physicist. But he's not.

The fact that one dictionary definition (the Collins, not the heritage) can be applied to almost everyone, does not make the sentence reasonable. Since such a claim is not noteworthy. Should you find a hundred dictionaries with the same vague definition it would not make the position defensible since a the sentence does not imply some simple claim that anyone could pass muster on. It is making a noteworthy claim for which there is no support in the fact.

The description of Jono as a logician is just wrong and an insult to logicians.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 12:29 AM
The article you mention (singular I assume so we're not arguing cross purposes) is simply the regurgitation of some undergraduate material for the benefit of those without any training whatsoever in logic. I assume the DVD is of a similar level. If so then neither contributed to the subject of logic and containing no new concepts or ideas. You simply had to borrow an undergraduate text and present the material it contained for a lay audience.
No, I didn't borrow any text. But yes, I did present logic for a lay audience, thus contributed to the advancement of understanding of logic.


If you're referring to F. C. Kuechmann, I'm not sure that the problem was that but rather the author underestimated the utility of the syllogism as a form of logical argument.
No, that was the conclusion from his criticism of my distinguishing validity from truth. IIRC even THE thought something was off with that critic on those grounds.


However this discussion was regarding some marketing for a book of which you are the author. As it is making misleading statements you should certainly be concerned even if you didn't script them.
As stated before, I was concerned when something demonstrably misleading was said, e.g. calling me a grandmaster. But as shown by dictionaries and by a number of people here, "logician" was not demonstrably misleading.


If it was a review of the book by some 3rd party, (I have noticed you get some very unbiased people to pen reviews, like your boss)
I don't get anyone to do anything—by definition that would be true of a boss. Maybe you could find such a creature as an unbiased reviewer and have him cryogenically frozen for posterity.

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 07:17 AM
No, I didn't borrow any text. But yes, I did present logic for a lay audience, thus contributed to the advancement of understanding of logic.

Even saying that is misleading. You did nothing to increase man's understanding of logic. Everything you wrote was already well understood. You perhaps when someway to increase public understanding of logic but the circulation numbers and number of instances (one article and one DVD) probably don't make that a noteworthy claim.


No, that was the conclusion from his criticism of my distinguishing validity from truth. IIRC even THE thought something was off with that critic on those grounds.

Respectfully I might suggest you reread the source...
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_sarfati_pratfall.htm

The piece in question


A bit later he adds


Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument.

This, of course, is why the syllogism, far from being a common argument, is seldom found outside introductory logic textbooks and creationist sophistry.

Kuechmann is clearly commenting on the utility of the syllogism. The "of course" clearly indicates the reviewer is not challenging the the truth of statement.


As stated before, I was concerned when something demonstrably misleading was said, e.g. calling me a grandmaster. But as shown by dictionaries and by a number of people here, "logician" was not demonstrably misleading.

For reasons already expounded, several people disagree with your position and we will have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Of course you do have some people who do agree with you (and not just the usual fan-club) but if this many people (including a few people with some training in logic) think that the statement is misleading. Perhaps you might reconsider the premise that you are always necessarily correct. If in the minds of around 50% of voters in this poll it is misleading then perhaps you are misleading approximately 50% of the people reading the marketing for your book.


I don't get anyone to do anything—by definition that would be true of a boss. Maybe you could find such a creature as an unbiased reviewer and have him cryogenically frozen for posterity.

Well you and your boss are very much partners in the one enterprise. While it is good for you that he is happy with your publications, I'm a bit surprised you don't get someone a little more at arm's length to recommend your work in published reviews. Perhaps the ID "crowd" is a smaller population than I thought.

Tony Dowden
17-03-2010, 07:15 PM
If in the minds of around 50% of voters in this poll it is misleading then perhaps you are misleading approximately 50% of the people reading the marketing for your book.

Firstly, the minds of around 50% of voters in this poll (er, 6 people and your good self) have apparently chosen to be 'misled' (since they are happy to ignore dictionary definitions).

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that Jono should take heed of a next to irrelevant poll with a tiny sample size re the successful marketing of his book?

Tony Dowden
17-03-2010, 07:25 PM
Although the tenor of the posting in this thread is getting close to civilised, it still smacks of a thinly disguised attempt at attacking another person's character.

My final 'take' on this thread is that whether or not Jono's world view (and book) is your cup of tea, it should be obvious that its not OK to conduct an attack on his character and, potentially, his commercial interests.

And, if anyone reading this plans to conduct more social research, then you should know that this poll is inherently biased due to the way it is framed.

Goughfather
17-03-2010, 07:57 PM
Although the tenor of the posting in this thread is getting close to civilised, it still smacks of a thinly disguised attempt at attacking another person's character.

My final 'take' on this thread is that whether or not Jono's world view (and book) is your cup of tea, it should be obvious that its not OK to conduct an attack on his character and, potentially, his commercial interests.

And, if anyone reading this plans to conduct more social research, then you should know that this poll is inherently biased due to the way it is framed.

A few observations:

(1) I think it is legitimate to question whether someone has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

(2) I doubt that Jono's commercial interests have been in any way compromised by this thread, unless people start to read his responses.

(3) Resorting to a dictionary definition is often going to be a particularly unsophisticated way of determining the mean of a word, especially when that word requires further clarification or is otherwise ambiguous. This is because words are not merely defined in isolation, but within the context in which they are used. Interestingly enough, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in providing guidance upon how to correctly interpret legislation uses a number of criteria independent from a dictionary definition. Indeed, although recourse to a dictionary is probably implied, it is never specifically suggested that a dictionary should be used and it is at least clear that a dictionary definition holds only limited weight.

(4) Though not my area of speciality, it seeks very unlikely to me that Jono's description of himself as a "logician" would not be regarded as "misleading and deceptive conduct" at law. Of course, whether such a designation within this context could be accurately described as misleading and deceptive conduct in a more general sense according to a dictionary definition is another question.

(5) The title of the thread was not particularly helpful in its hyperbole.

(6) While Rincewind has fought the good fight and made his point clear for the most part, there's probably no point continuing on with the crusade. Just find contentment in the fact that this book will only circulate around YEC literalists, an audience already more than committed to YEC dogma.

By the way Jono, I've referred to my dictionary for the words "literalist", "historical" and "grammatical". According to the definitions provided, the first term seems to accurately describe your hermeneutic approach, while the other two do not.

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 08:23 PM
Firstly, the minds of around 50% of voters in this poll (er, 6 people and your good self) have apparently chosen to be 'misled' (since they are happy to ignore dictionary definitions).

Actually Tony you will find it is you who is the one ignoring dictionary definitions.

As I pointed out a few posts up, the American Heritage Dictionary does NOT support the view that anyone with a skill at logic can be considered a logician. It is only the shorter and more vague definition supplied by Collins which can be leaned on in the death by dictionary defence.

So the only dictionary deniers here are Jono (the author himself) and his supporters. I accept that they are all dictionary definitions. But a dictionary doesn't do your thinking for you. It's not a magic book where you can look up anything and say "well if say I meant that, them I'm in the clear, phew".

I said in my very first reply to Stephen when he posted the dictionary definition, well yeah that is A definition but it is one that is no remarkable claim. By that definition nearly anyone is a "logician". You said it your self, you're a logician, I'm a logician, by that definition I would even class Igor as a logician. But that is no remarkable claim.

When in the marketing of a book we say this book was written by

"Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author"

It is clear that the claims are of comparable merit. Jono is a scientist by virtue of his PhD, a chessmaster by virtue of his rating, title and awesome ability at blindfold simuls, and author by virtue of his many books. These are all claims of the strength of professions of occupations.

The claim to the term "logician" is bogus in the context of that sentence and it is misleading.


Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that Jono should take heed of a next to irrelevant poll with a tiny sample size re the successful marketing of his book?

I'm just suggesting that those who voted (and incidental KB didn't vote, he just said he thought that Jono was stretching it a bit which I read to mean in this context as making a misleading statement) included a number of people from different backgrounds who thought that the claim was misleading. As I said, KB is a scientist with (IIRC) some exposure to philosophy as an undergraduate and probably was taught by a logician. THE is a PhD candidate in philosophy and I am a mathematician with exposure to computing, mathematical and philosophical logicians in my training. But we are not alone, other people have also said that they thought the claim was indefensible.

Sure it is a small sample group, but it is a reasonably informed one and it is one that (I think) should give Jono cause to reconsider his position.

Look at the Wiki page on Jono...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Here you will find mention of his scientific training. His chess playing exploits. Of the many books in Christian apologetics. However, you will not see him referred to as a logician. In fact, outside of "theological" the string "logic" does not appear.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 08:33 PM
A few observations:
No, just your whinging and bellyaching, like most of your posts on ChessChat.


(2) I doubt that Jono's commercial interests have been in any way compromised by this thread, unless people start to read his responses.
Especially as I receive no royalties from sales of my books.


(3) Resorting to a dictionary definition is often going to be a particularly unsophisticated way of determining the mean of a word, especially when that word requires further clarification or is otherwise ambiguous. This is because words are not merely defined in isolation, but within the context in which they are used. Interestingly enough, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in providing guidance upon how to correctly interpret legislation uses a number of criteria independent from a dictionary definition. Indeed, although recourse to a dictionary is probably implied, it is never specifically suggested that a dictionary should be used and it is at least clear that a dictionary definition holds only limited weight.
It is a reasonable defence against a charge of fraud.


(4) Though not my area of speciality, it seeks very unlikely to me that Jono's description of himself as a "logician" would not be regarded as "misleading and deceptive conduct" at law.
Just lawyer-type bluff. And as I pointed out, the stuff that RW whinges about was someone else's description of me, which is certainly defensible. Much advertising of other products is far less defensible.


(5) The title of the thread was not particularly helpful in its hyperbole.
You got something right.


(6) While Rincewind has fought the good fight and made his point clear for the most part, there's probably no point continuing on with the crusade.
Crusade is right, at least in a colloquial sense.


Just find contentment in the fact that this book will only circulate around YEC literalists, an audience already more than committed to YEC dogma.
Yet why are they committed? Many have been persuaded by my writings who had not been of that persuasion before. I showed one example already.


By the way Jono, I've referred to my dictionary for the words "literalist", "historical" and "grammatical". According to the definitions provided, the first term seems to accurately describe your hermeneutic approach, while the other two do not.
You talk such crap GF, as usual. A literalist takes everything literally, including poetry and figures of speech. My correct grammatical-historical approach inteprets historical narrative (like Genesis) as history, poetic genre (like Psalms) as poetry, "I am the door" as figurative.

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 09:07 PM
(5) The title of the thread was not particularly helpful in its hyperbole.

The title of the thread was meant as a light-hearted joke. I'm open to retitling to something mutually acceptable. Of course I am against rewording the poll question and the responses. (As an aside, frankly I'm surprised no one picked the middle option.)

Goughfather
17-03-2010, 09:19 PM
No, just your whinging and bellyaching, like most of your posts on ChessChat.

An ad hominem attack like that seems fairly unbecoming from somebody who would like to consider himself to be a logician.


It is a reasonable defence against a charge of fraud.

In a legal sense, it's probably passable. But there is also the issue of context, which doesn't seem to matter much to literalists such as yourself.


Just lawyer-type bluff. And as I pointed out, the stuff that RW whinges about was someone else's description of me, which is certainly defensible. Much advertising of other products is far less defensible.

The fact that you would choose to distance yourself from any kind of responsibility for a blurb written for your own book, presumably with your approval is somewhat concerning.


Yet why are they committed? Many have been persuaded by my writings who had not been of that persuasion before. I showed one example already.

You showed one example, five years ago. And even this doesn't prove anything, unless you want to give any kind of credence to the next schmuck who suggests that through reading Dawkins "The God Delusion" his eyes were opened to the falsehoods of religious belief. Most likely, in both case, the individuals concerned believe, or change their beliefs from atheism to theism or vice versa for psychological reasons independent of their reading of any particular text.


You talk such crap GF, as usual. A literalist takes everything literally, including poetry and figures of speech. My correct grammatical-historical approach inteprets historical narrative (like Genesis) as history, poetic genre (like Psalms) as poetry, "I am the door" as figurative.

Not good enough. I referred to the dictionary - isn't that meant to be definitive?

Of course nobody takes absolutely everything literally, not even the most unsophisticated of fundamentalists. Indeed, it's standard doctrine for most Protestant fundamentalists that the bread and wine spoken about in John 6 cannot be literal, presumably because of their intense hatred for the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, these same literalists read the apocalyptic literature of Revelation to proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist.

The point is, the term "literalist" has a perfectly well known and accepted meaning when it comes to speaking about hermeneutic technique. You may disagree that it applies to you, but given this usage and the definition given in the dictionary which you choose to put so much stock in, I think I'll continue to refer to you as a literalist in the future, given that it seems to cause convulsions from you (I don't mean this literally, by the way) everything I use this term.

BrendanNorman
17-03-2010, 09:31 PM
Some of you guys should play shot put... I see talent here..;)

arosar
17-03-2010, 09:45 PM
FMD! I just get confused with the lot of youse to be honest. Hermeneutics, logistics, literalistics...Jesus.

Even more confusing is that I thought GF was a religionist like Jono. What's the beef between youse two?

Anyways, I'm off for some sushi down the road! Too tired too cook.

AR

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 10:00 PM
Some of you guys should play shot put... I see talent here..;)

I think a few of the dictionary worshippers are actually in training for the Marshland Olympics.

JiQdjFVGRag

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 10:07 PM
An ad hominem attack like that seems fairly unbecoming from somebody who would like to consider himself to be a logician.
More potly melanism from you. I see.


The fact that you would choose to distance yourself from any kind of responsibility for a blurb written for your own book, presumably with your approval is somewhat concerning.
Yet this is clearly someone else describing me, someone who learned a lot of logic from my article. But it's not something on my "about the author" page in my books.


You showed one example, five years ago. And even this doesn't prove anything, unless you want to give any kind of credence to the next schmuck who suggests that through reading Dawkins "The God Delusion" his eyes were opened to the falsehoods of religious belief. Most likely, in both case, the individuals concerned believe, or change their beliefs from atheism to theism or vice versa for psychological reasons independent of their reading of any particular text.
But to say that, you have to ignore what this chap actually said and do your own cheap psychologising of motives. Others have changed their minds after I demonstrated that Jesus believed in a historical Genesis, and the Gospels trace His ancestry to Adam. Others have been changed because of the scientific evidence. Well, that's what they have told me, which of course matters not compared with your armchair psychologizing.


Not good enough. I referred to the dictionary - isn't that meant to be definitive?
Unlike SK, you just made assertions.


Of course nobody takes absolutely everything literally, not even the most unsophisticated of fundamentalists. Indeed, it's standard doctrine for most Protestant fundamentalists that the bread and wine spoken about in John 6 cannot be literal, presumably because of their intense hatred for the Catholic Church.
How typical of a leftard to turn questions of fact into questions of motive. The secular Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt also pointed out that the great achievement of 20th-century totalitarians was to turn questions of fact into questions of motive.

Your charge is absurd on the face of it. The guy in your sig line really did hate the Catholic Church, yet his understanding of the bread and wine was not that different to that of the Catholics.

The historical context in question was that John 6 was far removed from the Lord's Supper. Rather John 6:35 states:

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
Note that ‘coming’ to Jesus stopped hunger, and ‘believing’ in Him stopped thirst. Thus ‘eating’ was a figure of speech for coming, and drinking = believing.

The Lord's Supper itself had the historical context of the Passover meal, where the whole idea is remembrance. The Passover loaded with representative symbols, e.g. the salt water is (=represents) the tears of suffering in Egypt, the haroseth is (represents) the mortar, the bitter herbs represent the bitterness of bondage. Furthermore, a Jew, on hearing Jesus’ words ‘This is my blood’ would have recalled 2 Samuel 23:15–17:

David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!” So the three mighty men broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD. “Far be it from me, O LORD, to do this!” he said. “Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?” And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty men.
Although David said of this water, ‘this is the blood …’, he clearly did not mean that the water that his men risked their lives for was transformed into the substance of their blood, while retaining the accidents of water.


Interestingly enough, these same literalists read the apocalyptic literature of Revelation to proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist.
Which would show that they are not literalists. And it would be a minority view.


The point is, the term "literalist" has a perfectly well known and accepted meaning when it comes to speaking about hermeneutic technique.
No, it's a dishonest caricature by liberals like yourself.


You may disagree that it applies to you, but given this usage and the definition given in the dictionary which you choose to put so much stock in, I think I'll continue to refer to you as a literalist in the future, given that it seems to cause convulsions from you (I don't mean this literally, by the way) everything I use this term.
Rather, it shows that for leftards like you, persistently dishonest labelling is fine; as Göbbels said, tell a lie often enough, and many people will believe it.

BrendanNorman
17-03-2010, 10:26 PM
I think a few of the dictionary worshippers are actually in training for the Marshland Olympics.

JiQdjFVGRag

No, I meant that some people here would be talented shot-putters because they are gifted tossers... :eh: ... Some make good points though :)

Goughfather
17-03-2010, 10:33 PM
Even more confusing is that I thought GF was a religionist like Jono. What's the beef between youse two?

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, Arosar. It's just that anybody outside of Jono's small sect are bound for the fires of Hell.

I have no personal problem with Jono as far as I'm concerned - I'm just having a little fun with him.

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 10:47 PM
No, I meant that some people here would be talented shot-putters because they are gifted tossers... :eh: ... Some make good points though :)

Oh really? I was suggesting that they make a little BS go a long way. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 11:12 PM
Even more confusing is that I thought GF was a religionist like Jono. What's the beef between youse two?
Who knows? GF is not so bad in person, but becomes obnoxious behind a computer.

morebeer
18-03-2010, 09:44 AM
Isn't it important for your readers to know that you approach the subject from Christian Apologetics viewpoint.:P


They'll never work this out from my writings, so why reveal this? :P

Only if your readers are inattentive. From the introduction:

Dawkins is not alone among evolutionists in his extensive use of dubious tactics. These include such rampant strawman arguments as this book exposes in detail, and equivocation (bait-and-switch). It is this element of deception (perhaps accompanied by not a little self-deception, common in those who strongly reject their accountability to the Creator God26) that helps justify the word “hoax” in my book’s title.

Of course, I believe the Bible (including Genesis) and the gospel of Christ to be the unalloyed truth . As such, those like Dawkins, who propagate belief in ‘goo-to-you’ evolution over millions of years, will indeed turn out to have engaged, no matter how unwittingly, in the “Greatest Hoax on Earth”—to the detriment of millions for eternity.

TheJoker
18-03-2010, 10:01 AM
My final 'take' on this thread is that whether or not Jono's world view (and book) is your cup of tea, it should be obvious that its not OK to conduct an attack on his character and, potentially, his commercial interests.

Tony, I think you are confused the discussion is about Jono's credentials not his character. I think it is perfectly valid to question whether his credentials as an logician are bonafide.

I am sure Jono would be quick to dimiss an evolutionist author's claim to be a scientist without proper scientific qualifications, despite the fact that there claim might fall within the dictionary definition of scientist.

Based on Jono's standard I could claim the following credentials despite holding no formal qualifications in any:

Scientist
Economist
Psychologist
Accountant
Financial Adviser
Software Engineer
etc etc.

By claiming such crednetials it undermines the credentials of those people who have actually gained expertise in the field.

Moreover, there are serious ethical concerns when such claims are used to further ones commercial endeavours.

Adamski
18-03-2010, 11:51 AM
Which would show that they are not literalists. And it would be a minority view. This is definitely true. It would be a very small minority of Protestants who would hold such an unbiblical view, with nil textual support, that the Pope was the Antichrist.

Rincewind
18-03-2010, 01:08 PM
This is definitely true. It would be a very small minority of Protestants who would hold such an unbiblical view, with nil textual support, that the Pope was the Antichrist.

Minority or not perhaps some protestant churches (particularly Lutheran and Seventh Day Adventists) still have that the office of the pope is the antichrist as a teaching or as an article of faith. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_%28historicism%29

Desmond
18-03-2010, 01:18 PM
The title of the thread was meant as a light-hearted joke. I'm open to retitling to something mutually acceptable. Of course I am against rewording the poll question and the responses. (As an aside, frankly I'm surprised no one picked the middle option.)
I didn't know what caveat emptor meant, but now thanks to google I am all edumacated.

Duff McKagan
18-03-2010, 07:12 PM
A ship came into the harbour carrying a cargo full of smegma... what a qwacking-it thread! Surely we are all logicians in some form.

Rincewind
18-03-2010, 08:26 PM
A ship came into the harbour carrying a cargo full of smegma... what a qwacking-it thread! Surely we are all logicians in some form.

Not everyone...

Adamski
18-03-2010, 09:08 PM
Minority or not perhaps some protestant churches (particularly Lutheran and Seventh Day Adventists) still have that the office of the pope is the antichrist as a teaching or as an article of faith. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_%28historicism%29Ok, but that does not change the fact that it is still a very small minority. I have been a Baptist for 10 years and before that was in Pentecostal churches (Assemblies of God and Elim) for 16 years, and before that was in the Presbyterian Church from the age of 15 and I have never known any Baptist or Pentecostal or Presbyterian who believes that rubbish.

Rincewind
18-03-2010, 09:31 PM
Ok, but that does not change the fact that it is still a very small minority. I have been a Baptist for 10 years and before that was in Pentecostal churches (Assemblies of God and Elim) for 16 years, and before that was in the Presbyterian Church from the age of 15 and I have never known any Baptist or Pentecostal or Presbyterian who believes that rubbish.

Numerically, your exposure is also a a minority position. I agree that less than 50% of protestants genuinely hold that belief but I think there is a significant number of mainstream protestants (ie some Lutheran denominations) that do. One wonders what Luther's thoughts were...


My dear pope, I will kiss your feet and acknowledge you as supreme bishop if you will worship my Christ and grant that through His death and resurrection, not through keeping your traditions, we have forgiveness of sins and life eternal. If you will yield on this point, I shall not take away your crown and power; if not, I shall constantly cry out that you are the Antichrist, and I shall testify that your whole cult and religion are only a denial of God, but also the height of blasphemy against God and idolatry. (What Luther Says, II: 1069)

How unbiblical was Martin Luther?

Adamski
18-03-2010, 09:33 PM
Luther is no great hero of mine. He was also anti-semitic.

Rincewind
18-03-2010, 09:36 PM
Luther is no great hero of mine. he was also anti-semitic.

I concur on both points. But he has been influential in many protestant circles.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2010, 01:22 AM
Luther is no great hero of mine. He was also anti-semitic.
All the same, have a read of this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=267943&postcount=28).

Adamski
19-03-2010, 09:30 AM
All the same, have a read of this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=267943&postcount=28).Interesting. I certainly don't discount his contribution to theology. Sola Scriptura was of course only one of his huge contributions. Maybe Tony D was right about the rabid anti-Semitism only coming when he was mentally unstable later in life. For me , it's just that (like you, Jono) I have Jewish family background (back to my great-grandmother, who maried an Anglican!!!) so am not impressed at all by anti-Semitism. That, together with my interest in History, is why I read books like The Case for Israel. I also enjoy historical novels by Bodie and Brock Thoene - currently reading the Zion Covenant series, set so far in the lead-up to World War 2, espcially Vienna, Prague and Palestine. Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain are characters. You'd enjoy the series, Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2010, 09:34 AM
Interesting. I certainly don't discount his contribution to theology. Sola Scriptura was of course only one of his huge contributions. Maybe Tony D was right about the rabid anti-Semitism only coming when he was mentally unstable later in life. For me , it's just that (like you, Jono) I have Jewish family background (back to my great-grandmother, who maried an Anglican!!!) so am not impressed at all by anti-Semitism. That, together with my interest in History, is why Iread books like The case for Israel. i also enjoy historical novels by Bodie and Brock Thoene- currently reading the Zion Covenant Series set so far in the lead-up to World War 2, espcially Vienna, Prague and Palestine. Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain are characters. You'd enjoy the series, Jono.
Naturally I detest anti-semitism too, no matter what source. The case for Israel is great, I agree. Not read that Zion Covenant series though; thank for the recommendation. I didn't know you had Jewish background too; it was probably Jewish enough to have been sent to Nazi gas chambers.


Ok, but that does not change the fact that it is still a very small minority. I have been a Baptist for 10 years and before that was in Pentecostal churches (Assemblies of God and Elim) for 16 years, and before that was in the Presbyterian Church from the age of 15 and I have never known any Baptist or Pentecostal or Presbyterian who believes that rubbish.
Yes, it is not that common where I come from either. One can certainly disagree with some Roman Catholic teachings without "an intense hatred for the Catholic Church".

Rincewind
19-03-2010, 09:45 AM
One can certainly disagree with some Roman Catholic teachings with "an intense hatred for the Catholic Church".

I think you mean "without". But I think Luther did have a reasonably intense hatred for the Catholic Church and the Papacy.

Goughfather
19-03-2010, 10:44 AM
I think you mean "without". But I think Luther did have a reasonably intense hatred for the Catholic Church and the Papacy.

Luther's dislike for the Catholic Church was nothing compared to the attitude expressed by both Calvin and Zwingli, possibly two of the nastiest individuals in the history of Christendom.

Adamski
19-03-2010, 11:55 AM
Naturally I detest anti-semitism too, no matter what source. The case for Israel is great, I agree. Not read that Zion Covenant series though; thank for the recommendation. I didn't know you had Jewish background too; it was probably Jewish enough to have been sent to Nazi gas chambers.Yes, as you well know Jews regard the maternal family line as more important than the paternal. It was my mother's great-grandmother.

Re the Thoene books, first book in the series is Vienna Prelude. It is available e.g. from Kooring (who I have noted do not stock all CMI titles so it is good that CMI web site has a bookshop:clap: ). The Thoenes are Christians from Nevada. Enjoy.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Luther's dislike for the Catholic Church was nothing compared to the attitude expressed by both Calvin and Zwingli, possibly two of the nastiest individuals in the history of Christendom.
More mimophantic nonsense, typical of leftards. In any case, Thomas More and Martin Luther went at each other with scatalogical language (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=9AFE5501BE94D9797B05378 29A54F825.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=371853). Seemed to be par for the course at the time.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2010, 03:39 PM
I think you mean "without".
Right you are.

Rincewind
19-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Seemed to be par for the course at the time.

I actually I think the Catholic Church has gone some way to cleaning up its act since Luther's time. I remember studying the reformation as a part of history in a state school history curriculum and thinking to myself, well if I were alive in those times and the level of ingrained corruption was anything like as bad as was reported in the history texts, then I too would have become a protestant. Of course, had I went to a Catholic school perhaps different texts might have been used. :)

However, history is an interesting way of focusing its lens. I mean, in a few centuries, one wonders what history will make of the child molestation scandals, the impact of the Catholic Church's position with regards contraception on the spread of AIDS and other issues. Not to mention the various scandals in other churches, tele-evangelists, death cults and the like.

antichrist
28-07-2011, 11:49 PM
Originally Posted by Jono

One can certainly disagree with some Roman Catholic teachings with "an intense hatred for the Catholic Church".


rw
I think you mean "without". But I think Luther did have a reasonably intense hatred for the Catholic Church and the Papacy.

AC
I have an intense hatred for the Catholic Church and KB still accused me of being a Catholic - he thinks he knows everything