AmericanPapist Comments
Oh, SNAP!
Gore got what he deserved.
Besides "His Holiness" Al Gore I is such a "righteous man". Right! What a perfidious soul.
Al Gore . . . duplicitous?
Who would have thought it?
Al Gore the tobacco-farming-anti-smoking crusader?
If there were a Nobel Prize for contortion, that's the one I'd give to Gore.
Are we suddenly praising Martino, the "anti-American"?
Policraticus, you seem to have succumbed to the fallacy of thinking that my criticisms of Martino are ad hominem. Where I agree with Martino I say so. Where I disagree with Martino I also say so. There isn't a contradiction here, unless you're reading into my words something that isn't there. Try again.
Policraticus, you seem to have succumbed to the fallacy of thinking that my criticisms of Martino are ad hominem.
Now, now, Thomas, you don't want to go around equivocating with terms like "fallacy" and "ad hominem" in the same sentence when addressing a student of philosophy. Had you read carefully, you'd have seen a simple question ("Are we suddenly praising Martino?") followed by a sarcastic reference to a former post of yours. Two separate things--an interrogative and a previous state of affairs--devoid of any fallacy, whether it be a logical fallacy or a fallacy of performance.
Which other issues in logic shall we discuss?
P, your constant tone of "silly americanpapist, blogging is for philosophers" is a bit tiring. Do you strike this same attitude with your peers in real life?
I don't use this phrase often, but here it seems appropriate: get real.
AmericanPapist, he can't defend it. He never has anything good to contribute anyway.
AmericanPapist, he can't defend it. He never has anything good to contribute anyway.
While it may indeed be true that I have nothing "good" to contribute (I won't be so presumptuous as to attribute any value to my words), I assure you that I can "defend" the proper attribution of informal and formal logical fallacies.
P, your constant tone of "silly americanpapist, blogging is for philosophers" is a bit tiring.
Take a nap? But seriously, it's not about being a philosopher, it's about your tendency to use philosophical terms incorrectly in your attempt to quickly dismiss anyone who objects to what you write. I realize you are not accustomed to having your positions called into question. Welcome to the "real" academy. When we pretend that our rationale is impervious to critique, as you seem to be doing, then we have ceased to be "real" academics and theologians. Disillusionment in regard to the infallibility of our own ideas is precisely what I would call "getting real." I'm there. Are you?
Michael Joseph:
Do you really not have any clue of how much of a complete jackass, know-it-all you come off in these blog threads?
Paul,
If you say so, but your pointing it out may turn out to be helpful to me. Regardless of how I may come across, the reality of Thomas' incorrect use of logical terms, which, mind you, he aimed at me initially, does not change. Let's not get too bogged down with how bad a person you and Thomas may think I am. Whenever you or Thomas are prepared to discuss serious ideas, let me know.
Michael Joseph:
Any time you're actuialy prepared to engage in debate and treat the other person as a human being, and not as a nitwit unworthy to even stand in your worthy presence, then maybe. Until then, I think you silence is the responce you so richly deserve.
Seriously, I think P's arrogance reveals a lack of "real world contact" far more than my claimed "brazen inability to admit error." I mean, I do have a few degrees behind me. It's not like I'm living in some sort of intellectual vacuum.
"I realize you are not accustomed to having your positions called into question." How much hubris does it take to say something like that? Are you serious?
"Welcome to the "real" academy." Come off it, already. It's my experience of the real academy that confirms for me how far off the reservation you are. In any case, it's completely unprovable either way, and represents yet another attempt of yours to discredit me in terms outside the actual debate. But then again, it never seems to be about the actual debate with you.
Any time you're actuialy prepared to engage in debate and treat the other person as a human being, and not as a nitwit unworthy to even stand in your worthy presence, then maybe.
What would you like to debate?
In any case, it's completely unprovable either way, and represents yet another attempt of yours to discredit me in terms outside the actual debate. But then again, it never seems to be about the actual debate with you.
Hmmm...it seems that it is you who is not interested in the actual debate (re: logical fallacies and their attribution). While I am flattered that you've spent so many minutes of your day analyzing my character through combox comments, I once again urge you to take up your stand or simply concede. Reminding me how arrogant I am and how out of touch of I am amounts to nothing more than your dodging the question, not to mention the sin of slander of which each of is guilty.
I mean, I do have a few degrees behind me. It's not like I'm living in some sort of intellectual vacuum
Why bring up the credentials? I, too, have degrees in several disciplines from universities. So what? Intellectual vacuums abound in every corner of universities and seminaries. Let's stick to the issue I called you on: logical fallacy.
It's my experience of the real academy that confirms for me how far off the reservation you are.
With all due respect, Thomas, the seminary is hardly the type of "academia" of which I speak. I have immense respect for the DHS, but it is a far cry from the sort of debates and discourse found in the universities. But none of this matters. Let's engage the subject of the debate or move on.
"With all due respect, Thomas, the seminary is hardly the type of "academia" of which I speak. I have immense respect for the DHS, but it is a far cry from the sort of debates and discourse found in the universities."
Where, exactly, is the "real" academy? Are you seriously claiming that seminaries (and let's speak precisely: pontifical faculties) are not a place where real intellectual discourse can be found? Lueven, the Greg, the Angelicum, are all pontifical faculties. Are you writing those off too? Would you similarly dismiss anyone who has only received degrees from pontifical faculties? Think how few authors you would have to read.
Really, can you *begin* to see what I mean by your arrogance?
To be clear, pontifical faculties are not monolithic. Leuven, the Greg and the Angelicum are universities, not strictly seminaries. Sacred Heart and DHS are seminaries/formation houses. Just think of the difference between the John Paul II Institute and DHS! The academics are vastly different as they are geared for different purposes. For example, if I were to attend DHS, I would not be exposed to the same sort of theology and philosophy as I would if I were to attend Leuven. In fact, I deeply considered attending Leuven for a time. Having spent a considerable amount of time in Catholic and secular universities, as well as in Catholic seminaries, I know from personal, verifiable experience that "academia" in its purest and most rigorous face is not found in the seminaries. There are outstanding scholars in seminaries, don't get me wrong. One of my very best friends is a Thomistic scholar at a seminary right now, and he could hold his own in any academic forum. But the seminary itself does not function primarily as a research institution. This is not to say that you will not receive a great education and formation, but it is to say that you should be careful about over-touting your credentials and universalizing your seminary experience.
No, I personally would not dismiss someone with a S.T.L. or S.T.D., but I will say that it is a whole lot harder to find a job teaching in a university when you have an ecclesiastical degree. Eccelsiastical degrees typically are not as respected professionally as are Ph.D.'s or Th.D.'s. For example, if a lay person were to receive an S.T.D., he/she would likely not teach in a major Catholic university, but would likely have to set his/her sights on a small Catholic college or seminary. Now, if this is what he/she wants, who am I to say this is not respectable? Now, if this same person were to receive a Ph.D. or Th.D., the job prospects would be much greater. But even then, it depends on where one gets one's Ph.D. If I were to get a Ph.D. in theology from, say, Catholic University of America right now, my odds of teaching in a major research university are significantly less than if I were to receive a Ph.D. from, say, Notre Dame or University of Chicago. This is just simply the reality.
Really, can you *begin* to see what I mean by your arrogance?
Well, I've never disputed my prideful nature. But do keep in mind that how I speak to you is by and large how you speak to those who disagree with you. So if I'm arrogant with what I write, then...yeah.
P, a short history lesson:
DHS is not a pontifical faculty but the school I actually attend is the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, housed in DHS. Sacred Heart is a pontifical faculty accredited through the Angelicum. The JP2 institute is actually only a satellite of the Lateran, that is why it's an "institute" and not a "faculty". JP2 originally was housed within DHS. Your claim about the relative academic merits of the JP2 instute and the PFIC are actually the reverse of your hypothesis re: "seminaries." Perhaps you weren't aware of these distinctions as they are rather basic to the ecclesiastical formation and degree-granting structure.
You're correct about it being more difficult to get hired with an STL/STD. I’ve actually voluntarily taken on that burden because I think I’m getting a better education in theology this way. As far as “professional respect”, I’m not looking for professional respect from most theological faculties in the U.S., if “professional respect” = “heterodox/liberal credentials.” Actually, STL/STDs are technically a requirement for teaching in a pontifical faculty, while folks with PhD’s are not allowed. Now, this isn’t universally the practice, but I’m actually making myself more employable at pontifical faculties with my degree track. This is especially the case in European schools. I’ve hardly consigned myself to “small Catholic colleges and seminaries.”
You talk of “simply the reality.” My education has always been about the quality of the teaching and the orthodoxy of the content. In that way I hope to shape the reality of the Catholic academic landscape, not let it shape me. Your lengthy backpedaling over your hasty comment which criticized “seminaries” (an imprecise term in itself) only serves to vitiate your original claim. I hope you’ve got a better bead on things now.
Not so fast, P. While your statements are not fallacious, they readily imply an accusation of inconsistency, which is fallacious for the reason explained by Thomas. It is this implied accusation to which Thomas was replying, and this implication is pretty obvious to everyone but perhaps self-described "students of philosophy," although no doubt you'll deny it, which makes you something somewhat worse than just a jackass know-it-all.
Mike,
One quality of logical thinking is perspicuity. Perhaps you could clarify what it is you are trying to convey as it makes little sense as is. Perhaps you may want to consider leaving the name-calling out for now. You seem to be highly influenced by Paul and Thomas.
Thomas,
Thanks for the "history" lesson. Everything looks good until this: Your lengthy backpedaling over your hasty comment which criticized “seminaries” (an imprecise term in itself) only serves to vitiate your original claim. Which "original claim," Thomas? My "original claim" had to do with your confusion over logical fallacy. Once more, in your desire to tout your credentials, you've forgotten what we were "originally" talking about. While your familiarity with pontifical faculties is bedazzling, you've left all of us hanging on your familiarity with logic.
Funny, I though the "original claim" had to do with the cause of Martino's disagreement with Al Gore winning the nobel peace prize. But ya know, that was just the subject of the post. Also, I like how when I explain where I'm going to school (to clarify errors you've made) it's "touting my credentials." As I said, my description of pontifical faculties is basic information. It shouldn't be dazzling to someone who has had such intimate experience of seminary teaching and can therefore confidentially dismiss their academic endeavors.
It is plain that perspicuity is an overrated value, however, when dealing with the willfully obtuse.
As I said, my description of pontifical faculties is basic information. It shouldn't be dazzling to someone who has had such intimate experience of seminary teaching and can therefore confidentially dismiss their academic endeavors.
Yes, quite basic...almost as basic as your brilliant tendency to focus only on trivial and side details in an effort to deflect from debate. Whenever you want to discuss the first objection I leveled (viz., the proper attribution of logical fallacy), please let me know. I'll concede the ground on pontifical faculties, which is attainable upon a visit to wikipedia. What I won't concede is the logical ground on which you claim to tread, but in reality only look upon from afar. Information abounds, but logical thinking is rare.
It is plain that perspicuity is an overrated value, however, when dealing with the willfully obtuse.
This is cute, but a cop out. Perhaps the only one being "willfully obstuse" is the very one who willfully refuses to clarify his initial obscurity. Is it willful or is it actually symptomatic?
Commenting by HaloScan
