co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Wonder Who's Censoring My Observation on Academia
Wonder Who's Interested in Censoring My Idea that the Disciple of Joshua Ben Pekharia was Odin? · Wonder Who's Censoring My Observation on Academia
Am I Religious?
Metatron | 3 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQdNjfehn9I
0:34 ["I value unbiassed positions, because they are the central core of all professional research and data analysis."]
No, they aren't.
In palaeontology, biology, astronomy, lots of professional research is definitely commited more to biassed interpretation (evolutionism, heliocentrism etc on both sides) than to unbiassed facts.
1:53 The problem isn't personal bias.
Academic neutrality was just fine when Academia held passionate Catholics and passionate Protestants fully going for their bias, like St. Robert Bellarmine and James VI and I.
The personal bias was acknowledged. In the Middle Ages, Academia as a whole had had an obvious Catholic bias. Someone has described scholasticism as "you can ask all the right and wrong questions you want, but you can't answer them in obvious contradiction with the Catholic faith."
In the two centuries around 1600 this changed, as Academia came to be done on two sides. I would say on most areas of dispute (did St. Ambrose believe the Real Presence in the Eucharist, was Clement Scotus martyred for opposing Boniface from a Calvinist view point, or like Boniface for being a Catholic missionary etc) Catholicism won. If you believe the Protestant positions I mentioned are parodic, you are ill informed about 19th C. and earlier Protestant versions of "Church History" ... it's sometimes as accurate as the "Assyriology" of Hislop.
Enter the Prussians.
They have a new idea on how to do Academic neutrality. No longer about the overall institution type existing in more than one confession, but it existing as state sponsored. No longer about Academia overall being neutral, but about asking each individual participant to be so.
Well, who the heck is to determine whether a researcher shows Academic neutrality or not? The guys who tend to perpetuate unacknowledged bias, of course!
[Could not post below follow up]
This saved the Enlightenment Project from dying as ignominous a death as Protestantism on the Academic arena.
[Yep, the comment at 1:53 was censored.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment