SV: Re[12]: JEPD Evidence

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Mon Dec 20 23:59:33 EST 1999


Well, since you, Niels Peter, want to continue this theme, and like me 
you prefer "proper" football to the American variety, let's continue 
the analogy. Suppose that after beating Brazil in the World Cup final 
a couple of years ago the French had got together with some European 
friends and changed the rules of the game in such a way that Latin 
American teams were disqualified from future competitions. Would that 
be a fair practice? But it seems to me that that is what has happened 
to scholarship as you have defined it. Certain philosophies, based on 
those of Kant, gained the upper hand in the academic world in the 19th 
century, and their supporters managed to change the rules of the game, 
at least as people like you see them, such that opposing philosophies 
which had previously been acceptable in academic debate were 
disqualified. However, why should the supporters of those disqualified 
accept their disqualification? Some have gone off to play their own 
game amongst themselves, while others have tried to play the game by 
the new rules but keep having the whistle blown at them.

What have you got to fear from letting supporters of rival 
philosophical views debate with you on level ground? Are you afraid 
that your arguments are not convincing enough to stand without the 
backup of disqualification? Please stand up and defend yourselves 
fairly!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SV: Re[12]: JEPD Evidence
Author:  <npl at teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    20/12/1999 18:44


I will continue this theme as long as necessary. I have been in this game for 
more than 30 years, I know the rules and my colleagues know them as well 
wherever they live in the world of the academia. I also know that at the 
fringe, some institutions that may consider themselves academic ones, 
entertain ideas that are foreign to scholarship. Scholarship is not decided 
by a majority vote and although several contributors to this line of argument 
seem to think that what is not accepted by people who is running the game can 
be accepted nevertheless, they will never counts as serious or major figures 
in this business. I think that such people should address scholars of a 
certain standard within other fields and see how they react, when somebody is 
invoking supernaturalistic phenomena, are continuously disregarding more than 
two hundred years of scholarship without presenting any serious arguments 
against it (although such arguments are easy to find). Maybe people of my 
group is simply waisting our time on such discussions but it is necessary in 
order that the field shall survive as an academic discipline. But I certainly 
do understand why so few of the top people are active on the lists and may 
find thmselves in a foreugn if not hostile world.

By the way, Peter Kirk's football player is according to the standards of 
the world outside the US not football players, since they most of the time 
use their hands. A football player is except in the USA what is there 
derogatory caller a 'soccer player'. Pele was a football player, Monotano a 
quarterback in American  football.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From:        peter_kirk at sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk at sil.org] 
> Sent:        Tuesday, 21 December, 1999 00:09
> To:        Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:        Re: SV: Re[12]: JEPD Evidence 
>
>
> Who defines the rules of the game? Who authorises changes in them? And 
> who is the referee? Also it seems the rules are different in different 
> places and traditions. When you say somebody is "not a scholar", is
> that equivalent to the soccer player calling the American football 
> player "not a football player"?
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
<snip>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list