Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:23 am
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:17 am Self correction doesn't occur where you protect pedophile legacies.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:17 am Self correction doesn't occur where you protect pedophile legacies.
I think your point about procedure when writing reception history is basically valid.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:27 am Because pedophiles should not be cited without noting who they are. Otherwise their legacy is protected and people don't learn about it. This would be like citing Mengele without noting his involvement in the Holocaust.
But also, I'm primarily writing a history of scholarship on mythicism. People are complaining that I mentioned Carrier's harassment situations that led to him being banned from Skepticon. My point is twofold:
1) Heinous criminals of sex abuse, racism, etc should not go without noting this. Otherwise it protects the legacy of abusers. This is *not* saying we can't use their scholarship. We can. But we don't protect their legacies while doing it.
2) To write a proper history of scholarship, we *need* to note these problems, because they may (and often do) affect the reception of work.
And Richard Pervo's research was obtained while expending himself on child exploitation. And I don't think it is doubtful. And the only undesirable affects I can see is that people would want to distance themselves from that researcher who was a pedophile... in which case I'm all for that. Pervo should not have been allowed back in academia, nor should Joosten when he gets out of prison. They've violated the trust of everyone.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:41 am I think your point about procedure when writing reception history is basically valid.
However I'm very doubtful about your wider claim.
Mengele I think raises a rather narrow issue. His experimental data was obtained by vile means.
There is a broader issue when one is challenging the reliability of someone's findings. 'Evidence of character in the broad sense is relevant here. Although the major problem is probably zealous committal to some agenda good or bad rather than general moral turpitude.
However,the idea that when citing someone as the source of a persuasive argument one should routinely mention their moral turpitude appears doubtful in principle and likely to have very undesirable effects in practice.
Andrew Criddle
a/ I'm afraid I don't think that the fact that Pervo used the same office computer for doing his academic research and for downloading child porn provides a meaningful parallel to Mengele.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:59 am [
And Richard Pervo's research was obtained while expending himself on child exploitation. And I don't think it is doubtful. And the only undesirable affects I can see is that people would want to distance themselves from that researcher who was a pedophile... in which case I'm all for that. Pervo should not have been allowed back in academia, nor should Joosten when he gets out of prison. They've violated the trust of everyone.
And here is another issue: should we just ignore that 1 in 5 women in academia will have been sexually abused as either adults or children? What kind of ethic are you setting by giving pedophiles and sexual predators protection in their legacy? I can say, as a survivor myself, you are sending the message that we don't matter to academics.
Helmut Koester was a rapist who assaulted his grad students. Should we ignore that he damaged the livelihoods, mental wellbeing, and future of several human beings *within academia*? These people are the antithesis to what academics should do in promoting a system which is fair and equal and not exploitative.
On point b/ it seems obvious that one can if one wishes have a provision for sacking someone for misconduct without this having anything to do with citation practice.Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:38 am a/ I'm not sure it makes a difference. Horrible people deserve to be held accountable for being horrible people.
b/ One's academic career is linked inexorably with citations, because how much they are cited determines their career's impact, as well as *how* they are cited.
c/ Maybe "good" citation practice needs an update then, as more and more scholars have been arguing especially in light of Joosten.
d/ I mean, I don't think we have to establish that we are good people. If aren't involved in some public case of sexual offense, murder, etc., I don't think it matters. No one needs to justify if they are a good person. And separating the ideas from the person is, imo, a psychological impossibility. In the case of Joosten, he literally used language from the Song of Solomon to talk about his pedophilia. The crime was completely linked with his study of the Bible. We could also talk about how Richard Carrier has an admitted fetishes and... well let's just say the infamous "cosmic sperm bank" takes on new meaning in that light. Pretending that the person and the ideas can be separate has been and is consistently used to protect the legacies of horrific individuals, which should not ever be done.
In my work on the Testimonium Flavianum, I want to cite Richard Pervo on Gamaliel's speech in Acts. Against Serge Bardet, who takes the speech as supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium because it shows that first century Jews were concerned about the growth of Christianity after Jesus, Pervo takes the speech to be a Lukan creation and that Luke intends it to show that the growth of Christianity in the face of adversity is proof of its divine origin. I think Pervo is correct (and that this is a theme Eusebius picks up from Luke and uses in several of his works and is present in the Testimonium) and I don't see how Pervo's pedophilia or criminal conviction affects that particular issue. If you do, please explain how.I don't think it is necessary to burn their books. But if they get cited, they get cited ethically: with full awareness and statements of what they did.
It sounds like you are compiling a list of undesirables.Also, I will make sure to take note that you white knight pedophile books. I'm glad to see your care about your fellow humans ends for the sake of some person's book.
What it means to die and rise is distinct in various societies. Case in point, Egyptian "resurrection" does not happen physically.