Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Having a Form of Scholarship But Denying the Power Thereof
Rock Waterman: Deane spends more time engaging in ad hominem attacks and comparing his own academic credentials to Anderson's than he does informing the reader as to what is actually contained in Anderson's book, as though the honors of men are pertinent in any discussion of the Lord's rules of engagement.
Irvin Hill: Mr. Deane is a highly credentialed–as far as the state is concerned–teacher at BYU-I, and former Marine.
In my FAIR conference presentation I talked about having a form of scholarship but denying the power thereof. Those attending chuckled at the joke, which I intended. But I had a specific set of people in mind when I made that comment. Since that time my interactions have only reinforced that idea, so I thought I would explain the concept in more detail. The explanation is not as complicated as the form of godliness upon with the scripture is based (2 Timothy 3:5). Some people like to use footnotes, talk about thesis statements, and all the forms of scholarship, but when challenged by actual scholars they claim that God does not approve of their interlocutor’s arguments, and they often don’t use the methods that makes scholarship so powerful.
The Form of Scholarship
Kendal Anderson’s horrible book is a good example of this phenomenon. He has footnotes where he cites his supposed research. But he explicitly wrote about rejecting formal schooling because of its establishment “pap”(pg. 8), and that he only spent a “few months” studying the text(pg.9). His explicit rejection of formal training is obvious. More egregious than his many factual errors and use of clichés was his discussion of the American Civil War. He expressed many arguments, but because didn’t know what the Lost Cause was, he ended up aping that school of thought unaware that it is thoroughly discredited. In contrast, I studied this school of thought extensively during my academic training and had to write essays on it. This is a good example of how somebody can attack scholarship and academic training as useless and elitist, but then in the very same breath they make rather bush league mistakes that some basic academic training would have prevented.
It’s possible to make really good arguments without formal training. But that training is much like a driver’s license. With a license the driver at least has a basic standard of knowledge and they are likely to know how to obey the rules of the road and perform complicated maneuvers like parallel parking. It is possible to be a good driver without a license, and a person can make sound scholarly arguments without degrees. But without that license, or academic training, that individual is often just as conspicuous as that beat up truck going 35 on the highway who can’t stay in their lane. It’s not elitist to suggest that perhaps they should learn how to drive if they want to be on the road. Rock Waterman, Kendall Anderson and so many more punks and posers like to use words like thesis statements, but they misidentify thesis statements, are unaware of the location and availability of sources, commit basic logical fallacies, don’t support their assertions with broad research, and generally fail to follow academic standards despite having that appearance.
The Power of Scholarship
“Scholarship” for most people consists of reading some books or websites, perhaps combined with a google search to form what they think is an argument. To use the apocalypse as an example, that is like scavenging for bullets. These dilettantes don’t know the chemical formula for gunpowder, or have the skill to make it. But there are bullets of information out there, and they might even have good aim and know nice spot with which to ambush their opponents. But being a scholar means that, like Captain Kirk , a person know so much about the topic they can make their own rounds.
I’ve seen too many people who think they know a great deal. Their ignorance is only matched by the arrogance and pugnaciousness with which they state their opinion. What many don’t know about history is that it is not a recording of what happened. It’s the record of what people say happened. That is an important distinction as it means it’s the historians role to help interpret and reinterpret history so that new understanding is produced. History is sometimes compared to Swiss cheese, and there are numerous holes and gaps that historians then try to fill with judicious assessment based on their research. The most important way to do this is through primary research. Many people have mistaken assumptions about Mao’s theories and leadership and I’m one of the few scholars in the world that is studying the early insurgency of Mao Zedong to help adjust that understanding. If I were arguing with people who had a form of scholarship but denied the power thereof, they would be really good at quoting Mao’s writings. They might even have read a few biographies of him, and they can drop quotes pretty well on discussion boards, in between their insults and bullying of course. Somebody who knows the power of scholarship is familiar with the secondary literature, Mao’s words, but also studied the archived resources about his leadership, local newspapers, the journals of his associates, an extensive background in military thought and theory- particularly insurgencies, and so much more to produce a nuanced and fine understanding of the subject. In short, when I make an argument, I know that I have entire cases of ammunition that I’ve made, while my opponents likely have a six shooter they scavenged.
The result is that people who try to use the language of scholarship without being scholars are left with few options. They can try to insult the person. In conversations with radical libertarian trolls and the subset of people who oppose war they frequently use war monger, Gadianton, anti-Christ, liar, disingenuous, sophistic, and so much more on a regular basis. Most of those are just in that one thread to which I linked above!! The historian in me wants to footnote more, but I think you’ve got the point with the other links thus far. They also try to claim some sort of moral superiority. They testify as though they are just honest interpreters of the Lords will, and my arguments are just credentials from the state and hiding behind the honors of men. Its true that we are often discussing the Lord's word concerning warfare, but the strength of argument is what matters. Their interpretation is no more favored than mine. The strongest arguments are based on solid research into primary sources, judicious analysis, and the cogent arguments they provide.
They often try to sound really knowledgeable. But without that scholarship they are just loading their gun with somebody else’s bullets. They have a form of scholarship but deny the power thereof.