Alan B wrote:That is a very narrow point of view.

There are probably many people throughout history who, without formal training in a particular subject, have set the standards in that subject for other scholars to follow.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how what I said was a "narrow point of view".

Perhaps Agrippina will be setting the scholarly agenda for the foreseeable future; perhaps not. This is besides the point I'm making in any case.

Tracer Tong wrote:OK. I guess the issue is that you're calling yourself a Bible scholar when you've no academic qualifications in that discipline.

I haven't called myself a "scholar" in the academic sense of having formal recognition. It was said about me in several posts, and I've been asked for opinions in posts as "our resident biblical scholar" in an informal sense. As for studying the Bible, I guess having written a 1,000 page manuscript which is now published, of which I've sold a few copies, and an ongoing study of each chapter, verse-by-verse, which has been ongoing since 2009, now seven years, lends me a little authority, even if that authority is not recognised by a university. Do you tell all auto-didacts that they are not acceptable authorities because they didn't get the opportunity to spend decades in formal study rather than doing the jobs they were forced to do through personal circumstances? I would refer you to some of the most noted members, both past and present, of this forum. Please do a little research on the forum, in the science and technology sections particularly, then question the people who have written some well-researched scholarly articles in their chosen field about their "right" to claim their authority.

Tracer Tong wrote:OK. I guess the issue is that you're calling yourself a Bible scholar when you've no academic qualifications in that discipline.

To make a further point on this, no definition I've ever looked at, for the term "scholar" defines it as firstly "someone recognised as such by a place of higher education" but rather as "a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject." The word "erudite" is defined as "well-read". I am certainly very well-read on the subject of the Bible. Of course you are free to not recognise my knowledge if you prefer. It's a free world.

Alan B wrote:That is a very narrow point of view.

There are probably many people throughout history who, without formal training in a particular subject, have set the standards in that subject for other scholars to follow.

Indeed. Up to the fairly recent past, in the world of England's English-speakers, the word "scholar" was also used for someone who was an attendee at a primary or high school. In other words, a child attending school. This has been dumped in favour of "pupil" and in South Africa, "learner" a term with which I take issue as most of the people leaving our schools have learnt very little, and in my observation, most teenagers aren't "learning" at school, they're socialising.

It's a broad term. Why should someone who has taken a formal education, and built on that to specialise in a part of the formal education that is of interest, spending whatever remains of her life be recognised as something of an authority? As I said earlier, the only reason I don't hold a doctorate in ancient history is because of lack of opportunity in my childhood, and (as I've explained in the foreward to my book), religious bias on the part of my father who believed that, as a girl, my future was to be that of wife and mother and nothing more. Over the following 30 years, I read and studied history, and ancient history in some depth, ending with 15 years of formal study through distant learning, for which I acquired a degree in Psychology, and a cum laude degree in Ancient History. As part of the courses I did, and because it is required by South African universities, I also had to follow other courses at lower levels. These I did in Commercial Law (with distinction), History in general (with distinction), Sociology, and English Literature. As I said, 15 years of hard work, part time, so courses that would have been completed in four years, took a little longer. My decision to use my Ancient History background to study the Bible was sparked by an accusation that it didn't quality me to comment on the Bible because I hadn't read it. I took up the challenge and read the Bible, over six weeks, then over the next seven years, wrote the manuscript which was scrutinised by Aban57, whose work I greatly value and respect, over a period of six months. He has supported my work as a result of his editorship. It is also supported by my son who has spent the last 26 years studying Philosophy and whose doctoral thesis is also on this subject. So yes, I do have some valued recognition of my work. Beside which I'm a bloody intelligent old woman, I deserve recognition for my perseverance in being prepared to read and reread this anthology, now for about the sixth or seventh time. So am I a scholar? I still think I have a huge amount to learn. Do I think I should be quoted, or cited? I'd be humbled and honoured if anyone did this, no doubt there will be people who will discard those citations for the same reasons this member discards my authority.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Alan B wrote:That is a very narrow point of view.

There are probably many people throughout history who, without formal training in a particular subject, have set the standards in that subject for other scholars to follow.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how what I said was a "narrow point of view".

Perhaps Agrippina will be setting the scholarly agenda for the foreseeable future; perhaps not. This is besides the point I'm making in any case.

The internet is becoming the place where people will be getting their education. I will respect this because those people will be willingly seeking education, not following courses merely to pick up pieces of paper. In view of the sort of discourse I'm finding on social media, I'm becoming a little skeptical of the value of most of the formal education available today, certainly in the humanities. I had a discussion with a teacher at one of our schools yesterday. He commented that the standard of certainly languages is falling because of the culture of "no child left behind". Children are not allowed to fail today. They have to be passed through the system and penalising them for errors in language for instance, in sometimes language itself, is no longer practised. So children get away with grammar and spelling errors, passing exams despite the fact that they can barely write a coherent sentence. These people find their way into university because of political requirements for population section numbers and so on, meaning that more deserving people don't get places at university. This is happening in my country.

As an example of self-learning and learning for the love of it, something that's a bit of a "thing" in my family. Yesterday, my almost 6-year-old grandson, watched and discussed a youtube video about Newton's second law F=ma, with my son. He understood the concept of Force, mass and acceleration, and how they change with difference values of the variables, this without being still in the pre-primary level of his school. In the education system, this very bright child will be held back to remain with his age group so that he doesn't receive an unfair advantage by being passed ahead to get to university level at a younger age. This is exactly what happened to me. I was doing algebra when I was 6 or 7, yet I had to remain in my school level, and with my dad's narrow outlook, wasn't allowed to learn maths and science at school anyway. I taught myself to grade 12 level maths during my 12-year period of being a wife and mother, then started reading with a view to formal education, again being prevented by misogynistic husbands. Finally with the help of my children, and support of my present husband, (the main support from this child's father), I entered formal education. This child is now being taught by his philosopher dad, a form of home schooling. By the time he gets to go to university, he will be able to take the lectures, let alone be made to go through the courses. Will he drop out, as my second son did when he entered a course to gain a BSc in computer science because the courses he had to follow were easy work he'd done when he was 12? Very likely. However, he will be 18 in the computer age. Possibly he'll be able to enter a career as an engineer without even completing formal school, who knows? We can't see the future, but I'm all for it. Education isn't passing exams, achieving some level set by people in an earlier age. It's an ongoing process we should pursue because we are interested to learn, and we shouldn't be judged as lacking because we don't hold a piece of paper.

Tracer Tong wrote:OK. I guess the issue is that you're calling yourself a Bible scholar when you've no academic qualifications in that discipline.

Since scholar isn't an academic title in the first place, I fail to see how that's relevant.
More-over qualifications are irrelevant as long as your position is supported by evidence and sound arguments.

Agrippina wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Alan B wrote:That is a very narrow point of view.

There are probably many people throughout history who, without formal training in a particular subject, have set the standards in that subject for other scholars to follow.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how what I said was a "narrow point of view".

Perhaps Agrippina will be setting the scholarly agenda for the foreseeable future; perhaps not. This is besides the point I'm making in any case.

The internet is becoming the place where people will be getting their education. I will respect this because those people will be willingly seeking education, not following courses merely to pick up pieces of paper. In view of the sort of discourse I'm finding on social media, I'm becoming a little skeptical of the value of most of the formal education available today, certainly in the humanities. I had a discussion with a teacher at one of our schools yesterday. He commented that the standard of certainly languages is falling because of the culture of "no child left behind". Children are not allowed to fail today. They have to be passed through the system and penalising them for errors in language for instance, in sometimes language itself, is no longer practised. So children get away with grammar and spelling errors, passing exams despite the fact that they can barely write a coherent sentence. These people find their way into university because of political requirements for population section numbers and so on, meaning that more deserving people don't get places at university. This is happening in my country.

As an example of self-learning and learning for the love of it, something that's a bit of a "thing" in my family. Yesterday, my almost 6-year-old grandson, watched and discussed a youtube video about Newton's second law F=ma, with my son. He understood the concept of Force, mass and acceleration, and how they change with difference values of the variables, this without being still in the pre-primary level of his school. In the education system, this very bright child will be held back to remain with his age group so that he doesn't receive an unfair advantage by being passed ahead to get to university level at a younger age. This is exactly what happened to me. I was doing algebra when I was 6 or 7, yet I had to remain in my school level, and with my dad's narrow outlook, wasn't allowed to learn maths and science at school anyway. I taught myself to grade 12 level maths during my 12-year period of being a wife and mother, then started reading with a view to formal education, again being prevented by misogynistic husbands. Finally with the help of my children, and support of my present husband, (the main support from this child's father), I entered formal education. This child is now being taught by his philosopher dad, a form of home schooling. By the time he gets to go to university, he will be able to take the lectures, let alone be made to go through the courses. Will he drop out, as my second son did when he entered a course to gain a BSc in computer science because the courses he had to follow were easy work he'd done when he was 12? Very likely. However, he will be 18 in the computer age. Possibly he'll be able to enter a career as an engineer without even completing formal school, who knows? We can't see the future, but I'm all for it. Education isn't passing exams, achieving some level set by people in an earlier age. It's an ongoing process we should pursue because we are interested to learn, and we shouldn't be judged as lacking because we don't hold a piece of paper.

All of this is very interesting, I'm sure. But it doesn't go to the issue raised. I commend anyone who takes an interest in antiquity, whether it pertains to the Bible or not, and whether it's manifested formally or otherwise. But developing such an interest does not entitle you to call yourself a Biblical scholar, since this implies that you've reached a degree of formal academic attainment when in reality you've reached no degree of it at all.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK. I guess the issue is that you're calling yourself a Bible scholar when you've no academic qualifications in that discipline.

Since scholar isn't an academic title in the first place, I fail to see how that's relevant.
More-over qualifications are irrelevant as long as your position is supported by evidence and sound arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an academic title". I haven't commented on any position Agrippina holds; my point is merely that she is calling herself a Biblical scholar when she is no such thing.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "an academic title".

It's an unprotected title.
You can call yourself a scholar without any formal education, let alone academic education.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I haven't commented on any position Agrippina holds; my point is merely that she is calling herself a Biblical scholar when she is no such thing.

And I've just explained to you that you have no objective basis to assert this.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "an academic title".

It's an unprotected title.
You can call yourself a scholar without any formal education, let alone academic education.

I don't know what an "unprotected title" is, either, unfortunately. You can of course call yourself anything. That doesn't mean you ought to, however.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I haven't commented on any position Agrippina holds; my point is merely that she is calling herself a Biblical scholar when she is no such thing.

And I've just explained to you that you have no objective basis to assert this.

Not successfully, I'm afraid.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "an academic title".

It's an unprotected title.
You can call yourself a scholar without any formal education, let alone academic education.

I don't know what an "unprotected title" is, either, unfortunately.

Certain titles, like dietitian or professor, are protected titles.
Meaning only people who've actually achieved a degree in these fields can legally present themselves as such.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protected_term

Tracer Tong wrote:You can of course call yourself anything. That doesn't mean you ought to, however.

The point is that:
1. Scholar isn't a term associated with any form of formal education.
2. It has no coherent, much less a protected defintion.
Ergo, you have no objective basis for declaring who is or isn't a scholar.

It's for this very same reason that you'll often see creationist and conspiracy theorist appeal to the articles of scholars, not professors and scientists.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I haven't commented on any position Agrippina holds; my point is merely that she is calling herself a Biblical scholar when she is no such thing.

And I've just explained to you that you have no objective basis to assert this.

Not successfully, I'm afraid.

It seems to be an issue of ignorance on your part.

I want to put this on record that while I fully support the right of anyone to become very educated without even attending formal primary school, I do not apply this method of learning to sciences that involve the general public's health, security, and right to life. In the sciences, it is vitally important that all learning, and certainly that which applies to treating illness, should be done under the auspices of accredited institutions who then become responsible for validating the student's right to call themselves proficient in their particular field of study.

When it comes to the humanities, anyone who has a brain can educate themselves if they have the willingness and the enthusiasm to become an authority on whatever it is they choose to learn. Despite the reluctance of this member to accept that 50+ years of studying history, I doubt any person within the community of people who make a living out of studying the Bible is going to be prepared to challenge my claim that I know a lot about that particular piece of writing. Especially since he hasn't bothered to even make an effort to read what I've written, since although I do not accept the existence of a deity as explained in the Bible, I do not condemn the writing that supports the explanation, but rather view it as yet another in the collection of writings from the first century BCE.

Tracer Tong, would you care to enlighten us about your own opinion on the existence of the main character in the Bible. Your opinion would help us reach a conclusion about why my claim of being a bit of a "scholar" or "authority" bothers you so much.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "an academic title".

It's an unprotected title.
You can call yourself a scholar without any formal education, let alone academic education.

I don't know what an "unprotected title" is, either, unfortunately.

Certain titles, like dietitian or professor, are protected titles.
Meaning only people who've actually achieved a degree in these fields can legally present themselves as such.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protected_term

Even if I grant this, I've not suggested Agrippina has done anything illegal, so this doesn't seem very relevant.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The point is that:
1. Scholar isn't a term associated with any form of formal education.
2. It has no coherent, much less a protected defintion.
Ergo, you have no objective basis for declaring who is or isn't a scholar.

I disagree with your 1. and 2, of course.

[quote=Thomas Eshuis"]

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I haven't commented on any position Agrippina holds; my point is merely that she is calling herself a Biblical scholar when she is no such thing.

And I've just explained to you that you have no objective basis to assert this.

Not successfully, I'm afraid.

It seems to be an issue of ignorance on your part.[/quote]

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I disagree with your 1. and 2, of course.

Annnnnd there we are. Your disagreeing is based on nothing else than your uniformed opinion. I already provided you with definitions of the word scholar, which you ignored. And you keep doing it by giving it the meanings you want. We've seen this technique here before, and it fools no one. You can keep thinking stupid things based on your own made-up definition of some words, that doesn't make said definitions viable, or believable. Same thing for the opinions derived from those definitions.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's an unprotected title.
You can call yourself a scholar without any formal education, let alone academic education.

I don't know what an "unprotected title" is, either, unfortunately.

Certain titles, like dietitian or professor, are protected titles.
Meaning only people who've actually achieved a degree in these fields can legally present themselves as such.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Protected_term

Even if I grant this,

It's irrelevant whether you grant it or not. It's a fact.

Tracer Tong wrote: I've not suggested Agrippina has done anything illegal, so this doesn't seem very relevant.

The point is that there are no clearly defined requirements for who qualifies to use the title 'scholar'.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The point is that:
1. Scholar isn't a term associated with any form of formal education.
2. It has no coherent, much less a protected defintion.
Ergo, you have no objective basis for declaring who is or isn't a scholar.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I disagree with your 1. and 2, of course.

You can disagree that the earth orbits around the sun too.
I don't see why that should carry any weight.
You might have an idiosyncratic definition of the word, but that's not how it's commonly used or defined.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And I've just explained to you that you have no objective basis to assert this.

Not successfully, I'm afraid.

It seems to be an issue of ignorance on your part.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Complete failure to actually refute any of the points made, has been noted.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I disagree with your 1. and 2, of course.

Annnnnd there we are. Your disagreeing is based on nothing else than your uniformed opinion. I already provided you with definitions of the word scholar, which you ignored. And you keep doing it by giving it the meanings you want. We've seen this technique here before, and it fools no one. You can keep thinking stupid things based on your own made-up definition of some words, that doesn't make said definitions viable, or believable. Same thing for the opinions derived from those definitions.

I ignored your citation of a dictionary because, as a native speaker of English, I don't need recourse to a dictionary to understand the term "scholar" (seldom do I need recourse to one at all, in fact). You are of course free to select definitions of the term out of a dictionary for rhetorical purposes (e.g. your "student; pupil"), and this isn't an uncommon thing to do, but I've really no reason to join you. When someone claims to be a "serious biblical scholar", they're making, or at the very least can reasonably be understood to be making, a claim to the sort of competence I described earlier. I merely noted that Agrippina has no such competence, and so shouldn't be making such a claim.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's irrelevant whether you grant it or not. It's a fact.

Even if I grant this, it wasn't a relevant statement, since I didn't suggest Agrippina did anything illegal.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The point is that there are no clearly defined requirements for who qualifies to use the title 'scholar'.

Sure there are.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You can disagree that the earth orbits around the sun too.
I don't see why that should carry any weight.
You might have an idiosyncratic definition of the word, but that's not how it's commonly used or defined.

I beg to differ: my usage is far from idiosyncratic, being very common indeed.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Complete failure to actually refute any of the points made, has been noted.

And equally rhetorically, "I note your failure to actually refute any of mine".

When you're ready to calm down and have a serious discussion, I'm all ears, folks.

Agrippina wrote:I want to put this on record that while I fully support the right of anyone to become very educated without even attending formal primary school, I do not apply this method of learning to sciences that involve the general public's health, security, and right to life. In the sciences, it is vitally important that all learning, and certainly that which applies to treating illness, should be done under the auspices of accredited institutions who then become responsible for validating the student's right to call themselves proficient in their particular field of study.

When it comes to the humanities, anyone who has a brain can educate themselves if they have the willingness and the enthusiasm to become an authority on whatever it is they choose to learn. Despite the reluctance of this member to accept that 50+ years of studying history, I doubt any person within the community of people who make a living out of studying the Bible is going to be prepared to challenge my claim that I know a lot about that particular piece of writing. Especially since he hasn't bothered to even make an effort to read what I've written, since although I do not accept the existence of a deity as explained in the Bible, I do not condemn the writing that supports the explanation, but rather view it as yet another in the collection of writings from the first century BCE.

Tracer Tong, would you care to enlighten us about your own opinion on the existence of the main character in the Bible. Your opinion would help us reach a conclusion about why my claim of being a bit of a "scholar" or "authority" bothers you so much.

I didn't claim that it bothered me. I merely suggested that it was problematic to be making claims to competence you do not have. I'll suggest a wise response would have been to admit you merely got carried away when talking about your intellectual journey. Instead, you seem to be attempting to justify your claim, by e.g. appealing to the length of time you've been "studying history". This is regrettable.

My position on the "main character in the Bible", which I assume is a peculiar way of referring to Jesus, is irrelevant to our exchange, and apropos of nothing I've said to you. You're welcome to ask me the same question in the "historical Jesus" thread, mind you.

Tracer Tong wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I disagree with your 1. and 2, of course.

Annnnnd there we are. Your disagreeing is based on nothing else than your uniformed opinion. I already provided you with definitions of the word scholar, which you ignored. And you keep doing it by giving it the meanings you want. We've seen this technique here before, and it fools no one. You can keep thinking stupid things based on your own made-up definition of some words, that doesn't make said definitions viable, or believable. Same thing for the opinions derived from those definitions.

I ignored your citation of a dictionary because, as a native speaker of English, I don't need recourse to a dictionary to understand the term "scholar" (seldom do I need recourse to one at all, in fact).

Apparently you do as your idiosyncratic definition is different from the common usages/definitions.

Tracer Tong wrote: You are of course free to select definitions of the term out of a dictionary for rhetorical purposes (e.g. your "student; pupil"), and this isn't an uncommon thing to do, but I've really no reason to join you. When someone claims to be a "serious biblical scholar", they're making, or at the very least can reasonably be understood to be making, a claim to the sort of competence I described earlier. I merely noted that Agrippina has no such competence, and so shouldn't be making such a claim.

The only claim they can be reasonably infered to have made is that they have studied the bible.
Which Agrippinia has done.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:It's irrelevant whether you grant it or not. It's a fact.

Even if I grant this,

Facts do not magically disappear if you do not 'grant' them.

Tracer Tong wrote: it wasn't a relevant statement, since I didn't suggest Agrippina did anything illegal.

Again, my point was that 'scholar' is not a clearly defined academic title. Which you did allude to here:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK. I guess the issue is that you're calling yourself a Bible scholar when you've no academic qualifications in that discipline.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The point is that there are no clearly defined requirements for who qualifies to use the title 'scholar'.

Sure there are.

So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You can disagree that the earth orbits around the sun too.
I don't see why that should carry any weight.
You might have an idiosyncratic definition of the word, but that's not how it's commonly used or defined.

I beg to differ: my usage is far from idiosyncratic, being very common indeed.

Another blind assertion, provided without any substantiation, even after evidence to the contrary has already been provided by aban.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Complete failure to actually refute any of the points made, has been noted.

And equally rhetorically, "I note your failure to actually refute any of mine".

Sure.

Tracer Tong wrote:
When you're ready to calm down and have a serious discussion, I'm all ears, folks.

Oh look, blind accusations about the emotional state of your interlocutors. The true hallmark of a rational person, especially after making multiple unsupported assertions.

Quote me where I've expressed in any way that I am no calm or retract this dishonest ad-hom.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Apparently you do as your idiosyncratic definition is different from the common usages/definitions.

Apparently I don't, as my definition is not idiosyncratic at all.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The only claim they can be reasonably infered to have made is that they have studied the bible.
Which Agrippinia has done.

Nah: surely this wouldn't be the only claim it could reasonably be inferred they had made, if it could reasonably be inferred at all.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Facts do not magically disappear if you do not 'grant' them.

Of course not. Who suggested otherwise?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.

Much as you asserted, and failed to demonstrate, the contrary.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another blind assertion, provided without any substantiation, even after evidence to the contrary has already been provided by aban.

Much as your prior assertion was blind and unsubstantiated. Aban's remarks have already been dealt with already.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sure.

My thoughts exactly.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Oh look, blind accusations about the emotional state of your interlocutors. The true hallmark of a rational person, especially after making multiple unsupported assertions.

Quote me where I've expressed in any way that I am no calm or retract this dishonest ad-hom.

If your suggestion is that you're perfectly calm and yet still playing rhetorical games, I fear I was earlier too charitable.

Tom, you and I can go back and forth like this for as long as you (or the moderating staff) like. But when you are ready to really engage in conversation, I'm all ears.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Apparently you do as your idiosyncratic definition is different from the common usages/definitions.

Apparently I don't, as my definition is not idiosyncratic at all.

You can mindlessly repeat this as many times as you want, it doesn't make it true.
You need to actually demonstrate this.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The only claim they can be reasonably infered to have made is that they have studied the bible.
Which Agrippinia has done.

Nah: surely this wouldn't be the only claim it could reasonably be inferred they had made,

You've just now admitted there isn't just one correct interpetation.
Meaning your own is no more valid than that of others.

Tracer Tong wrote: if it could reasonably be inferred at all.

Then why don't you start presenting some arguments or better yet evidence to support your interpetation, like aban and I've done, instead of repeating the same unsupported assertions?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Facts do not magically disappear if you do not 'grant' them.

Of course not. Who suggested otherwise?

You do. I pointed out, with evidence, that scholar isn't an recognised title, either academically or legally.
You then responded with 'if I grant that' as if it was some hypothetical you could reject.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you assert, but fail to demonstrate.

Much as you asserted, and failed to demonstrate, the contrary.

This is just pathetic Tracer Tong.
I provided you with evidence that it isn't official title.
Before that, aban already provided you with evidence from the dictionary that the definitions of scholar, do not include 'has academic qualifications'.

All you've done is repeatedly and blindly asserted you're right and everyone else is wrong.
When your repeated lack of substantiation is pointed out, you respond with 'I know what you are, but what am i?'
Really? Do you really believe this will hide your failure to actually support your position with sound arguments?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Another blind assertion, provided without any substantiation, even after evidence to the contrary has already been provided by aban.

Much as your prior assertion was blind and unsubstantiated. Aban's remarks have already been dealt with already.

Blind counterfactual assertions do not refute the evidence aban provided with regards to the common definitions/usages of the word scholar.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Oh look, blind accusations about the emotional state of your interlocutors. The true hallmark of a rational person, especially after making multiple unsupported assertions.

Quote me where I've expressed in any way that I am no calm or retract this dishonest ad-hom.

If your suggestion is that you're perfectly calm and yet still playing rhetorical games, I fear I was earlier too charitable.

Doubling down on your initial baseless ad-hom I see.
Fine I'll let the mods deal with this. Meanwhile anyone can see you cannot actually address the argument instead of the imagined emotional state of your interlocutors.
And it isn't 'playing a rethorical game' when someone makes personal accuastions based on idiosyncratic definitions.

Tracer Tong wrote:
Tom,

My name is not Tom.

Tracer Tong wrote: you and I can go back and forth like this for as long as you (or the moderating staff) like. But when you are ready to really engage in conversation, I'm all ears.

If I had not encountered this sort of posting before, I'd almost be surprised at someone being so oblivious to the fact that our entire conversation is present in this thread. Including your repeated failure to actually support your position with anything beyond assertions, whereas I have actually provided arguments as well as evidence to support said arguments.

Go ahead, pretend this did not happen all you want, but it won't magically erase the facts.
Unless you are trying for suicide by mod though, I suggest you cease the baseless, personalised remarks.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I didn't claim that it bothered me. I merely suggested that it was problematic to be making claims to competence you do not have. I'll suggest a wise response would have been to admit you merely got carried away when talking about your intellectual journey. Instead, you seem to be attempting to justify your claim, by e.g. appealing to the length of time you've been "studying history". This is regrettable.

Get of your high horse.