Jeffrey Gibson

And the OED defines the word as meaning:

which is more or less how the NYT writer characterized RC, isn't it?

In any event, please note that what I said was that the NYT writer seemed to present Richard as "a bit of a nerd", not "as a nerd", i.e., as having some of the characteristics of a "nerd" as the OED defines "nerd", not as being exactly identical with one.

FWIW, I believe Richard himself has defined himself in just this way.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

You've never met Robin Lane Fox, have you.:wave:

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;4930392]Apologies. I had the impression from what you said, i.e.,

"Neither talk was recorded, but Carrier is available to speak to any group that will pay for his transportation, and will be publishing his book next year"

and

"Christian Hostility to Scientific Values in Antiquity" will be a chapter in his thesis, and published in a book after a year or so.

that his "to be published book" and his thesis were separate entities. There is, after all, nothing in what you wrote that identifies the "to be published book" with his thesis, is there?

And yes, I do know how "that sort of thing works" at Columbia and elsewhere, having had direct experience of the process.

Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. I had the impression from what you wrote that the "to be published" book was to be published before RC's was awarded his degree (assuming that he passes muster). As my direct experience informs me, one does not generally line up a publisher for, let alone publish, one's thesis before it is accepted by one's dissertation committee and one's has one's degree in hand.

Jeffrey

Magdlyn

urban dictionary

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to write to the NYT author (Mark Oppenheimer) and find out if your interpretation of what he says is correct? He may be contacted at mark.oppenheimer [at] yale [dot] ...

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder, Ted/Jacob, if you do me the kindness, first, of defining "many" and "academic accomplishments" and, second, show me where the NYT author presented RC as having "many" accomplishments of any sort.

So far as I can see, in addition to noting what Richard has not done, he mentions only 3 thing that he has done, none of which are actually presented as intellectual and/or academic accomplishments:

1. self-published a book (so has Yuri Kuchinsky); [BTW, has RC's book ever been reviewed in any of the standard academic Philosophical journals? Has it earned/commanded the respect of any expert in the field of Philosophy? Has it been cited positively in any professional philosopher's books or articles? Has it been taken notice of in any way whatsoever within the guild of professional philosophers?]

2. contributed to Skeptical Inquirer magazine

3. was the editor of the online community Secular Web.

Are you counting appearances at chess meetings, science fiction conventions, and skeptics conferences as "intellectual and academic achievements"? If so, please note not only that they really aren't these things, but the author never says that RC has made any such appearances. All he says is that Richard is of the same type as those who do.

Jeffrey

Toto

Do you have a difference of opinion on this interpretation? Are you so tone deaf that you can't interpret it for yourself? (I mean, Ted Hoffman is from Kenya and a different culture.) Is there a reason that I should bother Mark Oppenheimer about a trivial question like this?

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. Vitriol from one who says it is inappropriate on IIDB!

And what does where Ted is from have to do with what you said?

And yes, I have a different intrepretation. Oppenheimer is saying that RC's "obsessive streak" keeps RC from finishing his thesis. He is not making any claim that he's affected by RCs character traits, let alone affected in the way you claim he has been.

Yes. The question isn't trivial. It goes to the important issue of whether your interpretative abilities are any good -- whether you read into texts (especially about Carrier) things that aren't there.

And how do you know that asking Oppenheimer about this would be a bother to him or one that he wouldn't mind being "bothered" with?

So do you have enough confidence in your interpretation and your interpretative abilities to check out out the validity of your claim, or not?

Jeffrey

Toto

No, just exasperation.

I thought the question was obvious, based on my cultural background.

But Carrier is on track with his thesis. He has turned in a first draft, not to mention having written a book and a few other things. In fact, I get the same feeling of "debilitation" myself when I think about Carrier's energy level and focus, and contrast it with my own achievement level. But perhaps you have never had that experience, or heard someone express that feeling.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

This is too much.

Almost as funny as "pièce de chutzpah."

OK, I have no confidence in my interpretive abilities. But the main reason I would not bring this up with Oppenheimer is that I would be ashamed to ask a question about such an infintessimally trivial matter. Oppenheimer has written a significant article with devastating implications. He has shown that an aged philosopher, who is not obviously senile, can be dragooned into supporting total nonsense that contradicts his entire professional work, merely by persistance and offers of friendship. Richard Carrier's role in the story (which everyone who has been on this board for a while is probably aware of, since he has written several articles about it) is just an amusing little sidenote, about a graduate student who tried to pull Flew back from the brink, and almost succeeded.

The portrait of Carrier might only make sense to people who have met him in person, and may indeed have some comic exaggeration, which might take a highly developed sense of irony to appreciate. Have you checked your irony level lately?

mountainman

the question is how you fail to understand
the irony of Arnaldo Momigliano.


Best wishes


Pete