Then why is there a “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies”?
Is there? Of course, this discussion will go nowhere, because I will ask you where a credentialed social scientist has written of such a law.
To someone who does not have the time or inclination to sort through scholarly discourse on a given topic, it does indeed appear as if “for every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.” But in fact all opinions are not equal–at least not in the scholarly fields I know. Some views, over time, reveal more and more flaws. Others, as they are challenged, become more and more established. It’s
always a matter of probability and *never *of complete certainty, and again, this can be confusing to people who aren’t familiar with how historical scholarship works and who expect cut-and-dried answers or nothing.
At least in my own usage, when I ask for a “serious scholar” who has written on such a topic I’m not doing so because I think that such a scholar can provide an authoritative answer that will end debate. I’m doing so in order to limit debate to theories that have been somewhat tested against the evidence and that have already faced serious criticism by qualified people with differing views. (And also to make it more likely that the strongest possible version of a theory will be the one being discussed.) In the blogosphere anyone can make anything up and pass it off as expertise (people can even make up such things as “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies”
). The scholarly world is confusing, and diverse, and often silly, and sometimes corrupt. But it’s
relatively more limited and *relatively *less likely to give birth to utter nonsense, and
relatively more likely to lead to constructive discussions that have something to do with the truth.
I would agree with you if the “propagandistic nonsense” of, say, most conspiracy theorists were also ruled out, but no.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you accusing me (or someone else) of giving credence to conspiracy theorists, or are you seriously saying that we need to listen to conspiracy theorists? (I would actually agree that we should not rule out the faint possibility that a conspiracy theorist might have some grain of truth, but I don’t agree that they should be given “more than a fair hearing.”)
Funny no one else has to pass this test, not atheists, not wiccans, not devil worshipers, not victims of alien abduction, nor, least of all, the Muslim posters here. Only Christians and their apologists have to.
I don’t know what you are talking about. You certainly are not describing anything that I think, or anything that informs my conduct on this forum. I spend more time arguing with my fellow Christians, both because they are dominant on this forum and because it is important to refute silly things said by your own side before trying to tackle the silly things said by someone else. (When I tell Planten that he’s being unfair and illogical, I can hope that he will give some credibility to what I say because he knows that I frequently object to unfair and illogical things that other Christians say.) But I really am not quite sure what you are talking about or how it is relevant to anything.
You have not read his book. I did. It is not about history or physics, but about the science of thinking.
But you are quoting him with regard to the historical question of Islam’s relationship to science.
Why is it that you and other anti-Islamic polemicists have such a hard job finding professional scholars of Islam who actually agree with you? (I know some of the possible answers, but I won’t put answers in your mouth.)
Edwin
