Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
That makes me sad.
Works for me (IE, Chrome and iPad Safari). Back to imgur galleries I guess.
Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)
- Thread starter Stout
- Start date
That makes me sad.
Works for me (IE, Chrome and iPad Safari). Back to imgur galleries I guess.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I don’t believe we’ve found the “best eyewitness account” yet, not even the best one written by Martin prior to abandoning his domain. But yes, this is the best account we seem to have archived.
Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
Can you recall whether the lost account suggested he later learned EGs identity? Clearly this one leaves Martin without any direct knowledge of the perp.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I seem to recall that, but have no way to verify whether this memory is false or not.
Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
We could always ask him. I mean how many Martin-Rorschach-Melb-atheist-Ftb affiliates can there be out there?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Hopefully, no more than the two.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
The atheists I know are already doing those 5 things.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
When did atheism become an organized group with rules and dogma?
If I wanted infallible leaders I'd go with Catholicism, more tradition.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I prefer those as well, because reasons. Mostly accessibility.
By the way, kudos on your inquiries into the whole Sheffield Phoenix Press thing.
Any idea which particular author they might be talking about?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Which of our many thought leaders claimed to be infallible this time?
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I can't find this in the posting trail above, but I assume that it is Richard Carrier? I can see he writes on his blog here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090I prefer those as well, because reasons. Mostly accessibility.
By the way, kudos on your inquiries into the whole Sheffield Phoenix Press thing.
[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYHi-g5U0AA5jkQ.jpg[/qimg]
Any idea which particular author they might be talking about?
My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK).
Checking the Sheffield Phoenix website, I found: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/about.asp
Phoenix has developed a distinctive presence among publishers serving the field of biblical studies. It undertakes
* to be an independent company (not part of a conglomerate)...
...
Sheffield Phoenix Press is located in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Sheffield.
So it seems to be an independent entity within the UoS. Sounds like an easy misunderstanding to make.* to be an independent company (not part of a conglomerate)...
...
Sheffield Phoenix Press is located in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Sheffield.
Last edited:
Still nothing over at FtB about the Cologne attacks....I wonder why
OTOH, the blogger who wasn't politically correct enough for the network has tackled the issue Ophelia Benson
OTOH, the blogger who wasn't politically correct enough for the network has tackled the issue Ophelia Benson
Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
Richard Carrier 'enhances' the status of his publisher
Who publishes your specialist book is a vital element in determining the attention and baseline respect it's accorded by both academics and the public.
There is a general hierarchy of publishers running from top tier Uni Press, other Uni Press, private academic press, commercial main street press and finally vanity press (some subjects will vary this by having specific uniquely placed publishers).
Carrier has consistantly put his publisher (Sheffield Phoenix Press) in the university print house category. He wasn't silly enough to call it Sheffield University Press - but he used that term in lower case.
Typically he would say his book was 'published by the university' or by the print arm of the uni or some such stuff.
This was all picked up by Jan Steen of the Pit.
Sheffield Phoenix Press is a private academic press run by 3 uni staff using Uni facilities. They acknowledge the company is not in any way formally affiliated with or endorsed by the institution.
I had a twitter argument with Carrier over his usage before the sensible option of asking Sheffield University was undertaken - and I received the email response Damion posted above.
Carrier has basically been academically gilding his lilly - whether by intent or thru ignorance. I seriously doubt he doesn't know the distinction between a Uni endorsed publisher and an independant academic press.
His usage below is way beyond any simple confusion with SPP's loose geo-connection with Sheffield.
......................
Examples of his use:
a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK).
http://web.archive.org/web/20150820110826/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090
Ehrman has refused to even address my peer reviewed, Sheffield university press book On the Historicity of Jesus.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794
given that my Historicity book was published by Sheffield University
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6621
will discuss evidence in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (published by Sheffield University)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7943
I have documented it all in my book On the Historicity of Jesus, published by Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing arm of the University of Sheffield.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8761
Who publishes your specialist book is a vital element in determining the attention and baseline respect it's accorded by both academics and the public.
There is a general hierarchy of publishers running from top tier Uni Press, other Uni Press, private academic press, commercial main street press and finally vanity press (some subjects will vary this by having specific uniquely placed publishers).
Carrier has consistantly put his publisher (Sheffield Phoenix Press) in the university print house category. He wasn't silly enough to call it Sheffield University Press - but he used that term in lower case.
Typically he would say his book was 'published by the university' or by the print arm of the uni or some such stuff.
This was all picked up by Jan Steen of the Pit.
Sheffield Phoenix Press is a private academic press run by 3 uni staff using Uni facilities. They acknowledge the company is not in any way formally affiliated with or endorsed by the institution.
I had a twitter argument with Carrier over his usage before the sensible option of asking Sheffield University was undertaken - and I received the email response Damion posted above.
Carrier has basically been academically gilding his lilly - whether by intent or thru ignorance. I seriously doubt he doesn't know the distinction between a Uni endorsed publisher and an independant academic press.
His usage below is way beyond any simple confusion with SPP's loose geo-connection with Sheffield.
......................
Examples of his use:
a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK).
http://web.archive.org/web/20150820110826/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090
Ehrman has refused to even address my peer reviewed, Sheffield university press book On the Historicity of Jesus.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794
given that my Historicity book was published by Sheffield University
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6621
will discuss evidence in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (published by Sheffield University)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7943
I have documented it all in my book On the Historicity of Jesus, published by Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing arm of the University of Sheffield.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8761
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I would like to believe this was all just an honest mistake, but it is difficult to imagine that even small details like this would simply slip past an academic historian whom we hold in high repute.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Particularly not so blatantly and repeatedly. It's like he's desperate to have something barely a step above a vanity press treated as a top tier university press.
Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
I can understand Carrier wanting to maximise his publishers cred.
He is pushing views held by what's generally considered the conspiracy wing of biblical studies.
His book is using mathamatics to quantify the odds that Jesus existed.
He has no academic institutional endorsement of his own. He can't even point to the teaching of undergrads like PZ can.
But he does have an independent unaffiliated academic press setup by 3 Sheffield Uni staff (including one whose specialty is a fusion of biblical studies and feminism) and with an apparent staff of one. This is his leverage.
There is no charitable way you can take the status of that press and turn it into THE publishing house or THE publishing arm of Sheffield Uni - let alone "Sheffield university press" - and I don't care how you play with capitalisation.
This is blatant academic misrepresentation.
He is pushing views held by what's generally considered the conspiracy wing of biblical studies.
His book is using mathamatics to quantify the odds that Jesus existed.
He has no academic institutional endorsement of his own. He can't even point to the teaching of undergrads like PZ can.
But he does have an independent unaffiliated academic press setup by 3 Sheffield Uni staff (including one whose specialty is a fusion of biblical studies and feminism) and with an apparent staff of one. This is his leverage.
There is no charitable way you can take the status of that press and turn it into THE publishing house or THE publishing arm of Sheffield Uni - let alone "Sheffield university press" - and I don't care how you play with capitalisation.
This is blatant academic misrepresentation.
Last edited:
devnull
Philosopher
Id suggest that if there's any misrepresentation going on, it'd be from the publishers themselves.
Carrier would be well aware of the army of fact checkers on the internet, waiting for him to slip up.
Carrier would be well aware of the army of fact checkers on the internet, waiting for him to slip up.
So, if he was aware of these "fact checkers" lurking to seize on any errors surely he would be worried at the seemingly deliberate and obvious misrepresentation of his publisher's claims and would have quickly corrected any possible misinterpretation.
Oops, looks like that didn't happen.
If he has disavowed these references before the whistle was blown then I will accept your suggestion as plausible. Post the event equivocations are not so convincing.
Brive1987
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 556
Richard Carrier & the peer review of "On the historicity of Jesus"
I just had a long conversation with a family member who has formal uni experience from both sides of the fence in classics.
Peer review in the humanities is not really a "thing" like it is in hard science.
In science the review can confirm semi-objective truths - was the methodology sound, do the facts and conclusions follow etc. Is the (typically narrowly focussed journal article) a new plank of best scenario 'hard knowledge''?
In the humanities, reviews are more a test that "peers" consider the topic / paper worthy of being added to the overall literature of "points of view that might influence the discussion". This often occurs before a work is completed ie at the proposal stage. Additional pre publishing reviews are more about obvious gotchas rather than baseline testing of data and hypothisis.
Minor publishers may have reviewers who find proposed marginal topics palatable - or the publisher may over rule concerns. Major publishers will have more stringent requirements for proposals and be far more fussy on what they will contribute to the debate. Hence you won't find Oxford or Cambridge pushing mythicists.
The real" test of acceptance is whether or not a published work is noticed and contributes meaningfully to debate - being cited and stocked in libraries.
Carrier's work has been cited externally only 5 times, is stocked by only 50 or so libraries and has not attracted academic attention. This is the real "peer review" of On the Historicity of Jesus
So SPP's review was probably standard within the humanities and for a second tier print house. However that 'peer review' served a different purpose to that commonly assumed when discussing hard science usage. And the (lack of) post publish reception is really the key.
Simply put, to come out and say your history book was "peered reviewed" and stop there should produce a shrug and a cocked eyebrow in the academic audience.
Bottom line:
Carrier's peer review claim does not add meaningful weight to his work's credibility.
Carrier's claim merely accentuates the lack of actual acceptance of his work in continued debate
Carrier is hoping the casual amateur scholar will channel the *hard science meaning* of "peer review".
..............
tl/dr
In short Carrier seeks an (otherwise absent) establishment level kudos by misrepresenting both the implied status of his publisher as well as the importance of the 'peer review' process. It is an open question whether this was done consciously or not.
I just had a long conversation with a family member who has formal uni experience from both sides of the fence in classics.
Peer review in the humanities is not really a "thing" like it is in hard science.
In science the review can confirm semi-objective truths - was the methodology sound, do the facts and conclusions follow etc. Is the (typically narrowly focussed journal article) a new plank of best scenario 'hard knowledge''?
In the humanities, reviews are more a test that "peers" consider the topic / paper worthy of being added to the overall literature of "points of view that might influence the discussion". This often occurs before a work is completed ie at the proposal stage. Additional pre publishing reviews are more about obvious gotchas rather than baseline testing of data and hypothisis.
Minor publishers may have reviewers who find proposed marginal topics palatable - or the publisher may over rule concerns. Major publishers will have more stringent requirements for proposals and be far more fussy on what they will contribute to the debate. Hence you won't find Oxford or Cambridge pushing mythicists.
The real" test of acceptance is whether or not a published work is noticed and contributes meaningfully to debate - being cited and stocked in libraries.
Carrier's work has been cited externally only 5 times, is stocked by only 50 or so libraries and has not attracted academic attention. This is the real "peer review" of On the Historicity of Jesus
So SPP's review was probably standard within the humanities and for a second tier print house. However that 'peer review' served a different purpose to that commonly assumed when discussing hard science usage. And the (lack of) post publish reception is really the key.
Simply put, to come out and say your history book was "peered reviewed" and stop there should produce a shrug and a cocked eyebrow in the academic audience.
Bottom line:
Carrier's peer review claim does not add meaningful weight to his work's credibility.
Carrier's claim merely accentuates the lack of actual acceptance of his work in continued debate
Carrier is hoping the casual amateur scholar will channel the *hard science meaning* of "peer review".
..............
tl/dr
In short Carrier seeks an (otherwise absent) establishment level kudos by misrepresenting both the implied status of his publisher as well as the importance of the 'peer review' process. It is an open question whether this was done consciously or not.