GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Oh cool, we're making up our own definitions now. Which is great, because it's not like there are an sort of literal definitions available.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Just another embarrassing FOX News moment
- Thread starter forknknife
- Start date
- Status
Tim the Wiz
Banned
You should email USC. Obviously they have a fraud in their midst. Pedantry to the point of solipsism; DetectiveGAF, is there anything you can't do?
OttomanScribe
Member
When a discussion starts using dictionary definitions, it is going downhill, fast.
There is an extensive discussion within historiography about what constitutes an academic historian. Dr. Aslan would know, assuming he had studied historiography, that he is not that by any stretch of the word.
Even with dumb dictionary definition debates (alliteration wooh!) he doesn't become a scholar of history.
He isn't a scholar of history because he hasn't done advanced study in history.
And as I've said, he is a type of historian, he is an amateur one. He isn't an academic historian because he doesn't have a formal education in history and he hasn't undergone peer review.
This shouldn't be that controversial an assertion.
If they've employed him in a position in the history department under the impression that he has a PhD in history.. then yeah, that would be an issue.
I argue this because I find it bizarre that the point is even being contested. If you aren't trained in historiography, you haven't undergone peer review in history and you don't even have an undergrad qualification in history, you aren't an academic historian. If that is me being a pedant, then guilty as charged.
finalboss2
Member
the fox news reporter should've asked him why he, as a religious scholar, chose Islam over Christianity. In his reddit AMA he avoids the subject of Jesus and just says he likes the symbolism in Islam more, but it would have one a much better job of helping her strategy out, which was basically attack somebody for not agreeing Christianity and writing about Jesus.
GoddyofAus
Banned
When you look at Fox News, and the NOTW fiasco in the UK and the terrible state of newspapers and media in general in Australia, how can anybody think of the Murdoch family as anything but a cancer.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Hilarious that this backfired on Fox and made the book and author more popular. He played them like chumps.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Hard to go downhill from insistence on your own idiosyncratic etymology, then defending it dogmatically in the face of commonly accepted literal definitions, or to dismiss those definitions out of hand in a conversation stemming from your own insistence on observing proper definitions.
OttomanScribe
Member
As one who aspires to be an academic historian, already working in research, already submitting myself to peer review, so I have an obvious bias in not having people act as though a sociology degree makes one a historian.
From what I understand, his actual position is not particularly novel. The objection to him by Christians is probably because the NT narrative isn't viewed by many historians as particularly sound.
Hey man, drive on with defending your future credentials, and ignoring definitions when they don't suit you. I'm just sitting here enjoying the show.
The FOX interview made me face palm
The Daily Show interview made me download a sample for my kindle... and decided to buy it
It is a really nice book that manages to describe the political insanity of the time for those that are interested but not really into religion... a real page turner.
The Daily Show interview made me download a sample for my kindle... and decided to buy it
It is a really nice book that manages to describe the political insanity of the time for those that are interested but not really into religion... a real page turner.
OttomanScribe
Member
Like I said, even your literal definitions (who uses dictionary definitions in an argument, what is this, a 9 year old's school presentation?) don't support your argument.
He is a scholar, but not in history. He is a historian, but not an academic historian. No amount of tangential arguing will make up for his complete lack of qualifications in history.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Replete with finger pointing and name calling, apparently. But if we're going to adopt an air of incredulity about laying out basic definitions in a discussion based directly on the definition of certain terms (terms which you've disingenuously rephrased in a transparent attempt to move the goal post), then perhaps it would be instructive to point out that you're simultaneously engaging in ad hominem, cherry picking, argument from authority, etc., etc., etc...
For someone whose ambition is scholarly application you construct arguments poorly.
OttomanScribe
Member
The ad hominem point was more of a garnish on my argument, the argument you ignored, namely that even a devotion to dictionary literalism does not support your point.
How about you address that point, contest my definition, or, if we're bringing out the latin, continue to focus on non-sequiturs to draw attention away from my central point, namely:
You become an academic historian through academic credentials obtained though peer review and training in historiography. If you can't contest that point without quoting the dictionary, then you aren't in a position to lecture me on constructing an
argument.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
It's obvious he was in 'dumb-it-down' mode, laying out simple catch-alls for even the most basic of layman to understand. If there was ever a time to be condescending and trumpet his tertiary background, this was it. In a room full of academics, I'm sure he would be more careful about the intricacies of those credentials.
But what I was implying was that your quibbling over this matter speaks to a kind of insecurity on your part that I assume is about your own academic career. And, hey, I understand where that comes from. Aslan treads the same ground as many (but not all) well-known non-fiction writers with an academe background: he's more interested in becoming a popular authority than an academic or especially innovative one. (And given the state of play for those lucky enough to have a PhD in the humanities, probably a wise career move.)
RustyNails
Member
I think Reza did overplay his credentials, but nothing that deems him unqualified to write books.
In Islam it's Judas who was crucified.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
#1 on Amazon, that's pretty sweet.
I'm confused, is this a debate about the literal meaning of the term "historian" or whether or not the author is qualified to write the book he wrote? Because he is clearly qualified as his background in the New Testament, religion, sociology, and the history and political climate of the middle east during the time of Jesus is exactly the background one would want when writing about Jesus the human being in his social and political context.
The rest is just semantics and a really bad interview on Fox News.
The rest is just semantics and a really bad interview on Fox News.
RustyNails
Member
Nope Quran never says that. It simply says it was made to appear that he died, but he didnt.
mightynine
Member
Quote of the interview.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Well, looks like Im buying this book. Seems like a great read.
I guess that's just one version of the story then.
bigboss370
Member
I thought in Islam the thinking is that his soul was uplifted/separated from his body by God before his physical body died, therefore he did not technically die.
The point about historian seems really nit picky to me. You might as well use similar logic to say Herotadus and Thucydidies weren't historians.
He's written books on history that are well regarded and well researched (with comprehensive citations), that seems like enough qualification to me. Sure he might not be an 'academic historian' whatever strict definition you might want to assign to the phrase, but he's a historian nonetheless.
And I cannot imagine how a PhD on the sociology of religions wouldn't have a signficant component of studying historical religious societies and comparing and contrasting them. Found a quote from his thesis advisor:
Let's not get too hung up on the label of his degree.
Finally
He's written books on history that are well regarded and well researched (with comprehensive citations), that seems like enough qualification to me. Sure he might not be an 'academic historian' whatever strict definition you might want to assign to the phrase, but he's a historian nonetheless.
And I cannot imagine how a PhD on the sociology of religions wouldn't have a signficant component of studying historical religious societies and comparing and contrasting them. Found a quote from his thesis advisor:
Let's not get too hung up on the label of his degree.
Finally
There's a lot of sad assumptions here about what a religious mindset should be and not what it can be. It denies the diversity of human experience and thought. Edit: It's tatamount to saying that a devout religious person is incapable of being a scholar.
Maybe he'll read transcripts from other ridiculous FOXNews interviews.
OttomanScribe
Member
That may be the case, which would explain why he said what he said, but would not make it any more a legitimate claim.
In defence of a guy questioned on his motivations for talking about something you question a guys motivations about talking about something.
Yes, maybe, but that trend has led to a general degradation in both the quality of scholarship and the accountability of those with academic credentials (even relevant ones) to peer review. Pop histories can be done well (see: 'After Tamerlane', or the aforementioned 'History of Christianity') but they can also be journalistic and pretty bad, (see Peter Fitzsimmons et al.) and most people aren't really equipped to tell the difference.
This is a discussion, at least at my end, about whether or not people should claim to be academic historians, when they aren't. I think that he certainly was qualified to write the book, though the appeal to authority was unnecessary. I just would have preferred that his appeal to authority was based on actual authority, for example 'I am an academic in the sociology of religions and have been given a PhD by my peers', rather than non-existent authority.
If we take historian at its literal definition, one who writes history or compiles chronicles, then I have been a historian since I wrote a shockingly bad essay on William the Conqueror when I was 9.
This discussion, at least at my end, is about the authority conveyed when one presents themselves as an academic historian, which, when one is obviously not using the literal meaning (which was always problematic anyway) seemed to be being conveyed.
A core element of what makes a historian is not just studying history, but studying historiography. Many disciplines, as I mentioned earlier, have history built into their curriculum, from maths to science to sociology. What distinguishes history as a separate discipline is that one is trained in the work of history, the theory behind it. Without that, every single discipline becomes history because people will necessarily concern themselves with history when studying it.
You were. Whether you were a good one is a completely other issue
. And I would submit has little to do with whether you studied historiography or not. (What do you think about William the Conquerer by the way?)Honestly I've never heard the term before and am finding it difficult to find the label on google which makes it hard for me to see what the general consensus even is on the qualifications required to earn the right to be called one. No offense but it seems to me like a little bit of ivory tower pedantry.
In any case I don't see anything wrong with Aslan's quote on his credentials. Heck it's obvious that he was uncomfortable with having to bring it up and was forced to do so by the insipid questions from Fox News about why he even wrote the book in the first place what with him being Muslim and all. He didn't write the book as a 'muslim' he wrote the book as an acknowledged expert in the field.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Beats reading the book or addressing any of the arguments contained within.
So are they saying if he was just a better muslim it would've been different?
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
From the related links:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/fox-news-host-never-asked-baptist-college-professor-why-he-w
lolol
This same guy once called Obama a skinny ghetto crackhead. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS419531945820111223Yeah, I'm sure he's a non-biased expert in media matters, and what makes for a "very good Muslim". Ugh.
SpectreFire
Member
To be fair, the book is probably biased and people should go into it as such, but the guy was way over the top about it.
Link
The Autumn Wind
It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Oh, what the heck, I'll laugh anyway. Ahahahahahaha!!!
Count Dookkake
Member
Oh cool, we're making up our own definitions now. Which is great, because it's not like there are an sort of literal definitions available.
This is how it usually goes.
Oh yeah, sure...also to be fair, he is also a Muslim so he probably also has a bomb strapped to his chest.
SpectreFire
Member
What does that have anything to do with what I said? It's a book, not an academic paper, it's going to be biased.
The #1 rated cable (by a wide margin) news network in America
DurielBlack
Member
lol, I think religion is a waste but I really like this guy.
But I guess he's not a very good muslim. He never once yelled "convert or die!" or blew himself up like a good muslim should.
It's a good thing the world isn't full of good christians, or they be blowin' everyone up out here!
Seriously, I cringe whenever I walk into the house and my parents are watching any of the big news stations, especially because its usually Fox.
But I guess he's not a very good muslim. He never once yelled "convert or die!" or blew himself up like a good muslim should.
It's a good thing the world isn't full of good christians, or they be blowin' everyone up out here!
Seriously, I cringe whenever I walk into the house and my parents are watching any of the big news stations, especially because its usually Fox.
I just finished a couple of chapters, so far, it don't see any slant away from academics aspects. The chapters I read so far is really about the political atmosphere of ancient Palestine during the time of Jesus.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on GAF.
- Status