Comments on: What a coincidence!

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:38:36 +0000

Since this thread has degenerated more and more coarse abuse, originating overwhelmingly from just two people, I’m going to close it to further comment. People can and will make their own minds up about the merits of the case.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:13:18 +0000

Honest Abe: “Prof. Weatherson?” Are you telling me that Brian Weatherson is A PROFESSOR? Are you telling me that the only other human being on the face of the earth whose reading skills are as weak as your own is a PROFESSOR??? No way, man. Things can’t be that bad. Can they?

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:53:28 +0000

Should read “Vinteuil @ March 20, 2004 04:21 AM”.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:08:31 +0000

More laughs from a clown called “abe”. All Vinteuil noted in passing was that Leiter’s “conclusion” did not come at the end of his piece, contrary to Weatherson’s claim (see Weatherson @ March 20, 2004 01:18 AM) that it did. This suggests that Weatherson either did not read what he purports to be defending, or was simply incompetent as to what he read. Having exposed Weatherson’s gaffe, he then proceeded to make his main objection: that Leiter does not provide a single justified reason that shows Van Dyke to be a “scholarly fraud”, let alone many (see Vinteuil @ March 20, 2004 12:47 AM). But nooo, an embarrassed Weatherson comes back saying: “And it was, as I said, a conclusion, although at some schools I’ve been at we’ve had problems with the freshmen telling conclusions from premises, so I’m not surprised that happens on this board too.” When of course no one denied it was a “conclusion”. What was denied was that it was a conclusion that “came at the end”. This makes Weatherson look incredibly stupid because it just shows he either never read Leiter’s piece, or was simply incompetent in reading. Do you have problems with freshmen reading at the schools you’ve been? With professors like you, I’m not surprised it happens on this board too. Best change your nick to “dishonest abe”, clown. And apparently, the many dishonest scholarly frauds who are defending Leiter appear to be academic philosophers. Goes to show that contra Brian Leiter, scholarly fraud gets you pretty far in academia, as far as brown-nosing goes. Pathetic.

By: honest abe

honest abe — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:53:51 +0000

Your objection appeared to be precisely to the form, your denials notwithstanding. Despite the fireworks, Prof. Weatherson clearly has the better of this argument.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:00:30 +0000

Enthymeme has robbed me of my best reply to Brian Weatherson’s feeble and dishonest post. Curses.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:11:36 +0000

Vinteuil at 6.35 am: “Apparently careless reading is a habit of yours. I made no objection to the form of Prof. Leiter’s “argument.”” Weatherson, 40 minutes later: “_So whether someone puts their conclusions at the top of the piece or the end of the piece is now more important_ than whether they make up stuff” Laughable.

By: e

Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:35:24 +0000

Gully is guilty of scholarly fraud and misleading innuendo that suggests that 300 philosophers actually responded when only 60% did. Scholarly fraud is, I fear, an inauspicious beginning for an aspiring list-maker. Let’s hope he has no intention of entering the list-making and polling industry. Let none of the law school list-makers who are readers of this site be mistaken: Gully has perpetrated scholarly fraud, one that may have political, pedagogical and list-making consequences. Weatherson says: “Would it be OK to say that saying this in a book review could have ‘political and pedagogical consequences’?” Sure, if you don’t preface it with “I sure hope he has no intention of entering law teaching”. No one is fooled, Weatherson. Law teaching is pedagogical, no? What is one way to avert said “political and pedagogical consequences”? Well, deny Van Dyke an opportunity to enter law teaching, that much is implicit. This threat is implicit in Leiter’s explicit reference to law teaching. Why preface comment with that if no implicit threat was intended? No one is fooled, Weatherson.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:17:04 +0000

djw, if you were the local roofing magnate and you said to an incompetent apprentice roofer that he has no future in roofing, then yes, of course it is a threat. Duh. Enthymeme, Leiter didn’t make a threat, implicit or otherwise, as I, djw, Brian W., and others have repeatedly pointed out. You cannot make it so by repeating it ad nauseum. Every claim you’ve made is of this form: what Leiter said could harm VanDyke’s career; therefore, Leiter issued a threat. Even if the premise were true, the conclusion wouldn’t follow. This reply is just stupid. I explicitly said: “Indeed, his perceived influence by dint of the PGR and his law rankings may be far greater than any real influence he wields, but this does not stop him from leveraging it in making all sorts of disgusting portents on a person’s academic future. Threatening someone with an unloaded gun is not any less of a threat. So clearly, not every claim I made was of the form you claim. Indeed, the above makes clear that EVEN if Leiter’s influence does not extend very far, the perceived extent of this influence is enough to make VanDyke feel threatened. “Threatening someone with an unloaded gun is not any less a threat”. Do you have a crippling inability to read English? Tell me why your incompetent brown-nosing not just a waste of my time. Either deal with what I wrote point for point or don’t bother replying at all. Ridiculous; no. It’s entirely misleading to refer to the PGR as ‘Leiter’s rankings’, since it’s generated by polling nearly 300 philosophers. Irritating him would have no effect on one’s department’s ranking. More half-baked crap. Either this is willful misreading, or an utter failure on your part to understand written English. Is Leiter editor? Yes. Is he consulted closely by an advisory board whom he chooses and does he moot categories and methodologies? Yes. Of course his influence is non-negligible. Van Dyke is purportedly an aspiring law academic. Are Leiter’s law rankings “generated by 300 [sic] philosophers”? EVEN if Van Dyke were an aspiring philosopher, would Leiter’s perceived influence make him feel threatened? Obviously. It is entirely plausible that his influence among the 177 philosophers whom he invites and who chose to respond to the PGR might convince them that any department with Van Dyke in it is bound to have a black mark against it, just as the 150 or so law school faculty who choose to respond to his law rankings might think likewise. Duh. This is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain. Are you denying Van Dyke won’t put two and two together and feel threatened? Who are you trying to kid? Either you’re naive, or you have the mental acuity of a flock of grazing sheep.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 07:18:13 +0000

So whether someone puts their conclusions at the top of the piece or the end of the piece is now more important than whether they make up stuff (or repeat what other people have made up) to give the appearance that scientists support a theory for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. Good to see we have our priorities in order. (And it was, as I said, a conclusion, although at some schools I’ve been at we’ve had problems with the freshmen telling conclusions from premises, so I’m not surprised that happens on this board too.) I wonder what would count as scholarly fraud for some people. If I said that Darwin only put forward his theory to try and legitimise his liking for monkey sex, and cited this comments thread as an authority, would that be scholarly fraud? Would it be OK to say that saying this in a book review could have ‘political and pedagogical consequences’? Or do you have to be on Brian Leiter’s side in a debate to be a subject of criticism?

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 06:35:51 +0000

Brian Weatherson: Apparently careless reading is a habit of yours. I made no objection to the form of Prof. Leiter’s “argument.” I merely noted that your previous post revealed a rather embarassing ignorance of what you were defending. To put it more bluntly, you sucked up to him without even bothering to read what he wrote with any attention. I am afraid my objection to Leiter’s screed is rather more serious. He accuses Van Dyke of a great deal more than incompetence. He accuses him of fraud. That is a far more serious charge – and a charge which Leiter abjectly fails to substantiate. You should be ashamed of your transparent attempt to paper over this (rather obviously) central point. “Unsugarcoated” indeed! You are defending a defamatory lie and you are doing it so incompetently that I doubt whether even Leiter himself will appreciate it. Try to do better next time.

By: Gully

Gully — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:36:40 +0000

Enthymeme, Leiter didn’t make a threat, implicit or otherwise, as I, djw, Brian W., and others have repeatedly pointed out. You cannot make it so by repeating it ad nauseum. Every claim you’ve made is of this form: what Leiter said could harm VanDyke’s career; therefore, Leiter issued a threat. Even if the premise were true, the conclusion wouldn’t follow. Also: Say you were on a hiring committee and you bought into the cachet of Leiter’s rankings. Would you think twice before hiring someone who has attracted a great deal of controversy from editor of said rankings? Ridiculous; no. It’s entirely misleading to refer to the PGR as ‘Leiter’s rankings’, since it’s generated by polling nearly 300 philosophers. Irritating him would have no effect on one’s department’s ranking. The power of Brian Leiter is vastly overrated. (And I say this as a fan.)

By: DJW

DJW — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:16:55 +0000

If I see an aspiring roofer putting shingles together with toothpaste, and I (an experienced roofer passing by) mention that if you keep this up you won’t have much success as a roofer, is that a “thinly veiled threat”? Or: “Children, don’t play in the street. It’s dangerous!” “Mom, are you threatening to run us over?” I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this. If you observe someone doing their work shoddily, not keeping quiet about it is not a thinly veiled threat. Pointing out what’s wrong with this behavior and what the likely consequences will be isn’t either. Absent some further evidence beyond your creative reading of this passage, I’d say you’ve got some work to do before you’ve made your case about this threat.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 05:47:37 +0000

Brian, one can provide an “honest assessment” of the merits or demerits of the the HLR note without recourse to thinly veiled threats. Of course it is not a threat to call the incompetent incompetent. No one said it was. But it is an implicit threat to call someone incompetent and to portend academic ruin for said person. See my post on implicit threats 1 and 2. Either respond to that, or don’t respond at all. Or on second thought, go ahead and set up straw men by all means. I won’t stop you.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 05:27:24 +0000

Good grief, you’re complaining because he stated what his conclusions are before going through all of the arguments for them. Should blog posts now all be written in premise-conclusion form so that the conclusions come nice and clearly at the end, so no one gets confused on what is a premise and what is being inferred from them? Leiter doesn’t tend to qualify his statements like s many do in academia. And when one disagrees with him, as I do from time to time, this can seem a little grating. But on the whole it’s good to have clear positions clearly stated. And Leiter does provide arguments for his (unsugarcoated) positions, so it’s not just name-calling. Nor is it a threat to call an incompetent person incompetent, it’s just an honest assessment. Would there was more of it.