tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post112489054253363556..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Counsel for the defenseRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1125010067086488072005-08-25T18:47:00.000-04:002005-08-25T18:47:00.000-04:00Is there any ambiguity in the context in which we ...Is there any ambiguity in the context in which we are discussing this matter, Mr. Bridges? No. I say the factual record because there is no believable counter-interpretation, which is ordinarily what the factual record indicates. Again, majoring on minors is not the mark of serious truth-seekers, so let's not pretend that your objection has any substance. And given the depth of your analytical skills, I give about as much credence to your assessment of the interaction as well.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124941287135268502005-08-24T23:41:00.000-04:002005-08-24T23:41:00.000-04:00Thanks, Gene. You're definitely helping move the a...Thanks, Gene. You're definitely helping move the argument forward.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124937326420076712005-08-24T22:35:00.000-04:002005-08-24T22:35:00.000-04:00>>>The discipline of history includes both reporti...>>>The discipline of history includes both reporting of "trivial facts" and historiography. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, Mr. Prejean, in your original, you defined history as "the factual record," not as you have now defined it, which prompted my response.<BR/><BR/>>>>Accusing me of a "category error" for using a conventional term in a conventional way is absurd. That is, of course, unless you are so foolish as to think that these categories can be so cleanly divided as you suggest, which would simply demonstrate your relative cluelessness on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Actually, my undergraduate degree is in history, with honors no less, including a rather lengthy undergraduate thesis on the difference between "history' and "historiography." I did not "suggest" they can be "cleanly dividied." I stated that they are two separate entitlies, that is why we teach US History and US Historiography as two separate entitlies. I actually wrote, Mr. Prejean:<BR/><BR/>Quote: >>>>>>>>>>Sometimes there is overlap, sometimes there is not an overlap.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BR/><BR/>Any history professor in any university knows the difference between what he reads. He can tell the difference between "history" and "historiography." That difference is not simply "trivial facts" and "historiography." A good history will present some measure of analysis, but it will also record the events themselves in whatever form that data takes. If, for example, a history book then says, "due to classic conflict" or emphasizes conflict or consensus data, you know you are reading interpretive work, e.g. historiography. Also, if these categories cannot be cleanly divided, how is it that you know the difference between them such that you cleanly divided them when you wrote your criticism? <BR/><BR/>>>>>Accusing me of a "category error" for using a conventional term in a conventional way is absurd. <BR/><BR/>Actually, these are terms academicians use, not merely "conventional terms used in a conventional way." That's why, in the history department of most major universities, you will find classes that teach this material. I took, among many classes, US history. I also took US historiography for a year and then wrote a thesis reviewed by the entire faculty of the department. I know the difference. If you were more precise with your language, you wouldn't receive the criticism. <BR/><BR/>In fact, you did very certainly confuse history and historiography when you wrote, "the historical process does privilege one outcome over another; that's the entire point of competing historical theories." You are the one blending two related disciplines into "the historical process," and, just as I thought you might, you are now making an appeal to the interpretive piece. "Historical process" just as I stated, can refer to either the reporting of "history" or to the interpretive discipline of historiography," such is the difference between a textbook and a monograph. You appealed to "the historical process" and just one sentence later said, It's history," which you defined specifically as " the factual record,"..." selected out McGuckin's theory as against Harnack, Pelikan, and Grillmeier, and the growing consensus on his conclusions only make that point out more strongly.." <BR/><BR/>That's a conflation of categories. If the historical process, e.g. the interpretive process" privileges one outcome over another, then "history," the factual record itself," did not select out anything, the interpretive process did it, moreover, in taking a particular "side," yourself, you are making an interpretation about that process and contributing to it.<BR/><BR/>What did Steve say? He and I agree. He wrote:. "Historical events are empirically equivalent. They don’t come stamped with “right” or ‘wrong” on their surface. That’s a value-judgment we bring to the historical process, not one we derive from the historical process. " Absolutely, he is correct. <BR/><BR/>History did not select out anything. To say it did, it requires that you interpret the history of historical interpretation (historiography) in a particular manner, so history (the factual record...that's your own definition) did not select out McGuckin's theory vs. Harnack, et.al. Persons interpreting the history did that. Steve is also correct in stating, "The unique significance of that particular death is not inscribed on the event itself, but in the written record of the event." "History" is your word here, "history" is the event itself, and your own words, "the factual record" define it for us. The outcome is derived from value judgments in your mind and the minds of historians and theologians who have done the analysis. You may be deriving your position from what you think you know of the content of the history of interpretation of the event, but you don't come without any biases whatsoever (nobody does), so you are also doing your own interpretation in order to say that the selection of this theory is "right." That is a value judgment, and, because you, me, Steve and everybody else has a lens by which we view the historical process, whether that be "the factual record," trivial facts, or a mountain of theological or historical monographs,we do not derive the judgment that "x" is the right outcome from the historical process itself. In your particular case, you simply cherry-pick your sources by which you arrive at your conclusions, viz. Dioscorus, Eutyches, Theophan, Harnack, and Meyendorff, among others. In doing this, you are filtering history/historiography and theological writing, not only through their lens, but also your own lens, by virtue of the fact you exclude others, and, as Steve rightly points out, it appears you do this by simply discarding or dismissing those with whom you disagree. <BR/><BR/>>>>I am arguing exactly that it is reasonable to rely on an argument structured according to the historiographical discipline (happy now?) and that the relative strength or weakness of such arguments, far from being a matter of simple opinion versus opinion, is based on an appeal to adherence to the standards of that discipline. In other words, there is relative empirical strength among historiographical opinions; that's the entire point of studying history at all.<BR/><BR/>In the discpline of historiography, the relative strength of an argument is very often a matter of simple opinion vs. opinion, because, in certain discplines, like historical interpretatiion, in the final analysis the those are the standards of that discipline, since they are "relative," and not "absolute." Historical writing is full of biases. US historical writing alone is littered with monographs that have continued the argument between consensus and conflict schools for decades, precisely because historians often look at events and simply have different opinions. For a time, one school may prevail over another, but then the other one comes into vogue. That's the nature of US historiography. If you say "the conflict school" (I use these because they are simply the most basic categories in US historiograhy) is "right" in itse analysis of "x," based on the "consensus of opinion," e.g. who is popular right now, but then the opposing consensus school comes back into vogue (in a cyle of around 20 years on average it seems), then you're ultimately on shaky ground today, since you have made the (current) consensus of opinion, or rather your opinion about the consensus of opinion the determinant of your stand.<BR/><BR/>You have chosen, in your argument, to invest your evaluation in the consensus of a particular viewpoint. Fair enough. However, you are also using that position to make a value judgment about the rightness or wrongness of an outcome based on what you believe to be that consensus.<BR/><BR/>1. Are you now saying that popularity is a determinative factor? Haven't you, in the past said that popularity is not a determinative factor? <BR/><BR/>2. Steve is very correct. There is a tremendous difference between the raw event, the right interpretation of an event, and the rightness of the event itself. You seem to be reading them together. So what if McGuckin was right? If consensus is a determining factor, then, when consensus shifts, will you shift as well? <BR/><BR/>>>> One's position has to actually be threatened before one needs a fallback.<BR/><BR/>And since you decided to appeal to "historiography" instead of "history" and thus revised your argument (yet again), it appears your position was threatened, or else you wouldn't have changed it. <BR/><BR/>>>>> Attorneys also know when they've got the other guy beaten.<BR/><BR/>Yeah right, Mr. Prejean. If you've got us mean, ignorant Protestants "beaten" then why do you keep changing the rules, using one set of standards for your opponents than you do for yourself, making arguments that contradict your little cadre of Romanist apologetes, and contradicting the exegetical method of mainstream Catholics like Brown and Fitzmeyer, and changing your own position in mid-stride (case in point, af first you claimed," ...before conservative Evangelicalism decided to make a comeback into serious scholarship against the tide of nineteenth-century liberal Protestantism (which, BTW, was mere decades ago), this method simply didn't exist" and then, when your error was caught, you then state, "Of course, I am well aware of the Evangelical reliance on Antiochene exegesis...")? I think the good attorney here is Steve. Verdict for the prosecution.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124922843680366172005-08-24T18:34:00.000-04:002005-08-24T18:34:00.000-04:00"Classic category error! He's confused history and..."Classic category error! He's confused history and historiography. (If you ask me this is a clever attorney's trick to give him a fallback position, since he can claim in rebuttal to you that he did not say 'history,' he said, 'the historical process,' which can refer to either history or historical writing (e.g. historiography). Historiography can be said to privilege one outcome over another, because historiography is an interpretitive discpline. Its the nature of the beast. History is the raw reporting of the events."<BR/><BR/>Don't be dense. The discipline of history includes both reporting of "trivial facts" and historiography. Accusing me of a "category error" for using a conventional term in a conventional way is absurd. That is, of course, unless you are so foolish as to think that these categories can be so cleanly divided as you suggest, which would simply demonstrate your relative cluelessness on the subject. On the contrary, I am arguing exactly that it is reasonable to rely on an argument structured according to the historiographical discipline (happy now?) and that the relative strength or weakness of such arguments, far from being a matter of simple opinion versus opinion, is based on an appeal to adherence to the standards of that discipline. In other words, there is relative empirical strength among historiographical opinions; that's the entire point of studying history at all.<BR/><BR/>As for reserving a fallback position, all I can say is "please!" One's position has to actually be threatened before one needs a fallback. Attorneys also know when they've got the other guy beaten.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124920824319733842005-08-24T18:00:00.000-04:002005-08-24T18:00:00.000-04:00Prejean wrote: >>> First, the historical process d...Prejean wrote: >>> First, the historical process does privilege one outcome over another; that's the entire point of competing historical theories.<BR/><BR/>Classic category error! He's confused history and historiography. (If you ask me this is a clever attorney's trick to give him a fallback position, since he can claim in rebuttal to you that he did not say "history," he said, "the historical process," which can refer to either history or historical writing (e.g. historiography). Historiography can be said to privilege one outcome over another, because historiography is an interpretitive discpline. Its the nature of the beast. History is the raw reporting of the events. Sometimes there is overlap, sometimes there is not an overlap. In US history, a professor who did his degree work in the 50's or 80's is, broadly speaking, fairly likely to present history in a manner that emphasizes the role of consensus. In contrast, a professor from the 60's or 70's will tend to view history through the lens of conflict, particularly socio-economic and class conflict. The data, the history, from which both schools of thought draw, however, is exactly the same. A standard survey text is less likely to show overlaps than a monograph on a particular event or period. That goes with the territory.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124900788814540002005-08-24T12:26:00.000-04:002005-08-24T12:26:00.000-04:00In an attempt to divert attention from the clown c...In an attempt to divert attention from the clown car which is Envoy Magazine on-line, I'm going around to my favorite blogs and asking the question:<BR/><BR/><B>What do you think of Pat Robertson's latest, um, political theory that the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and the Venezuelan response that his comments are tantamount to international terrorism?</B>FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124895280066907332005-08-24T10:54:00.000-04:002005-08-24T10:54:00.000-04:00Steve said:"Why does Prejean repeat himself when h...Steve said:<BR/><BR/>"Why does Prejean repeat himself when his objections have been answered?"<BR/><BR/>Because for Prejean it's more about appearances than substance. While Prejean tries to keep up appearances, it doesn't seem that many of his fellow Catholics find his approach convincing. In all the years I've read Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, etc., I don't remember any of them taking Prejean's approach, and I don't expect them to in the future. Prejean's approach is too arbitrary, incoherent, and inconsistent to gain much of a following.<BR/><BR/>The primary issue here is that Prejean is wrong. It is significant, though, that not only is he wrong, but he's also putting forward a case that not many of his fellow Catholics seem to find convincing. By his own standards, he can't claim to agree with the conclusions of his fellow Catholics if he doesn't agree with all of their reasons for reaching their conclusions. But he can get around that problem by changing his standards again.<BR/><BR/>Jason Engwer<BR/>http://members.aol.com/jasonte<BR/>New Testament Research Ministries<BR/>http://www.ntrmin.orgJason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com