Analysis vs appeals to authority

[djconklin]

Quote:
In the years I have been dealing with these critics not once have they ever produced a single example on this subject that they found by their own research. Critics have claimed my work was "sloppy" without ever producing even a single example to support the claim. They have claimed that I ignored synonyms when I fact I did pay attention to it. They have claimed that Dr. Veltman was a "second-rate scholar" (again, with no proof that this was so.). They have recently claimed that I'm "second-rate"--again, of course, with no facts to support it. And, if I'm second-rate and have done more work on it that any single person on the planet, who's on first?
I hear the humbleness of your post.

"humbleness" isn't the question. The point is who has done the work and who hasn't.

You couldn't answer the many questions about your research methods and your results on CARM,

Claiming, without offering any proof, that my work was "sloppy" isn't asking a question ab't anything. Claiming that my work is "F" in quality isn't asking any question either. Note the other unfounded remarks made ab't my study in the above quote.

and I was not the one questioning you.

I didn't claim that you did.

But I followed the conversations and you failed to answer. And, conveniently, you won't go back.

As noted above there was no question ab't my research methods, etc..

I couldn't go back because I was banned for asking a question. And since I get no support there there's really no reason to go back.

Anyone who has actually read Rea's book and my work would instantly recognize the double-columns. Anyone who has read Dr. Veltman's study and has seen mine would instantly recognize that I colorized the text where Dr. Veltman's used under-lining. Of course, in order to recognize the similarites one have to have had actually looked at all three studies. To date, none of the critics show any awareness of anything other than Rea's--and even there I can tell that they didn't look too closely at it otherwise they would have found how the evidence was manipulated and distorted just as I have.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by djconklin
1) It is a lie to say that I challenged "official SDA research conclusions." I merely noted that that was all the further you went and that it was merely an appeal to authority vs. an appeal to the facts at hand.

But you have tried to establish yourself as a higher authority that we should be appealing to. You believe your conclusions are the 'facts at hand' rather than the conclusions that have already been drawn by the church you're trying to defend.

1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.
2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!
3) I have never, ever started any study with the idea of what conclusion I was going to come up with--quite frankly, in this case I couldn't give a rat's tail what the answer was. I seek for the truth of the matter no matter what it is. I don't care what the truth is, I just have to know what it is--that is my temperment. Secondly, you can't, and will not, prove that your claim was true to begin with!

 

[freeindeed2]

1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.

And thus establish yourself as an authority.

2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!

I am aware that you disagree on some points with the years of reseach done officially by the SDA church. Again, you've established your works as an authority over their works.

My statement about defending the SDA church was intended to be broader than on just the writings of EGW.

3) I have never, ever started any study with the idea of what conclusion I was going to come up with--quite frankly, in this case I couldn't give a rat's tail what the answer was. I seek for the truth of the matter no matter what it is. I don't care what the truth is, I just have to know what it is--that is my temperment. Secondly, you can't, and will not, prove that your claim was true to begin with!

Bacchiochi says the same thing, yet after reading several of his works I beg to differ (one kudo I'll give him is that he's realized that the dates EGW/SDAism use for the IJ doctrine aren't correct). If this were true (that you seek the truth no matter what it is) you would have to acknowledge the problems that exist with your prophet, her visions, and her writings. But I don't pick that up in your defense of her.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
1) I have never ever set myself up as an authority. I always point towards my work which shows the evidence at hand.

And thus establish yourself as an authority.

So, if use a calculator and show that 2+2=4 I make myself into a math expert? Go by the evidence; ignore the personalities.

 

[djconklin]

2) If you had actually read my work and compared with what "the church" says you would have found out by now that I disagree with "the church"!

I am aware that you disagree on some points with the years of reseach done officially by the SDA church. Again, you've established your works as an authority over their works.

ARGH! I have never claimed to be an authority. My work basically just shows what others (like Rea and Dr. Veltman) have already done. What I note about the EGW Estates claims is that they cannot prove and have not been proven what they say--and we don't see the evidence--I show it--that's why you are afraid of it and never look at it.

 

[djconklin]

(one kudo I'll give him is that he's realized that the dates EGW/SDAism use for the IJ doctrine aren't correct).

Another claim made with no proof to support it--do you see a pattern here?