> You're telling me to accept it on faith again.
Not true at all. I cited sources and directly quoted them as pointing out the difference between the various professors and lecturers. I even pointed you directly to the fact that gaining promotion from Boghossian's current position is based on contributing original research.
And this is all on top of the fact that I have previously referred you to Boghossian's publication histosy. If he was required to meet mandatory publication criteria then he'd surely have been fired by now, because he's averaging well under a paper per year. He's producing some useful work, like presentations, letters, etc., but nothing that would be counted towards bringing in grant funding (which is what these scholarly targets are all about).
In fact, if you recall, my original reason for directing you towards his publication history - which you are now trying to submit in its entirety without having to quote any part that backs up your claims - was to outline how little there is for someone whom you claim to be unduly affected by a temporary halt in sponsorship for such work. I count no more than five total publications since he joined PSU, and that includes maximum of two submissions that would qualify. One of them is literally less than a single page in length.
Like I said, scholarship evidently isn't his primary concern, which is why he likely appreciates a role in which it is not required.
>Your own source said they either contribute significantly with academic research and become professors or they're asked ot leave the position in 5-7 years.
So? In what way does that invalidate anything I said? He's only just reaching the lower bound of that range now, so are you trying to claim that he should have been fired early in order to fit that same data?
Incidentally, I suggest you look up the word "generally". Then I suggest you re-read those sources that you so disparaged while consipcuously failing to properly comprehend them.
>your sources do not say that it is the default position for assistant professors
One of them explicitly states that promotion to a tenured position requires that Assistant professors should demonstrate an aptitude for regular and/or noteworthy scholarly contributions. In other words, it clearly states that promotion is for those who show an ability to produce research that goes beyond the typical.
Note that not a single one of those sources states that such research is a mandatory aspect of that position, which has been your claim this entire time. You are trying to shift the burden of proof again.
>the default position isn't that Assistant professors do no research infact to reach the next level of the job
So you've noted - as I myself pointed out - that promotion to a tenured position requires some degree of scholarly contribution. And why is this relevant? For this to be valid you would first have to demonstrate that Boghossian wants a promotion and that he's actively working towards it.
>YOU have to prove that Boghossian either doesn't have research requirements to advance or that he wants to have his position terminated under that set of criteria.
Heh, no, I really don't. You have to demonstrate that he wants tenure, or that his department will fire him if he fails to do so. After all, it's not a legal requirement that they do so, nor that he should be aiming for promotion.
What a hilarious misapplication of logic, and you can bet your life that I'm archiving that little gem.
>under the UK criteria you have to prove Boghossian
He's at PSU. why would I have to prove anything related to the UK system. I only included that as a supplement to the US system, because they both work in the same way.
It is, however, highly useful as a demonstration of your innate dishonesty. You grab at a single word or number, twist it out of all context, apply it to whatever context you think you can use to fabricate a case, then switch it in for the original point. All of a sudden you go from a position which "generally" lasts for 5-7 years to a situation in which Boghossian must be fired or promoted right now, and - for some reason - you get to assume that he's working on the former rather than awaiting the latter, and without even considering the possibility that they'd simply retain him for longer than the typical period out of convenience for all.
Answer me this - assuming you're even capable of answering simple questions if you think they'll force you into a losing position: do you believe that Boghossian must either be promoted to tenured positions or fired between that 5-7 year period? If so, please cite the legally-binding document that decreess that it be so.
>Your own sources support that research being required is the default position in most cases.
Only if promotion is sought. You are now disingenuously attempting to insert yet another axiom: that Boghossian is actively seeking a tenured position.
Once again, you are trying to bullshit your way out of a lost dispute, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it. This isn't a surprising tactic, but it's certainly interesting to note how carefully you quote around inconvenient words, like "generally". Pure cowardice.
Ah! Another new buzzword to stand in for a coherent thought process. I wonder how many times you'll trot this one out...
Three. All in close proximity. Fascinating...
>The Null hypothesis would be Boghossian not being different from other assistant professors
I agree, which means:
>he would be expected to produce research to be able to advance in his position and not be terminated
You have no evidence that this false dichotomy is correct. In fact, You have cherry-picked a quote around evidence that proves that it is untrue. Boghossian has no set time limit on his role by which he must either seek tenure or leave. That's how long that role "generally" lasts, but it is not a mandatory action.
Your entire reply seems to have been predicated upon this non-sequitur (note the correct use of that term). On top of that, it requires that he wants to seek a tenured position, and I previously outlined verifiable data that suggests that this is not the case. I'm going to bet that you won't even try to address any of that.
>research is one of the easier ones of the list
It really isn't.
>provide evidence of him having done the other methods to support your argument
You mean such as:
>> The mid-level position is usually awarded after a substantial record of scholarly accomplishment (such as the publication of one or more books ...)
...is that the kind of thing you mean? Then this will suffice. And, as I mentioned last time, he has another one out this year.
>you wish to use a very small sample size to represent it
Fine, then you can do so for everything he has published. Please read through all of his published works and cite examples of things he did to produce those papers that may have required sponsorship. Because, as established previously, I have no call to address anything in his papers until you can cite something within them that I need to check. You need to read it all, not me. I was trying to save you some work.
>I had at least 3
I'm not going to buy any of that nonsense from you, so don't bother trying.
Now, that aside, you continue to claim that Boghossian is directly impacted in his regular duties by being temporarily denied sponsorship. With that in mind, please present some evidence that Boghossian's work over the last five years actually requires some form of financial outlay in order to produce it. If not, he requires no sponsorship and any research he feels like doing remains unaffected. If you can provide no examples of this being a potential limiting factor then it is not a limiting factor.
In a similar vein, you have asserted that conducting research is a fundamental part of his job, despite the fact that his position is routinely understood to only rarely confer a mandatory research target. As such, please present evidence that Boghossian has a research quota to meet as part of his regular duties. Please do this with specific reference to the work he has produced within the past five years while at PSU. If you can find no such evidence then you have no basis for insisting that his position differs from everyone else who shares a similar role.
Oh, and have you found out why I'm finding one of your cited papers so funny yet? I was more than a little disappointed that you never tried to read it to see if he did anything that required sponsorship, but the fact that you still mistakenly think that it remains valid is almost as humorous. Do you need that hint?
I agree with the above. Most ex-moose figure it out on their own. The more you try to show them that their beliefs are wrong the more defensive they get. I suggest you read this https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
If she said you're not allowed to be an atheist, that means she's still planning on forcing you to go to Sunday School. Not much you can do about that in the short term, but if you want to play spy, read Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists", check out /r/StreetEpistemology/, and plant some seeds of doubt over there.
This is huge even outside of Mormonism and I whole-heartedly agree. As an Atheist myself, I've found that the best argument against any sort of religion is to deconstruct the foundation the whole thing is built on - Faith.
Giving credit where credit is due for this approach - Manual for Creating Atheists
It's open season on Christianity then. We all need to be reading up on "A Manual for Creating Atheists" and hitting the streets, hitting social media, and talking to family members. It is time for us to become evangelical and convert people out of their delusions.
Because Christians can't keep their religious beliefs in their pants and keep trying (with increasing success) to force them on the rest of us. Let's put a stop to that at the root of the problem.
EDIT: https://toptalkedbooks.com/amzn/1939578094 argues you work to convince people faith is not a reliable way to know things. That does work. They walk away from their beliefs on their own.
But we can also take a page from this (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-social-shaming-of-racists-is-working/) and socially shame Christians. I think it would do a world of good. "Oh you're Christian? You believe in pushing your beliefs on others". Which won't convert them, but it might make them realize how much they are becoming hated and hurting the way Christianity is perceived. "This is why young people leave Christianity" is bound to leave a mark.
Check out this book, it may give you some concrete strategies on breaking people out of their ideological epistemologies. It is not necessarily about atheism or religion, but can be used against all ideological thinking.
Don't read the Bible, no one does that, esp. not xians.
Or read the book by the guy producing that app, *A Manual for Creating Atheists * by Peter Boghossian. He's a philosophy prof. at OSU.
Isn't this the guy that wrote The Manual for Creating Atheists? .
I can only recommend this book . if you know how to talk people out of their faith, you don't have to deal with faith-based bullshit anymore.
If he doesn't want to read something, don't push it on him.
Even if he does end up reading it, it won't be a proper reading, just something to please you that he begrudgingly does.
It is like reading a book that you were forced to read in school years after the fact, and you love the book on the 2nd reading but because you were forced to read it the first time you didn't engage it the way you should have. Same thing.
If you want to have a good discussion with him, you need to stop telling him things and instead start asking questions. With the right questions, he comes to his own answers instead of some kid (which you are in his eyes because he is your uncle) telling him.
This is the socratic method, and it works. If you want to learn more about applying it to atheism, check out A Manual for Creating Atheists.
> she is normally the "victim" of this change.
Scare quotes. Exactly.
She's not a victim of your atheism even if she acts like it. The problem is that faith is inherently irrational and irrationality can't be dealt with logically, so when your disbelief shows it puts the ridiculous nature of her delusions in stark contrast to their illogical roots. Sadly, for both of you really, people often have a hard time seeing themselves as separate from their core ideological values, even if those "beliefs" are fundamentally at odds with the world around them.
She's not a victim and neither are you (unless you count two childhoods spent being indoctrinated into a middle-astern blood cult, but that's a different rant). Neither are you an aggressor. You could be Boghossian-ing her, though I would hope you'd be as kind about is as possible (basically, don't repeat anything I say ;)
You might consider listening to Bar Room Atheists with Bill and Susie. They went through something similar when Bill came out as an atheist and Susie was still a believer. She used to tell him "not to kick her puppy," code for "don't talk shit about Jesus" until eventually she became and atheist as well. Perhaps you're not interested in putting the time it would take to de-convert your wife, but if you intend to stay together, frankly, it seems like the only real option as, once having seen behind the curtain, returning to true faith is virtually impossible (short of head trauma I suppose).
I see two options here:
He's already admitted that he's unwilling to change his mind and that his faith is more important than truth. He could be telling the truth, which would mean you're wasting your time, or, it's just his mental conditioning coming out and subconsciously some of the stuff is getting through and making him uncomfortable. You need to determine which is the case.
If you want to try to get through to him then I would suggest getting this book . I would also suggest subscribing to a YouTube user called Anthony Magnabosco who puts the books techniques into practice on the street. The book focuses more on epistemology, so you won't have to teach anyone science or formal logic. The book show you how to make people cast doubt on what they think they know (when they actually don't). Once people have doubts then it's usually the beginning of the end for faith.