Post by anonymous on Aug 5, 2008 15:47:30 GMT
element,
What I think accounts for the difference between Carrier's online reputation and his success in getting a job is the resonance of his claims to authority within each group. When Carrier goes to an ancient history conference (and I have seen him give a paper), he's no less and no more than another budding historian. He is the equal of the other advanced graduate students and recent PhDs in the room, and his work is evaluated on the same level as is other scholars'.
But online, the vast majority of his interlocutors lack such expertise. So when he (legitimately) claims expertise in ancient history, he is calling upon his audience to weight his word above that of other discussion participants, both friend and foe. Carrier likes to claim such authority; he has done so repeatedly and ostentatiously in his writings. It is an effective rhetorical technique--but only when he departs from the circle of his peers. And not all of his peers agree on everything he says (as Carrier's own footnotes in his polished writings will tell you).
His stress on qualifications and general statements about ancient historical methodology can sometimes (intentionally or not) leave the impression that he speaks for the entire community of ancient historians. Any of his readers should guard against thinking this. His word on any given issue should be weighted against that of other published ancient historians, many of whom are more experienced and know far more than he does, but many of whose judgment and research abilities are also lesser. (One somewhat cheap example: Carrier does not know Italian, Dutch, modern Greek or Hebrew, as far as I know, and so cannot access important scholarship written in these languages.) And if his assertions do not agree with the relevant evidence, any lay person is of course perfectly free to point this out. A good historian will acknowledge mistakes, no matter the qualifications of the person who points them out, and adjust her/his theories accordingly.
What I think accounts for the difference between Carrier's online reputation and his success in getting a job is the resonance of his claims to authority within each group. When Carrier goes to an ancient history conference (and I have seen him give a paper), he's no less and no more than another budding historian. He is the equal of the other advanced graduate students and recent PhDs in the room, and his work is evaluated on the same level as is other scholars'.
But online, the vast majority of his interlocutors lack such expertise. So when he (legitimately) claims expertise in ancient history, he is calling upon his audience to weight his word above that of other discussion participants, both friend and foe. Carrier likes to claim such authority; he has done so repeatedly and ostentatiously in his writings. It is an effective rhetorical technique--but only when he departs from the circle of his peers. And not all of his peers agree on everything he says (as Carrier's own footnotes in his polished writings will tell you).
His stress on qualifications and general statements about ancient historical methodology can sometimes (intentionally or not) leave the impression that he speaks for the entire community of ancient historians. Any of his readers should guard against thinking this. His word on any given issue should be weighted against that of other published ancient historians, many of whom are more experienced and know far more than he does, but many of whose judgment and research abilities are also lesser. (One somewhat cheap example: Carrier does not know Italian, Dutch, modern Greek or Hebrew, as far as I know, and so cannot access important scholarship written in these languages.) And if his assertions do not agree with the relevant evidence, any lay person is of course perfectly free to point this out. A good historian will acknowledge mistakes, no matter the qualifications of the person who points them out, and adjust her/his theories accordingly.
