|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 23, 2010 11:43:18 GMT
Well, I've finally made it in the only way that matters any more. God's Philosophers has its own Wikipedia article (which I swear was nothing to do with me). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Philosophers:_How_the_Medieval_World_Laid_the_Foundations_of_Modern_Science It is just a shame that the review they link to is the New Humanist one. Oh well. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Apr 23, 2010 12:22:26 GMT
It now seems to have been replaced with the Spectator's review.
Now all you need to do is wait for them to add a "controversy" subsection, complete with a selection of quotes from Carrier...
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Apr 23, 2010 13:08:17 GMT
It now seems to have been replaced with the Spectator's review. Now all you need to do is wait for them to add a "controversy" subsection, complete with a selection of quotes from Carrier... All part of the broader struggle against religious irrationality.. discussion here: "The author's web page makes a pronouncement that I'm guessing would be controversial: * Historians now utterly reject the idea that science and religion have been locked in a great conflict throughout history. [1] Is this something he hopes has happened, as with the view that Medieval Christianity supported Flat Earth theory? Or is this really the new paradigm? I've read a lot of articles and (parts of) books, indicating that religious people (now as well as back in the "Dark Ages" before the Renaissance), were anti-scientific thought. So I'm wondering whether this is case where "common knowledge" is incorrect, or spot on, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 23, 2010 18:48:50 GMT
I can't wait for the deletion battle.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 24, 2010 5:10:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 24, 2010 8:42:57 GMT
Poor Orlando. Although he brought this on himself, he was always kind to me and a reference from him did help get me into Cambridge. When it looked like it was his wife who posted the reviews, it seemed quite funny; but now it looks like he is much more troubled than we thought.
I hope he pulls it together.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Apr 24, 2010 12:15:41 GMT
I find this all rather tragic. Although you have to wonder whether or not this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as Amazon reviews are concerned. I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to only allow people who have purchased a book to review it (those are the only ones I bother with reading anyway).
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Apr 24, 2010 16:42:29 GMT
Wikipedia user "Uncle Ed" is Ed Poor, who used to be a big wheel on Wikipedia (apparently he devised the hierarchy system (administrator/bureacrat and so on) that is still in use (and much abused) there. Ed also edited on Conservapedia for some time. Is he the same as the Uncle Ed over here? In which case, hello. I am also the Peter Damian over there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_DamianSadly banned for some time after a run-in with the ultra-liberal administration there. As you will have guessed I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but I have a formal training in philosophy and I am a specialist of sorts in the high medieval period. Some of the articles I wrote on Wikipedia include: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminationismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles[edit] I also wrote much of the article on the 'Continuity thesis' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesiswhich has something in common with the article on James' book (I think, judging from summaries on this forum, that what James' book presents is a popular version of the continuity thesis). [edit] However the part of the introduction that reads "Despite the many points that have been brought up by proponents of the continuity thesis, a majority of scholars still support the traditional view of the Scientific Revolution occurring in the 16th and 17th centuries" was not written by me. I am not sure that is true. I am not sure what counts as a 'majority' here. Any scholar who knows anything at all about the medieval and early modern period of the 17th century, knows that there is a continuity between the two periods. As well as some important differences, naturally.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 24, 2010 21:20:22 GMT
Wikipedia user "Uncle Ed" is Ed Poor, who used to be a big wheel on Wikipedia (apparently he devised the hierarchy system (administrator/bureacrat and so on) that is still in use (and much abused) there. Ed also edited on Conservapedia for some time. Is he the same as the Uncle Ed over here? In which case, hello. I am also the Peter Damian over there. Sorry, different animal. I'm an unkleE for Eric, he's something different. But "poor" might fit! : ) But hello anyway.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 26, 2010 8:36:29 GMT
Poor Orlando. Although he brought this on himself, he was always kind to me and a reference from him did help get me into Cambridge. When it looked like it was his wife who posted the reviews, it seemed quite funny; but now it looks like he is much more troubled than we thought. I hope he pulls it together. Best wishes James I don't understand why he did it in the first place. The guy (deservedly) gets glowing reviews the whole time. Why he would then go and create a massive stain on his career like this is beyond me. He even posted a review of that book he lost out to for that literary prize and opened it with 'Oh dear, what were the judges thinking'. Maybe pouring through all those Russian sources drove him mad ?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 27, 2010 5:32:53 GMT
Well yes. He is saying that he is suffering from depression after his research on Stalin's victims in the gulags and is now on sick leave from Birkbeck.
J
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Apr 27, 2010 9:59:58 GMT
Oh dear. Of course, he could be using that as an excuse, but as a former depression sufferer myself I am strongly inclined to sympathise.
|
|