|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 11, 2019 8:27:17 GMT -5
Your video poster criticized Hicks for not publishing in a peer reviewed journal.
But the video criticism was put on You-Tube, which is also not peer reviewed.
Why is it wrong for Hicks to do this but not his critic?
And who exactly made this video. I couldn't find the author's name anywhere.
More later.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 17:37:03 GMT -5
Well?
So far all you've done is complain about this video not being peer reviewed.
What about the glaring flaws in research, reasoning and comprehension on Hick's part that the video points out?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 21, 2019 1:47:40 GMT -5
Well? So far all you've done is complain about this video not being peer reviewed. What about the glaring flaws in research, reasoning and comprehension on Hick's part that the video points out? Okay. One of the criticisms is that Hicks did not offer enough supporting evidence or sources. But he did on his website: And where exactly did Kant give any actual evidence for his views? So far it seems Kant is merely making Dogmatic Assertions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 17:42:49 GMT -5
Another criticism is that Hicks incorrectly sources quotes or outright fabricates them.
Another point was that he does not provide correctly sourced quotes from actual postmodern philosophers, or even seems capable of paraphrasing them correctly.
The only correct quote he provides is from Foucault, and it's an out of context quote, where citing a single paragraph more than what he does would have produced the exact opposite meaning that he infers from it.
And if you will allow me a personal impression of his work, as far as I could tell from reading his book, Hicks has never read a single work of postmodern philosophy in its entirety. I also wonder who this book is for, since it neither provides an introductory level explanation of postmodern philosophy, nor an academically legitimate refutation of it.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 24, 2019 19:44:07 GMT -5
Another criticism is that Hicks incorrectly sources quotes or outright fabricates them.
Another point was that he does not provide correctly sourced quotes from actual postmodern philosophers, or even seems capable of paraphrasing them correctly.
The only correct quote he provides is from Foucault, and it's an out of context quote, where citing a single paragraph more than what he does would have produced the exact opposite meaning that he infers from it.
And if you will allow me a personal impression of his work, as far as I could tell from reading his book, Hicks has never read a single work of postmodern philosophy in its entirety. I also wonder who this book is for, since it neither provides an introductory level explanation of postmodern philosophy, nor an academically legitimate refutation of it.
Were those quotes I posted above incorrectly sourced or outright fabrications?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 5:45:50 GMT -5
My argument was that Hicks fails to present accurate quotes by postmodern philosophers.
You will notice that all of those quotes are Kant quotes.
Are you argueing that Kant was a postmodern philosopher?
I'm fairly sure that his philosophy predates Postmodernism by almost two centuries.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 26, 2019 10:12:36 GMT -5
My argument was that Hicks fails to present accurate quotes by postmodern philosophers.
You will notice that all of those quotes are Kant quotes.
Are you argueing that Kant was a postmodern philosopher?
I'm fairly sure that his philosophy predates Postmodernism by almost two centuries.
Hicks' thesis is that Kant changed the direction of philosophy and that eventually this resulted in postmodernism.
The last quote on Hicks' list is particularly striking. "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." Well, based on the other quotes, Kant did a good job of denying knowledge.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 13:45:13 GMT -5
Hicks' thesis is that Kant changed the direction of philosophy and that eventually this resulted in postmodernism.
Maybe he should have written a book on that instead, rather than falsely claiming to explain a branch of contemporary philosophy that he clearly knows nothing about and evidently didn't even bother to research.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 26, 2019 15:25:57 GMT -5
Hicks' thesis is that Kant changed the direction of philosophy and that eventually this resulted in postmodernism.
Maybe he should have written a book on that instead, rather than falsely claiming to explain a branch of contemporary philosophy that he clearly knows nothing about and evidently didn't even bother to research.
Actually, Hicks did write a book on that.
The bibliography at the end of "Explaining Postmodernism" runs 12 pages.
BTW, the video you posted is no longer available. Do you have the original URL?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 8:11:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 27, 2019 8:39:26 GMT -5
Thanks for re-posting that video. It turns out that the narration on the video is taken word for word from an article on aero. That makes it easier to deal with. I'll be posting a response in new threads. My response will be lengthy and will take several posts.
Bob
|
|