How often does one encounter the “I am not persuaded” copout? I call it a copout because it usually functions as an easy escape for one who is unable to say why a disliked argument is faulty. Here’s a formal response to the “I am not persuaded” line:
How might we recognize inappropriate doubt masquerading as valid criticism? Such doubt generally does not attend to the actual data and its explanation, falsifying it directly. It begs the question. Or, more commonly, it suggests a comparative situation but fails to supply the comparison; a given argument might be pronounced insufficient to convince, but what exactly establishes argumentative sufficiency is not stated (and usually cannot be). Of course, such judgments are meaningless without an overt standard or measure of sufficiency. And that measure is the data itself in relation to the broader object under investigation and the current explanation in play! Do these actually match up, or is a problem discernible in their relationship(s)? If the latter, the appropriate critical process should elicit doubt, along with the modification or abandonment of the hypothesis. Modification or the clear provision of an explanatory alternative is a signal that the appropriate critical method and doubt are operative. Without these elements, a doubting critic runs the danger of merely posturing.
Campbell, Douglas A. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2014. p. 18
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Meet the Prophets of Israel’s Predecessors - 2024-09-12 05:59:47 GMT+0000
- Christian Origins: Let’s Not Discount the Indian Connection - 2024-09-10 08:56:33 GMT+0000
- “I am not persuaded” — valid criticism or merely posturing? - 2024-08-27 08:49:12 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
I’m on board here with you too. As you probably saw from my interactions with Campbell in my book, I was less than compelled by this kind of “reasoning” and posturing. The assumption of the authenticity of Philemon largely just comes down to posturing, imo.
Indeed. Unfortunately, as you also note, Campbell’s own method leaves something to be desired. The notion that a source should be considered “innocent” until proven “guilty” is a misapplied anthropomorphism. For a while Campbell did have me holding my breath as I waited to see him explicitly apply his methods for establishing authenticity in the case of Romans but it never came.
He justifies his position (or rather disputes the position I would hold, following many other historians — his disclaimer that there are not many thorough Cartesian historians around notwithstanding) by calling on Wittgenstein against Descartes. Do you (or anyone reading this comment) know of any works that are directed to that debate? The sources Campbell cited also left much to be desired from my pov.
I have all-too-frequently encountered the exact comment “I am not persuaded” both on earlywritings.com and on ANE-2, and not just by one person. These are invariably trolls and academic semi-illiterates (surprising on the scholarly forum ANE-2) who haven’t actually read my work and have made no attempt to grasp the arguments they reject. It reminds me of the bad old days when our church’s leadership said they weren’t convinced by the arguments for evolution that they had clearly never actually read, since they never managed to accurately describe them. In my experience the catch-phrase “I am not persuaded” consequently has no diagnostic content or value whatsoever.
For such a comment to carry intelligible content, an academic should (1) fairly and accurately describe the argument he contests, in such a manner that their fellow-academic would agree with the description; (2) identify the element of the argument they disagree with; and (3) explain why they find it unconvincing or explain exactly why they find an alternate argument more compelling.
I always welcome such constructive challenges (including some on Vridar!), as opposed to the empty posturing by rank amateurs posing as experts.
That you should have to spell out the basics of a scholarly response is itself an indictment on a large swathe of the relevant discipline area. I have been dipping into the reading list required to undertake a Master of Theology program at a highly respected institution. I wondered how many could survive the course unless they were committed to diving into the conventional wisdom relating to God and the Bible — methods of historical inquiry were all tailored to the bubble of “biblical studies” and “theology”, with references to more normative historical research approaches cherry-picked as and when convenient.
It really basically boils down to “I have this emotion about it, that I am not believing it/changing my mind because of it”. And that’s not useful. It’s the rightfully scorned “I don’t like it” comment over a piece of art.