Final Reply To A Fuddly Dud About Mike Dunning-Kruger Jones

[link to discussion]

@FuddlyDud

 

 Part 1:

A) "So you can absolutely infer Michael's mental state?" -- Identifying a case of Dunning-Kruger is not the same as: "inferring (the) mental state" of the person committing the error; except to the extent: Dunning-Kruger describes a specific kind of mental mistake. Your objection would only be reasonable if you could effectively argue that it's always unfair to identify a case of Dunning-Kruger. Until then, I'll just make a mental note: "Some random apologist-for-apologists on the interwebz doesn't like it when a group of qualified scholars describe what is

(by definition) a case of Dunning-Kruger and then someone from their audience (in this case: me) agrees.". --------------------------------------- Part 1 B) "You are assuming the amount he has studied, assuming the amount he knows,"

--
Nope.

Not at all.

I simply agreed with a panel of qualified scholars
that Mike Jones doesn't know enough to realize he doesn't know enough
to:
justify his 100% confidence in his conclusions about a section of texts.

Worse yet, 
Jones did that while:
he posed as someone
who was exposing Bart Ehrman (and most other scholars in that field) as woefully unqualified in that field, And why?

In order to do Damage Control for his authoritarian sociopolitical cult's grift, by trying to utterly delegitimize his cult's current biggest academic threat(s). He then prompting a panel of qualified scholars (and Ehrman himself, separately), to school Jones (for hours) about academic facts (pertinent to those texts) that evidently Jones either: *didn't find, or * didn't understand, or didn't appreciate the significance of, or * found inconvenient enough to ignore. ---------------------------------------- Part 1 C)

"and assuming overconfidence rather than mistake, you being mistaken, or some combo of the above." -- Let's be clear about this: Anyone who asserts absolute confidence about something that (as it turns out) they were mistaken about, was definitely guilty of "overconfidence".

That applies to everyone about everything. I see no reason to nominate Jones as some special exemption to that fact.

Jones thought he had found and accounted for all available pertinent data. He over-committed himself to his conclusion,

by stating it with absolute confidence.

He even practically yelled it at the camera. But he was wrong. He was, at the very least, wrong to think he had accounted for all pertinent evidence. I think his conclusions were also wrong. And the reason I think that is: A panel of qualified scholars made that case to my satisfaction. They convinced me that Mike was wrong. Now, if you want to twist that into some personal injury for Mike Jones, then be my guest.

Meanwhile, .. I stand convinced by those many qualified scholars that Mike Jones: a.) doesn't know enough to realize he doesn't know enough and b.) needs to learn some humility. --------------------------------------------- Part 1 D) "All of this is done with a lack of 'proof' to these internal/personal facts of Michael, rather relying on his actions to indirectly infer." -- Internal personal facts about Mike Jones? What "internal personal facts" are you referring to? Do you mean how he's: * grifting for a sociopolitical cult (no matter if he realizes it's a grift or not),

* by promoting fantastically strained and weakly-supported textual theories, * driven by his own extremely-biasing theological and ego commitments, * to demand a prophetic parallel in those texts

(as fulfillment of Hebrew religious texts), * while HOPING his audience doesn't realize (or himself being too biased to realize?) that: EVEN IF that writer MEANT to say it was two specific animals being ridden by Jesus at the same time (a really stupid thing for there to be a prophecy about), it still wouldn't count as a verified fulfilled prophecy because: a.) It could just be a rumor-sharing and rumor-developing writer trying to retroactively invent

an event that "fulfills" a prophecy. b.) It could just be Jesus himself walking around with a checklist in his own head of "things to do" that a messiah is supposed to do (aka "self-fulfilling prophecy"). c.) It would require that Jones' audience doesn't REALIZE the Christian-legendary version of Jesus would still be missing-by-miles the larger list of things that messiah was supposed to be and do. d.) It would require that Jones' audience doesn't REALIZE how counter-factual, illogical and unethical his religion really is. e.) It would require that Jones' audience also not realize that the Hebrew religion has also been utterly debunked. It's all based on proven-false claims about their own religious history, and the history of world religions, and the earth's geological history, and the universe's cosmological history, etc.. They're tracing their premise of divine authority back to events that we know didn't really happen.

The earth is not mere thousands of years old.

The sun did not poof into existence a few days (or eras) after the Earth formed.

Monotheism was not the first form of theism.

The "Biblical" Hebrews were not actually monotheists.

Yahweh was not even close to the first "God" alleged-to-exist by humans

etc etc.

Meanwhile, EITHER Jones was: a.) not knowing enough to realize he doesn't know enough OR b.) knowing enough but then grossly mispresenting the facts of the matter. [I went with the more charitable of those two possibilities. #You'reWelcome] HOWEVER, Jones was doing all of that WHILE

going after Bart Ehrman personally; by painting him as someone woefully unqualified in his own field of expertise. --------------------------------- Part 1 E) "I'd rather be gracious like Bart, not attack the person, and act with charity, returning to the arguments/evidence." -- Since Jones was NOT charitable to-and-about BART during that shit-show, what you're actually doing there is: Trying to reserve an ENTITLMENT

for your side. Ya'll can be extra shitty to-and-about scholars (and your other critics). But anyone who doesn't respond with RESPECT is somehow wronging you. My reply that? You and the rest of your cult of orchestrated clinical narcissism can

get bent. ----------------------------------- Part 1 F) [quoting me, from earlier in the sub-thread]

"When the truth is insulting, whose fault is that? " "Yourr presented process of determining truth requires bad faith assumptions." --- You know that's bullshit. I didn't make even a single assumption.

I could go through the rest of your attempts to deflect, project, and gas light. But I won't, unless someone I know (thus: can identify as a good faith actor with a legit interest in what my thoughts are about whichever thing) asks me to. I haven't read the rest of your posts @ me. But I will address anything else you've said if anyone I know asks me to specifically. Other than that,

this will be

the last of my attention I allow you to syphon

from my finite pool of personal resources. You can talk more shit at me and about me; If your ego still needs to. But I don't plan to make more time to read any of that.

----------------------- Part 1 G) "I'd contest your analysis while being open to Michael being factually wrong." -- I don't care what you stand ready to "contest". Nor do I care if you might really be willing to disagree with Jones on some trivial issue or another. As Dr Josh Bowen (and many other well-respected scholars) have said before: Mike Jones and other religious fundamentalists ... are incapable of qualifying for a seat at that table. [Link] And if you can't see how obviously that's the case, then you aren't either.