Reddit reviews How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide

r/StreetEpistemology and this book might help with your dialogue, but only as much as he's willing to entertain reason and reality. Obviously the statements above are ludicrous to any person thinking logically about them, so trying to reason with him likely won't work.

It may work better to address the method he uses to come to conclusions, and whether or not that method is leading to conclusions that are true.

This is merely a short video condensing the information in the book “How To Have Impossible Conversations”. The guy in the video is Peter Boghossian, one of the writers in the book. If you want to know more or get a more in-depth analysis you should get the book, I’ve heard it’s great.

Submission statement:

An interview with Peter Boghossian. They talk about Boghossian’s book, How to Have Impossible Conversations, and other topics.

> You're telling me to accept it on faith again.

Not true at all. I cited sources and directly quoted them as pointing out the difference between the various professors and lecturers. I even pointed you directly to the fact that gaining promotion from Boghossian's current position is based on contributing original research.

And this is all on top of the fact that I have previously referred you to Boghossian's publication histosy. If he was required to meet mandatory publication criteria then he'd surely have been fired by now, because he's averaging well under a paper per year. He's producing some useful work, like presentations, letters, etc., but nothing that would be counted towards bringing in grant funding (which is what these scholarly targets are all about).

In fact, if you recall, my original reason for directing you towards his publication history - which you are now trying to submit in its entirety without having to quote any part that backs up your claims - was to outline how little there is for someone whom you claim to be unduly affected by a temporary halt in sponsorship for such work. I count no more than five total publications since he joined PSU, and that includes maximum of two submissions that would qualify. One of them is literally less than a single page in length.

Like I said, scholarship evidently isn't his primary concern, which is why he likely appreciates a role in which it is not required.

>Your own source said they either contribute significantly with academic research and become professors or they're asked ot leave the position in 5-7 years.

So? In what way does that invalidate anything I said? He's only just reaching the lower bound of that range now, so are you trying to claim that he should have been fired early in order to fit that same data?

Incidentally, I suggest you look up the word "generally". Then I suggest you re-read those sources that you so disparaged while consipcuously failing to properly comprehend them.

>your sources do not say that it is the default position for assistant professors

One of them explicitly states that promotion to a tenured position requires that Assistant professors should demonstrate an aptitude for regular and/or noteworthy scholarly contributions. In other words, it clearly states that promotion is for those who show an ability to produce research that goes beyond the typical.

Note that not a single one of those sources states that such research is a mandatory aspect of that position, which has been your claim this entire time. You are trying to shift the burden of proof again.

>the default position isn't that Assistant professors do no research infact to reach the next level of the job

So you've noted - as I myself pointed out - that promotion to a tenured position requires some degree of scholarly contribution. And why is this relevant? For this to be valid you would first have to demonstrate that Boghossian wants a promotion and that he's actively working towards it.

>YOU have to prove that Boghossian either doesn't have research requirements to advance or that he wants to have his position terminated under that set of criteria.

Heh, no, I really don't. You have to demonstrate that he wants tenure, or that his department will fire him if he fails to do so. After all, it's not a legal requirement that they do so, nor that he should be aiming for promotion.

What a hilarious misapplication of logic, and you can bet your life that I'm archiving that little gem.

>under the UK criteria you have to prove Boghossian

He's at PSU. why would I have to prove anything related to the UK system. I only included that as a supplement to the US system, because they both work in the same way.

It is, however, highly useful as a demonstration of your innate dishonesty. You grab at a single word or number, twist it out of all context, apply it to whatever context you think you can use to fabricate a case, then switch it in for the original point. All of a sudden you go from a position which "generally" lasts for 5-7 years to a situation in which Boghossian must be fired or promoted right now, and - for some reason - you get to assume that he's working on the former rather than awaiting the latter, and without even considering the possibility that they'd simply retain him for longer than the typical period out of convenience for all.

Answer me this - assuming you're even capable of answering simple questions if you think they'll force you into a losing position: do you believe that Boghossian must either be promoted to tenured positions or fired between that 5-7 year period? If so, please cite the legally-binding document that decreess that it be so.

>Your own sources support that research being required is the default position in most cases.

Only if promotion is sought. You are now disingenuously attempting to insert yet another axiom: that Boghossian is actively seeking a tenured position.

Once again, you are trying to bullshit your way out of a lost dispute, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it. This isn't a surprising tactic, but it's certainly interesting to note how carefully you quote around inconvenient words, like "generally". Pure cowardice.

>illusory superiority

Ah! Another new buzzword to stand in for a coherent thought process. I wonder how many times you'll trot this one out...

Three. All in close proximity. Fascinating...

>The Null hypothesis would be Boghossian not being different from other assistant professors

I agree, which means:

>he would be expected to produce research to be able to advance in his position and not be terminated

You have no evidence that this false dichotomy is correct. In fact, You have cherry-picked a quote around evidence that proves that it is untrue. Boghossian has no set time limit on his role by which he must either seek tenure or leave. That's how long that role "generally" lasts, but it is not a mandatory action.

Your entire reply seems to have been predicated upon this non-sequitur (note the correct use of that term). On top of that, it requires that he wants to seek a tenured position, and I previously outlined verifiable data that suggests that this is not the case. I'm going to bet that you won't even try to address any of that.

>research is one of the easier ones of the list

It really isn't.

>provide evidence of him having done the other methods to support your argument

You mean such as:

>> The mid-level position is usually awarded after a substantial record of scholarly accomplishment (such as the publication of one or more books ...)

...is that the kind of thing you mean? Then this will suffice. And, as I mentioned last time, he has another one out this year.

Done.

>you wish to use a very small sample size to represent it

Fine, then you can do so for everything he has published. Please read through all of his published works and cite examples of things he did to produce those papers that may have required sponsorship. Because, as established previously, I have no call to address anything in his papers until you can cite something within them that I need to check. You need to read it all, not me. I was trying to save you some work.

>I had at least 3

I'm not going to buy any of that nonsense from you, so don't bother trying.

Now, that aside, you continue to claim that Boghossian is directly impacted in his regular duties by being temporarily denied sponsorship. With that in mind, please present some evidence that Boghossian's work over the last five years actually requires some form of financial outlay in order to produce it. If not, he requires no sponsorship and any research he feels like doing remains unaffected. If you can provide no examples of this being a potential limiting factor then it is not a limiting factor.

In a similar vein, you have asserted that conducting research is a fundamental part of his job, despite the fact that his position is routinely understood to only rarely confer a mandatory research target. As such, please present evidence that Boghossian has a research quota to meet as part of his regular duties. Please do this with specific reference to the work he has produced within the past five years while at PSU. If you can find no such evidence then you have no basis for insisting that his position differs from everyone else who shares a similar role.

Oh, and have you found out why I'm finding one of your cited papers so funny yet? I was more than a little disappointed that you never tried to read it to see if he did anything that required sponsorship, but the fact that you still mistakenly think that it remains valid is almost as humorous. Do you need that hint?