Editor's note: This post has been corrected after I misidentified the authors of a journal article mentioning me. Today I have several short topics to share. Yesterday a public radio producer asked to speak with me about pseudoscience and the Kensington Rune Stone for a planned documentary about the artifact. I’m supposed to talk with her later this week, so that will be interesting, I guess. Of course, you know that any documentary on the subject will inevitably collide with Him Who Must Not Be Named… Second, you may recall that a few months ago I wrote about Scott Alan Roberts’s claim on his Intrepid magazine website that Noah was racially pure. In his original article, Roberts wrote: In actuality, when you examine the linguistics of the Genesis text, it clearly states that Noah was a man who was “pure blooded in all his generations,” meaning that his family line was “of pure human blood,” as opposed to the mixed blood of the rest of the population of the known world at that time. Thus, he seemed to argue that Noah was genetically distinct from all others, which I naturally interpreted as meaning that Roberts viewed him as belonging to a separate race from everyone else. Roberts is interested in the idea that both Adam and the serpent impregnated Eve, producing Seth and Cain respectively, the first pure human and the other an evil hybrid. These two, in turn, fathered the lines of the godly and the ungodly humans alluded to in Genesis 4 and 5 and made explicit in extra-biblical sources of much later date. In describing these, I referred to the two lineages as distinct races—following the traditional definition of race: “a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.” Thus, Noah was of a pure race and the others impure. I then noted that Roberts’s interpretation was closely mirrored in racist ideas: The most extreme reading—and the one that is closest to that Roberts imposes on the Genesis text—is that of Christian Identity, which believes in the dual descent of Cain and Seth from the Serpent and Adam respectively and therefore claims that the (modern) Jews are the accursed offspring of Cain while white Europeans are racially pure Sethites. Roberts, however, objects to the use of the r-word to describe the lineage of Noah, or those of Cain and Seth because he reads “race” as referring to Aryans, Negroids, and Mongoloids, even though the only races I specified were those of Europeans and (modern) Jews, and those in turn were selected not by me but by Christian Identity in using the same set of claims Roberts does. And he’d like everyone to know that he found this offensive, as he wrote in comments on my blog post: As for my promoting any sort of "racial purity," you are simply incorrect, and have so misinterpreted and misconstrued (deliberately?) what it is I did say, as to become simplistically banal. Even more disturbing is the fact that you took little effort to contact me directly for any sort of clarification. This brand of self-limited research on your part belies a much deeper bias. Despite apparently finding my post too dull (“banal”) for words, he went on to explain his view on the purity issue, which he says should be limited only to an understanding of Jewish mythology: From within the Genesis account, it is the "pure human bloodline," as opposed to the mixing of human and "Elohim" bloodlines. This "mixed blood versus pure humanity" issue is actually from within the Hebrew scripture's account of the Nephilim, the offspring of the "Sons of the Elohim," which is the preamble to the account of Noah and the Ark. In my original post I pointed out that this is untrue, and there is no concept of genetics present in the Genesis account of Noah’s purity. Roberts clarified that “I am talking about ‘humanity,’ not a given race within humanity.” But he doesn’t seem to see the consequences of his own ideas. If you posit that there is a pure bloodline and an impure bloodline—that some are 100% human and others are not—you are saying that one group is genetically distinct from another, and that these traits are heritable: i.e., that the pure are a distinct race. It’s also important to note that while Roberts attributes his interpretation to Jewish mythology, it is not the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis 6. The first of the two competing traditional explanations is that there was a small but limited number of angel-human hybrids (“the mighty men of old”) who were killed off in the Flood. This is why in Enoch and Jubilees the Nephilim live on only as disembodied spirits. The second competing explanation is that the two groups were the children of Seth and the children of Cain, who were usually seen as culturally rather than genetically distinct; i.e., godly or ungodly. That is, unless you follow Roberts in making Cain and Seth sons of different fathers. It is only by following this version—with Eve’s serpentine copulation—that you can create a “pure” bloodline for Noah. And that isn’t in the Bible. Instead, it can be found in early Gnostic texts, like the Gospel of Philip: And he [Cain] was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse which has occurred between those unlike one another is adultery. (trans. Wesley W. Isenberg) The same idea later appears in the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, a medieval Jewish text, and is repeated in the Kabbalistic tradition of the Zohar. Iranaeus, in Against Heresies 30, records a number of similar traditions centuries earlier, with various permutations of who is having sex with whom, when, and how, as well as versions that lack various elements (one has Cain possessed by Satan)—demonstrating that these were likely later additions to the Biblical story, likely from Gnostic dualist beliefs, possibly with some influence from Zoroastrian dualism. Roberts took notice of my blog post because Father Jack Ashcraft, the sedevacantist whom many readers will know from his comments on my various blog posts, posted part of an article by Paul and Phillip Collins about my post and Roberts’s own views that was written for his journal, Vexilla Regis. The excerpt online at his blog. In that article, the authors attack Roberts, and they also had some things to say about me that were, frankly, a bit surprising: Colavito is a pathological skeptic with a penchant for dissecting straw men on behalf of scientism. This philosophical disposition automatically underscores an epistemological weakness in Colavito's criterion for evidentiary acceptability. Scientism embraces empiricism as the only epistemology suitable for rendering the world intelligible. However, this is a naive Enlightenment-era assumption, as is evidenced by the fact that empirical observations are preceded by and interpreted according to certain pieces of a priori knowledge. This observation undermines the primacy of a posteriori knowledge, which is a chief epistemological claim of empiricism. Nevertheless, Enlightenment-era empiricism informs much of Colavito's investigational approach. Make of it what you will. Finally, Greg Taylor of the Daily Grail has an interesting blog post berating skeptics for not having enough fun with Fortean mysteries. (Disclosure: Taylor published one of my articles in his Dark Lore series.) Taylor believes that skeptics and scientists need to understand how the public thinks. He doesn’t give the public much credit, but then I wouldn’t either for many of the same reasons: Another factor contributing to the issue is that for those intimately involved in science, the minutiae are important. Those things that might seem boring to others are important. But, members of the reality-based community, here's the reality of the situation: Joe Public out there is coming home from a long day of (often mindless) work, looking for a combination of entertainment and education in the one or two hours they might have to spare before going to bed and then wading through the same shit all over again. Would you like to listen to a bricklayer bemoaning the lack of understanding in the general public about the finer points of a good mortar? That's what you sound like folks. People's time is valuable, and they don't want to spend it hearing you whining about how everyone else doesn't invest enough time in what you find valuable. Taylor is right that the public at large doesn’t have the ability or the time to wade through the minutiae of specific claims (most people can only be experts on a few subjects), but on the other hand refusing to engage in the specifics of claims is what gives fringe characters the room to make absurd claims. If no one opposes them on specifics, their ideas go unchallenged and gain artificial credibility. If you can’t go into the ancient texts, for example, and demonstrate exactly how a fringe theorist has misused each line, then criticism of their claims about those texts with vague appeals to probability reads like an equally unsupported assertion, not a conclusion from firm evidence.
The question isn’t whether to deal with minutiae but when to do so. Strange that no one complains that sports analysts obsess over minutiae and discuss facts and statistics that would bore non-sports fans silly. Taylor doesn’t really explain which forums he is accusing skeptics of abusing with whining and stultifying science (his examples are from Twitter, that hotbed of in-depth research), and he also doesn’t clearly differentiate between scientists and skeptics (they are not synonymous). Enthusiasm and entertainment—showmanship—are valuable tools for interesting audiences in ideas, but they have to be backed with well-chosen facts and careful expertise. Surely there is a difference between books, popular magazines, TV documentaries, Twitter feeds, and skeptical journals like the Skeptical Inquirer. Each has a different standard and audiences approach them with different expectations. We can’t lump them all together as “boring” and claim that a book should be as breezy as a Facebook post; or, conversely, that Twitter shouldn’t have skeptical rebuttals just because it saps some of the “fun” out of the Fortean.
42 Comments
666
7/15/2014 07:24:01 am
> skeptics and scientists
Reply
Gregor
7/15/2014 08:12:11 am
Oh man...Scientists who are not skeptics? that gave me flashbacks of the 'Creation Museum Debate' and all the insanity over "historical science vs. observational science".
Reply
7/15/2014 08:18:41 am
My point was that there are things to be skeptical about that that don't fall under the purview of empirical science. Similarly, many people are skeptics but are not professional scientists, or even science-adjacent.
Reply
charlie
7/15/2014 02:37:28 pm
Jason, since you were called a "pathological skeptic", could you explain just "what" that means? I was just a machinist before injury and age retired me. Just curious as I had never encountered that term before. Thanks.
Gregor
7/15/2014 05:18:16 pm
@Charlie 5/30/2015 02:59:47 pm
Oh, please, let us by all means indulge in Northern European polytheism older than the dreary Middle Eastern Abrahamic rubbish.
Reply
Scott Hamilton
7/15/2014 07:45:39 am
Roberts is fun. "I'm not a racist, I just think that some people are inherently evil because of what their ancestors hundred of generations ago did."
Reply
Gregor
7/15/2014 08:07:01 am
"I'm not a racist, I'm just a bigot! LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!!" hahaha
Reply
Uncle Ron
7/15/2014 07:51:39 am
"This philosophical disposition automatically underscores an epistemological weakness in Colavito's criterion for evidentiary acceptability", et cetera. Oy vey! to borrow an expression. Why can't these people just say Colavito only accepts what can be factually demonstrated, and be done with it? As far as I can see HE'S the one demonstrating weakness by accepting epistemological woo woo and expecting us to accept it too.
Reply
Gregor
7/15/2014 08:05:21 am
It *would* be interesting... but then, we're clearly part of the wicked, self-righteous intelligentsia who gets off on crushing the dreams of the simple working folk who just want to think about space ships and bigfoot and ancient aliens who needed to spew atomized gold into their atmosphere for no clear reason.
Reply
Jim
7/15/2014 05:58:40 pm
There may not be much TV available regarding masonry construction practices; however, there is no shortage of TV regarding nefarious Freemason conspiracy practices.
Gregor
7/15/2014 06:01:08 pm
Come for the insane conspiracy theories and accusations of occult murder-death assassinations... stay to learn how to properly form and place a sandstone block!
EP
7/16/2014 07:53:17 am
It's almost as though Freemasons weren't real masons...
Uncle Ron
7/15/2014 12:51:40 pm
In my comment above "HE'S the one" should be "THEY are the ones" (Paul and Phillip Collins).
Reply
Mark L
7/15/2014 09:14:02 pm
At least the thesaurus they bought is getting some use.
Reply
EP
7/16/2014 07:54:22 am
Thesaurus, what's that? Some kind of dinosaur?
Gregor
7/15/2014 08:00:58 am
"Rather than quickly trotting out the first rational 'explain-away' they could come up with, both NASA and others could have used this story as a springboard for so much more. Thousands, maybe millions of people's eyeballs are upon you, do you know how much some people pay for that? "We think the light might just be a camera artifact, but we sure are open to other ideas!"
Reply
Only Me
7/15/2014 09:37:29 am
Wait. Fantasy...IS...just fantasy?
Reply
EP
7/16/2014 08:36:30 am
"look at Neil deGrasse Tyson: he's polite, he's engaging, he's entertaining, and he's compassionate. He also won't ever stop telling you you're wrong just to 'nurture your creativity'."
Reply
7/15/2014 11:05:49 am
Mr. Colavito- I think you've misunderstood. I didn't write the article you cite. It was authored by Phillip and Paul Collins, contributors to Vexilla Regis Journal, as the post says in the title. I posted an excerpt that was specific to Mr. Roberts and his "theology". If you could perhaps correct the record I'd appreciate that. You might also find it of interest to know that Roberts has caught the attention of others who notice the Christian Identity connections to his theories. See the following: http://www.anti-semitism.net/?s=scotty+roberts
Reply
7/15/2014 11:37:58 am
I fixed the error, and I apologize. You had placed the authors' names in the headline, where my eye overlooked them since I usually look for authors' names on a byline. I assumed wrongly that your blog contained your articles. That's my fault, and I've fixed it above.
Reply
7/15/2014 01:01:36 pm
Thank you. I realize the title and attribution are somewhat difficult to distinguish from each other. The host has limited choices regarding headlines. Perhaps from here forward I'll place authors' names in the body of the article.
Reply
Walt
7/15/2014 01:04:21 pm
As I've said, I often feel your writing lacks perspective, but that quote about you says it much better. You make a lot of naive Enlightenment-era assumptions. It's interesting day-to-day just like editorials, but not of much use in the long run since it's so dated.
Reply
Only Me
7/15/2014 05:46:32 pm
He lacks perspective because he lacks neutrality, right? He must be *neutral*, darn it...no discussion of racial or political influences,
Reply
666
7/15/2014 11:17:40 pm
>>>He lacks perspective because he lacks neutrality
666
7/15/2014 11:20:13 pm
If you attack Scott Wolter he will declare he believes in his own objectivity and that you are full of hatred
666
7/15/2014 11:22:41 pm
This is typical attitude from fringe historians like Scott Wolter. It is identical to the attitude of those people who feel they are on the end of religious persecution from atheists, skeptics and scientists
Only Me
7/16/2014 12:33:46 am
I don't know what your point is. Neither Scott Wolter nor your insistence to bringing religion into the conversation (again!) are remotely related to my comment.
Walt
7/16/2014 12:33:55 am
That's all fair. I'm a "do unto others as they do" kind of guy. I try to treat Jason exactly how he treats others, and I don't have much respect for him since he treats other people like filthy refuse, and doesn't even pretend otherwise. I think I've actually been more polite than he is. He totally deserves how Steve treats him. I probably agree with almost everything Jason says, but I've seen him make at least a dozen enemies just in a year or two because of how he says it. It doesn't have to be that way.
Dave Lewis
7/15/2014 02:03:23 pm
I'm trying to understand the quote about Jason. I've never studied philosophy so I had to look up several terms.
Reply
Gregor
7/15/2014 02:19:54 pm
Short version is, they're accusing Jason of employing personal bias and circular logic to argue his points. In their view, empiricism cannot be the only criterion for discerning truth because it necessarily relies on hypotheses, which in turn are often based on categorical statements and "before examination" claims. They also imply that because empiricism and proto-scientific thought had their basis in the "Enlightenment" era, it must therefore be dated and inappropriate. Rather ironic, considering "church wisdom" is even older and - presumably - even more out of touch with reality.
Reply
Gregor
7/15/2014 02:33:26 pm
Also, for what it's worth, I don't feel that Jason constructs (and dissects) "straw man" arguments. I do, however, feel that at times his patience with fringe theories and their supporters wears thin, and his sarcasm can be taken as a preconceived "this is ridiculous" judgement.
Walt
7/15/2014 03:02:38 pm
To say it another way, Jason will never discover anything new. He needs to be taught what to think, and if it turns out something he's been taught is incorrect, he'll have to be taught the corrected version as well once a consensus is reached.
Gregor
7/15/2014 04:40:43 pm
"The alternative is someone like Scott Wolter who is more likely to make a discovery since he's so willing to completely ignore logic and consensus."
Steve StC
7/15/2014 05:52:57 pm
That's added so much to the conversation, Gregor.
EP
7/16/2014 12:49:37 pm
"That's added so much to the conversation, Gregor.
lurkster
7/15/2014 02:38:30 pm
No. I've been reading Jason's writing since he was just inspired, enthusiastic young man posting on Geo Cities. And I have never once seen him use a straw man argument.
Reply
Dave Lewis
7/15/2014 06:45:58 pm
Thanks for your explanations!
Reply
EP
7/16/2014 07:41:05 am
"Colavito is a pathological skeptic with a penchant for dissecting straw men on behalf of scientism."
BillUSA
7/16/2014 01:37:54 pm
Taylor may as well be speaking of himself. I believe that you make the time for what you want, either by segmenting and budgeting your time proportionately to meet the goal or by not getting yourself into situations that command your time.
Reply
titus pullo
7/17/2014 03:54:35 am
What is racially pure? What claptrap.
Reply
Don
7/18/2014 03:25:56 pm
Even in if for some reason we were to accept the basic idea that Noah was literally "pure" racially, whatever that means. Wouldn't all humans alive be descendants of his, and the impurities would have been banished by the flood.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2023
|