10 lies that Congress tells to dupe Indian Muslims

[The Outsider]

I think you should just create a thread for yourself. So whenever you feel the need to comment on the absurd' date=' just post it there. I'm sure the rest would be interested in getting an insight on the inner workings of a maha gyaani.[/quote'] Yeah, expected personal attacks when you have nothing to offer on the issue of how places like Harvard are worthless - a claim initiated by you.

[The Outsider]

Pulling stuff out of your ass again. :two_thumbs_up:

It was all about discrediting the marxists historians and their masters sitting in Harvard.

[surajmal]

How does challenging the credibility of Historians working at Harvard equate to Harvard being ****?

[The Outsider]

How does challenging the credibility of Historians working at Harvard equate to Harvard being ****?

Because a place like Harvard has very high standards for someone being given a position there. Making a claim that the history department at Harvard hires hacks, instead of people with impeccable academic records is a huge claim and frankly quite laughable.

[surajmal]

Because a place like Harvard has very high standards for someone being given a position there. Making a claim that the history department at Harvard hires hacks' date=' instead of people with impeccable academic records is a huge claim and frankly quite laughable.[/quote'] In an age when degrees have become mere economic transactions? Yeah, Harvard ain't all that it used to be. I guess working in finance has taught you nothing.

[The Outsider]

In an age when degrees have become mere economic transactions? Yeah' date=' Harvard ain't all that it used to be. I guess working in finance has taught you nothing.[/quote'] Even in age of "degrees have become mere economic transactions" not everyone can get a position of a professor at Harvard.

[Crookbond]

One can argue that degrees are being sold but for places like MIT, Harvard, Stanford, CMU etc. any position as a professor means that one has to break barriers in research. I don't know about other disciplines but in Computer Science I can vouch for it.

[surajmal]

Even in age of "degrees have become mere economic transactions" not everyone can get a position of a professor at Harvard.

Doesn't mean 100% quality. Especially in relatively minor area like Indology.

[The Outsider]

One can argue that degrees are being sold but for places like MIT' date=' Harvard, Stanford, CMU etc. any position as a professor means that one has to break barriers in research. I don't know about other disciplines but in Computer Science I can vouch for it.[/quote'] Not just in Computer Science, places like Harvard have such an impeccable process to hire someone as a professor that it's practically impossible for hacks to get hired there. One might argue that an odd hiring maybe of a hack, but to make a generalization that the Harvard history department sucks is blatantly wrong and frankly stupid.

[surajmal]

One can argue that degrees are being sold but for places like MIT' date=' Harvard, Stanford, CMU etc. any position as a professor means that one has to break barriers in research. [b']I don't know about other disciplines but in Computer Science I can vouch for it.

Performance (and quality) in STEM is measurable. Not so much in liberal arts.

[The Outsider]

Doesn't mean 100% quality. Especially in relatively minor area like Indology.

Yeah, doesn't mean 100% quality and the occasional hack might get hired, but your statement was not directed towards someone in particular, rather the Harvard history department in general.

[surajmal]

Yeah' date=' doesn't mean 100% quality and the occasional hack might get hired, but your statement was not directed towards someone in particular, rather the Harvard history department in general.[/quote'] The link that I posted mentioned Witzel in name.

[Crookbond]

Performance (and quality) in STEM is measurable. Not so much in liberal arts.

Fair enough but from what I know from science, counter arguments have to be scientific as well i.e. source of funding can be a red flag but by in itself can not debunk any theory. After all, this is the same theory which the scientific community has accepted after being peer reviewed. A disapproval of the theory should also go through the same process as approval. In that regard, I think any judgment on a scientific article on an online message board would weigh very less.

[The Outsider]

The link that I posted mentioned Witzel in name.

So you agree that the Harvard history department is of very high academic standard in general, with maybe an odd professor being a hack? If yes, then we are in resonance.

[The Outsider]

Fair enough but from what I know from science' date=' counter arguments have to be scientific as well i.e. source of funding can be a red flag but by in itself can not debunk any theory. After all, this is the same theory which the scientific community has accepted after being peer reviewed. A disapproval of the theory should also go through the same process as approval. In that regard, I think any judgment on a scientific article on an online message board would weigh very less.[/quote'] The academic standards expected of people in humanities is no different from STEM in general. Yeah, the occasional hack might be able to sneak in, but making a generalization about Harvard's history department being one of hacks holds no merit.

[surajmal]

So you agree that the Harvard history department is of very high academic standard in general' date=' with maybe an odd professor being a hack? If yes, then we are in resonance.[/quote'] It probably is. I don't know and frankly I don't care. The only history I really seriously read about is Indian. And Harvard seems to be employing a couple of hacks in Doniger and Witzel there. And many Indian historians swear by these two.

[surajmal]

Fair enough but from what I know from science' date=' counter arguments have to be scientific as well i.e. source of funding can be a red flag but by in itself can not debunk any theory. After all, this is the same theory which the scientific community has accepted after being peer reviewed. A disapproval of the theory should also go through the same process as approval. In that regard, I think any judgment on a scientific article on an online message board would weigh very less.[/quote'] For the topic that was being discussed (Historical Linguistics), I posted a video debunking the methodologies utilized in a specific case (with comments on the general state of the field). Somehow such a paper managed to sneak through peer review because the reviewers probably had little clue, didn't bother or whatever about the "statistical analysis" presented in the paper (conjecture of the presenters). And this paper ultimately gained traction world wide (first through NYtimes) Clearly, rigor is lacking. (Not Harvard in this case but the field)

[The Outsider]

It probably is. I don't know and frankly I don't care. The only history I really seriously read about is Indian. And Harvard seems to be employing a couple of hacks in Doniger and Witzel there. And many Indian historians swear by these two.

I haven't followed papers or careers of the two historians you have mentioned, so am not in a position to make a judgment on their stature. My argument was against your generalization of Harvard's history department and if we agree that they are of excellent academic standing in general, I have no more comments.

[Crookbond]

For the topic that was being discussed (Historical Linguistics), I posted a video debunking the methodologies utilized in a specific case (with comments on the general state of the field). Somehow such a paper managed to sneak through peer review because the reviewers probably had little clue, didn't bother or whatever about the "statistical analysis" presented in the paper (conjecture of the presenters). And this paper ultimately gained traction world wide (first through NYtimes) Clearly, rigor is lacking. (Not Harvard in this case but the field)

OK - I have no knowledge about the area and hence would avoid making comment on the scientific claims. I will however add that IF the area is lacking rigor, I would see no reason why to believe one particular department/school over the other. This seems as a matter of choice IMHO

[surajmal]

I haven't followed papers or careers of the two historians you have mentioned, so am not in a position to make a judgment on their stature. My argument was against your generalization of Harvard's history department and if we agree that they are of excellent academic standing in general, I have no more comments.

:two_thumbs_up: