Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
He could maybe cut down on the appeals to authority a bit.
Would you under those conditions? I think that would be an obvious mistake.
How an obvious mistake? By all means say it once, but then try and make some substantial points, even if the interviewer seems to be uninformed and hostile, which she does. I don’t like his stance (I’m referring to the first interview) because I take such repeated appeals to one’s own personal authority as a scholar and PhD-holder as expressing arrogance and a naive (or self-serving) faith in the purity of the academic process of research as a means of reaching knowledge, and also as distracting from the actual content of Aslan’s argument, whatever it is, the terms of which both parties seemed happy not to address in the interview.
He did both! I mean a mistake because academic authority is his license to speak – would he have been invited if he wasn’t an academic? It’s reasserting his expertise in the face of hostile & asinine questioning