It surprises me how people think that going to college automatically gives you a useful amount of creditability.  The act of passing a test via memorization is a very unimpressive accomplishment in my field of work (software development.)  Since I am in a senior level position, I work with my boss to sort though resumes.  Anyone who lists programming as a hobby goes to the top of the list, even if they lack any kind of college education.

Far too often, I have witnessed the effects of what happens when you hire someone based on credentials alone.  Programming requires a high degree of logic, creativity, and problem solving.  Unfortunately, colleges and certifications tend to only help with that logic part.  Programmers who do not have the creativity and problem solving skills tend to write programs that are buggy, difficult to maintain, and difficult to expand upon without ripping out sections of code.  And as an annoying side effect, to get any complex coding done they tend to take up the time of more senior programmers.

For these reasons and many others, we find that experience is far more valuable.  When we see a resume from someone who says that they also program as a hobby, we know that they did not just memorize a bunch of syntax and programming patterns and are much more likely to have experience  to write good code that they have not seen in a text book before.

I suspect that being a historian has some similarities.  There are many insights that you gain when you have to figure things out for yourself.  Having read your work, I know that you are past the point of needing college education.  Your peer review validates this.  Your book will be a much more valuable credential than what any college has to offer.

It is a shame that this troll (Ishmael) is now polluting richarddawkins.net with their ignorance, but it seems that the regulars there are very capable of recognizing this troll's bullshit.  I think it is funny that the troll posted links to their other forum for "net drama" and warned that the posters there (including himself) are not as dignified.  I am reminded of this quote when visiting that site:

  Everyone is a Historian, unless retarded. Lots of retards out there.

Following as a parrot is one thing, tearing it apart is another. Rook is tearing it up.  

Yes.  It seems that now a few intelligent posters forgot that we use dictionaries to define words.

"A writer, student, or scholar of history." ¹
"One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler." ¹

(emphasis mine)

1 "historian." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 08 Mar. 2008. http://www.answers.com/topic/historian

In this assumption you would be incorrect. Though amateur historians do contribute to the overall base of knowledge that is the field of History, these amateurs do not portray themselves as "historians" and "experts". You will find very few, or no, post-graduate students of history that bestow upon themselves the title of "historian" or assume the title of "expert". This is horribly pompous even among working professionals. Among amateurs it would be considered narcissistic and readily dismissed.

I am willing to review Hawkins' book on publication and will of course submit links or copies to any subsequently published article. I am willing to keep an open mind as to his scholarship. But he should also be aware that making negative comments about education, and even placing himself above the need for education, should draw criticism. He is not immune to the same process that traditionally creates historical scholars. He is not a special case.

As I wrote at RDnet, if he desires to be a scholar of history, then he needs to enroll in a university immediately. This is the process of authentication required of everyone in the field. It is not optional.

 I can see Greek and Hebrew (maybe Aramaic), but why Latin? Studying the Vulgate wouldn't really push you in any specific direction unless you were concerned with early translation. Maybe to understand the context? Sounds like blowing smoke anyway.

Rathpig, while I respect your criticisms, I have never (nor would I) ever claim I am above the level of traditional education.  I do plan on attending.  Perhaps after I publish my book, when I have more time.  I still find the position of many of the people over at RnR to be more pompous than mine, even elitist.  Thanks for your comments though, whether founded or not.  Stick around a while.

In this assumption you would be incorrect. Though amateur historians do contribute to the overall base of knowledge that is the field of History, these amateurs do not portray themselves as "historians" and "experts". You will find very few, or no, post-graduate students of history that bestow upon themselves the title of "historian" or assume the title of "expert". This is horribly pompous even among working professionals. Among amateurs it would be considered narcissistic and readily dismissed.

I am willing to review Hawkins' book on publication and will of course submit links or copies to any subsequently published article. I am willing to keep an open mind as to his scholarship. But he should also be aware that making negative comments about education, and even placing himself above the need for education, should draw criticism. He is not immune to the same process that traditionally creates historical scholars. He is not a special case.

As I wrote at RDnet, if he desires to be a scholar of history, then he needs to enroll in a university immediately. This is the process of authentication required of everyone in the field. It is not optional.

(I see that now I have joined the site I can post without preview.)

[Edit: I see that you have discovered why your comments were not showing]

Did you see my initial response to you?

I am glad you have seen that school is your next probable step. Obtaining an actual formal education is not something that is optional for your chosen field, so this is a necessary endeavor. In fact once you have finished your current project you may find this is an excellent way to solicit scholarships. History is actually in a growth cycle at the moment because so many professors and researchers are retiring.

One more piece of constructive criticism that may give you a bit more credibility in general. Back away from the term "historian" and "expert". Humility goes a long way in any academic field. The more you make yourself a target the more people will shoot at you. You loose nothing in letting your work alone speak for you. If people want to call you a historian this is admirable, but choosing the title for yourself is pretentious.

As I have said, I have nothing against you personally. We are actually on the same philosophical side in most areas. It is because of this that I am taking the time to speak in a reasoned manner. I am by nature an iconoclast, so when someone pointed me in this direction the obvious desire to laugh at the seeming ridiculousness of so much of your organization. I originally called Poe's Law, but I guess that is another topic entirely at this point.

Good Luck, Rook. I look forward to reading your book.

You are correct.  Although just to clear things up, my "Historian" title was adopted more or less from it being consistently bestowed on me by others.  I've never attempted to hide the fact that I have no college credentials, but I have stressed the importance of merit, which I feel is more valuable then credentials, although I understand their importance. 

A funny thing happened to me after my lecture at FSGP, during the period I was flooded with questions, I was approached by some people who were in fact professors emeritus who thought I was a professor, and addressed me as "Dr. Hawkins."  Of course I corrected them, but it was a very thrilling feeling.  After nine years of research it felt like I had accomplished a very important step, however artificial it may have been. 

I hope you hang around and feel out the site more.  The people here are generally awesome. 

   Fuck all silly rules, "I AM GOD" some did say !  FUCK You that would deny me .... and they did ....    Assholes ......   

I feel credentials play less a role in the social sciences than the physical sciences.

For example, I don't need an English degree to write a book, or poetry etc... I don't need a political science degree to decide who to vote for.

Historical information is readily available through numerous books, that are relativly easy for the layman to understand and could very well accelerate their knowledge in the subjects.

One of my friends studies history as a hobby, so when he took it in university, he pretty much aced all the classes. So you probably could get a university equivalent education in history by doing your own research. however, that doesn't really teach you how to write history essays etc...

So credentials, while important, aren't really nessecary.

Since you clearly stated this as an opinion, you are of course entitled to such a view.

Credentials are not necessary for someone to be a "student of history", it is when this amateur student takes upon themselves the titles of "historian" and "expert" that they must be called upon for their hubris. Anyone can be a student with or without formal education. No one should assume a professional title without following the process of the profession. This is no less important in the social sciences than any other field. Formal education exists to provide standards of conduct and quality of research in all academic fields. Simply reading the secondary literature of the genre does not make you a professional in the field. Writing of book on a related subject merely makes you a  productive  amateur.

I appears Mr. Hawkins became caught up in self-promotion and simply failed to realize that others in his chosen field might take umbrage at his arrogance. Since this has been pointed out, hopefully he will modify his claims in the future until he has earned the credentials that warrant the label.

Actually I was the one who started labeling him an expert in history, and I'm sticking to that.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This ex·pert      /n., v. ˈɛkspɜrt; adj. ˈɛkspɜrt, ɪkˈspɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n., v. ek-spurt; adj. ek-spurt, ik-spurt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

To have a knowledge of history doesn't require a degree.

To be called an 'expert' however I feel does.

I mean there's a difference between reading history books, and writing history papers for example.

The university educated have an edge in this regard since they do submit papers in their classes and if they make a mistake, there's a prof to correct them.

My point was it's easier for the un-educated to expand their knowledge is history or another social science than it is the physical science.

And what exactly are your credentials for labeling someone an expert?

It is fine to have the support of your friends, and if Mr. Hawkins wishes to claim that he is the most expert historian among his group of friends this is acceptable. He has however presented himself as both a historian and an expert outside of this limited group. It is therefore incumbent upon those who do work in the profession of History, or are serious student thereof, to question his use of these titles. He simply can't respond, "Because Brian { removed } says so." His friend Brian does not make this determination.

By your own provided definition Mr. Hawkins in not an "expert" in any field of History. He retains no "special skill or knowledge", is not a specialist or an authority, and by his own admission is not "trained by practice" as the term applies to this field.

I am merely asking that the same rules apply across the board to all people who wish to make such claims in public. I have been critical of the various evangelicals who wish to ingratiate themselves with undeserved titles, and I am being likewise fair in requiring the same behavior from Mr. Hawkins.

{ Edited to remove personal information.  Please do not post personal information about people.  - Edited by Mr. Atheist }

This is very true, and I think it is to the detriment of our society that more people do not have knowledge of the topic.

Most people with advanced degrees in any field would be hesitant to call themselves "experts". The more knowledge one obtains, the more likely one is to know their limitations.

I wouldn't disagree with this statement. The Humanities should be designed for easy access to all interested parties. My hope, especially since my field is interpretive history, would that everyone becomes an amateur history student. I actively work to promote this concept. This is also why it is so necessary that those who are neither professional historians or "experts" be asked to not use these titles. People should have some assurance that anyone who so desires is not presenting themselves as a professional. This is true of any field.

I graduated from Common Sense University with a Masters in Expertology.

Cool, can I get a double espresso, an Italian cream soda, and half a Reuben panini?

Yep.  I knew you were going to cross the line into pretentious twatwaffle.  I was just waiting.  You know what?  I have two degrees, and as far as my areas of expertise go, about 1/50th of my knowledge comes from, or is even related, to my degrees. 

Look, if Rook writes a book, and it gets peer reviewed, and passes muster, then Rook counts as an expert.  Are you really going to stay in your little ivory tower when any Tom, Dick or Harry with good hair and enough knowledge to say the right talking points in the right order gets to be an expert on the news?

Everyone has tried very hard to explain this to you.  Rook does not, and has never (to my knowledge) attempted to portray himself as anything other than an autodidact with a great deal of knowledge on a particular part of history.   Because one usage of the word expert applies to him, many people refer to him as an expert.  Even so, you're not happy with that are you?  You want us all to use your definition because it's the one that makes Rook look like a young upstart whippersnapper.

Rook is our resident expert* on Biblical history.  Done.**

* For the purposes of this statement, the word 'expert' means: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.," as quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary.  The use of the word 'expert' in this context is not intended to imply, insinuate, or in any other way confer information regarding Rook's credentials from or with any institute of higher learning.  Any such inference is the responsibility of the twatwaffle making said inference, and bunched panties are expressly not the responsibility of the Rational Response Squad or any of its members or affiliates.

 ** This is almost the most useless and stupid thread in the history of the Rational Response Squad's existence.   In the time that Rook had to waste dealing with this stupid objection, he could probably have learned at least five more things about Biblical history, and he would be a little bit more of an expert.

Ironically, I am holding Hawkins and RRS to the same standards that I hold the various religious pretenders. I understand that this is a closed-group with certain self-supporting ideas that bolster the rather tight monkey-sphere. Because this closed-group claims to speak for atheist issues, the legitimacy of the groups claims become important to me personally as both an atheist and a student of history. Were this merely an internet club created for it's own enjoyment then I would have no concern with it's deportment. RRS has placed themselves in the public arena of ideas. it should be no surprise that members of that public will voice legitimate criticisms. This is the nature of free thought. People will question both sides of the argument.

For any group claiming to represent atheism, an anti-education stand is unbelievable. I do not feel that Hawkins himself is quite a vehement about this as his supporters seem. My reply to { Removed } was given in kind to his smart-ass boast. He of course had the opportunity to say nothing.

As I have stated, Hawkins is not an "expert", nor should he claim expertise in any field of history. This is hubris. If he wishes to claim the title "Expert: like the posers on Fox News" this is a poor representation of his talents. If anything this organization is doing him a horrible disservice as a scholar by supporting this charade. Having a small us-versus-them team to cheer for is admirable, but one may need to examine what it is that is being cheered. Anti-education sentiment makes RRS no more relevant to the larger ideological conversation than the numerous evangelical parents who "home school" because of the same dislike for organized academics.

Those of us who happen to be both atheists and students of history have a responsibility to at least voice our concerns.

(Also, Hambydammit, if you hold two degrees and only 1/50th of your academic knowledge is from this effort, you should perhaps request a refund. My universities and professors have been much more inspirational.)

{ Edited to remove personal information. - Edited by Mr. Atheist }

Gee, and I thought sure you were going to say how awesome it is that I've continued to learn since leaving school.  I thought certainly you'd be impressed that after learning one discipline, I went on to amass a great deal of knowledge in others.  I'm crushed.

Ironically, you don't seem to recognize that Rook, regardless of his qualifications, is different in kind from religious pretenders.  There are only two kinds of religious teachers:  the pretenders and the delusional.  Rook is neither, for he has actual knowledge of empirical facts.

My monkey would kick the shit out of your monkey.

Dude, I made an official disclaimer.  I am a core member.  What else do you want?

Would you like us to do a really big banner on the front page?  "Rook does not have a college degree.  With this in mind, feel free to treat his writing as you would any other writing -- skeptically."  People will do that anyway.  If any of your fellow professors have their panties in a bunch, get their names together, and we'll do a thread just for them.  We'll entitle it:  "Rook knows a lot about history, but he doesn't claim to be a professor."  We'll put little individual copies of a form letter addressed personally to every professor, explaining in great detail that Rook doesn't have, nor does he claim to have, a degree.

From now on, would you like us to say, "Rook is our resident person who knows a whole lot about history"?

Seriously, I'm not just busting your balls here.  You tell me what word you want Rook to use.  He knows as much or more about his subject than most people with Masters degrees.

Yeah.  People have repeatedly questioned Rook's credentials, and the answer has always been open and honest.  He's getting his book peer reviewed.  He is meticulously citing all of his work.  He's following all the proper protocols. 

Would you like him to stop writing?  He doesn't have the money to go to school.  Are you going to pay his way so that he can write his book with the proper credentials to suit your discriminating taste?

For an atheist and a student of history to so blatantly misrepresent what our stand actually is is unbelievable.  If you've read any of our authors section, you know we are all about the scientific accuracy.

You know what?  I think I know what you're up to, but I'm going to let you get to it in your own time.  Frankly, I don't often get into this stupid IIDB/RD/RNR bullshit.  I'm too busy trying to do things that are actually productive.

If you're not doing what I suspect, I'm really damn curious how such a smart person as yourself could actually equate these statements:

"Higher education is not the only way to attain scholarly knowledge."

"We are against higher education."

I guess it's because I don't have a degree in history.

I am merely holding a self-proclaimed atheist spokesperson and the subsequent group to the same standard I hold religious spokespeople. I have no other agenda.

As to Hawkins, I have encouraged him to complete his current project. I have also encouraged him to immediately drop use of the terms "historian" and "expert". These terms do nothing to help his position with academia and can only harm his position with critics. I would also encourage RRS in general and Hawkins specifically to learn more about the process of "peer review". I have yet to see the term used correctly. I will of course stand corrected if Hawkins has placed his manuscript for open review. I would be interested in the PDF and will provide my CV and faculty adviser contact to his publisher. What I have read, is that he has a few acquaintances commenting on his progress. This isn't "peer review".

As to the "can't afford school" canard. This is easy to say, but falls hollow on the many of us who have somehow found the means to accomplish our goals. If he is truly needs specific, then his opportunity to attend university is guaranteed. What those who offer this excuse do not seem to realize is that one can't be both a "self-taught expert" and have problems with tuition. In the Humanities this is especially true since departments are always looking for the next bright star. Universities should be begging him to attend if the hype is accurate. Perhaps the truth of the situation is somewhat embellished?

You may want to examine your own attitude in this affair. No one is above criticism. The atheist "community" should be criticizing self-proclaimed atheist "experts" much more harshly than we criticize the religious adherents for the very reasons that you cite. We, as an ideological group, do not suffer from a delusion that must be supported at all cost. We have the opportunity to scrutinize our self-proclaimed spokespeople because the basis of our ideology is not at stake. We should be better than the religious pretenders.

You didn't answer my question.  I was asking it seriously.  Please fill in the blanks with one or two words that convey his level of knowledge and don't sound stupid or forced:

Rook Hawkins is a(n) __________________ in the field of biblical history.

Rook is a(n) _________________.  (Please provide a word(s) that indicates that Rook pursues the study of biblical history as an autodidact and is engaged in active research and writing.)

I am taking your criticism seriously, but it sounds like you're just bitching and not offering a reasonable alternative.

You'll have to talk to Rook about this.  I can't answer for him, but I can say that I know him personally, and that I know that many of the really expensive books he's read were donated.  Personally, I don't know how he prioritizes the publishing of this book and obtaining a degree, nor do I know if he plans to use his research as a way to make himself attractive to a university.

There's criticism, and there's bitching.  So far, you've just bitched and acted superior.  Do you have a suggestion for my fill-in-the-blank?  Would you like to offer your services to try to get Rook a financial ride at a good school?  Would you like to help gather an acceptable panel of experts* to help with the peer review process?

With that being said, I'm officially done with this.  As it turns out, though I do not have any degrees in sociobiology, psychology, or anthropology, they are subjects of intense interest to me, and I'm busy becoming an autodidact in the fields.  You see, I think that it's important to bring science down from the towers and make it accessible and readily available to everyone.  By reading many different authors and several related subjects, I'm becoming very adept at incorporating parts of all of these fields into a coherent model of what it means to be human.  There have been other authors who have done this, you know.  Howard Bloom, author of The Lucifer Principle, is neither an evolutionary scientist nor an anthropologist nor a sociobiologist.  After receiving his undergraduate degree in English Literature, he turned down offers from many graduate schools, opting instead to pursue research on his own.  Nevertheless, the 1997 edition of his book includes rave reviews by scientists with PhDs in quite a few fields in which Mr. Bloom does not have degrees.  Mr. Bloom is regularly described as an expert, despite not having degrees in many of the fields he researches.

In any case, your objection has been noted, and your well-considered alternative descriptions would be greatly appreciated.  Have a nice day.

* In this context, the word expert is used to denote a specific level of formal training in a specific field, accompanied by the explicit acknowledgment of the recognized scholarly community within that field.  It does not include autodidacts or academians with unrelated fields of expertise.

I must correct you on a misinformed point.  You claim to have not seen "peer review" used correctly.  I've stated several times throughout this message board that I have been (and will continue to) submitting my manuscript for Peer Review to the Copenhagen International Seminar.  Thomas L. Thompson is the editor of the monograph, and it was originally he, not I, who requested this after hearing several of my perspectives on my book while he was on my radio program.  If you don't believe me, as I've addressed elsewhere, you are more than welcome to e-mail him.  He is currently reviewing the manuscript and has been sending me revisions based on style and focus.  He has become my friend in the process of our conversations, after he had extended this incredible opportunity to me, not beforehand (if you would try to claim this is because he felt obligated due to friendship). 

His open letter can be found upon review of the first post in our Frank Walton thread.  Please take the time to research a claim before making the assumptions you have been making throughout this thread.  You can locate this by using the google search function on the left hand side of the page.  It is much appreciated.

Rook Hawkins is a informal student and a historical hobbyist. That is not an elitist view. Those are simply the facts. This may change with time, but as I've said previously the self-taught require twice the work for half the recognition. Those are the facts of life. He can accomplish great things from this position, and after he has accomplished those things then he may be worthy of more lofty titles. Taking the titles onto yourself for potential accomplishments in the future is back ways around.

Furthermore, a common mistake when discussing those who seem to place extraordinary value in the no-university approach is to point to specific individuals who either did not obtain an education yet excelled or excelled outside their educated field. This is admirable, but let's not forget that we are looking back on specific accomplishments after the dues were paid. This can't be extrapolated forward in a completely unrelated case just because it sounds like a good argument. Again this is looking at the situation back ways around because it suits a self-image. This is far from rational.

As to the charge of "bitching", once again this overlooks the fair dealing that should be given for everyone in a similar situation. Is it "bitching" to question the legitimacy of Kent Hovind's contrived degree from Patriot University? Is it "bitching" to question the validity of a Biology degree from Liberty? Those who aspire to the speak for atheists as a group, and that is the purpose of RRS, need to undergo the same or greater scrutiny than that afforded any theistic group.

For the larger issues here, we are all self-taught to a very great extent. One of the most important aspects of a successful university student is that they must be able to learn independently. I have nothing but respect for those who are self-motivated. We all must be to accomplish our goals. But this self motivation doesn't bestow professional titles. Self-teaching does not make one an expert in a field until one has actually proven themselves not only valuable to that field but uniquely valuable.

I would like to add to this conversation that enemies and detractors come freely.  I just ask that they spell my name correctly.

And again I must reiterate that this is not how the "peer review" process works. It can be part of a larger process. But an editor submitting a client's work to his own university's seminar is not how historical works, especially those claiming to be pivotal in the field, are normally "peer reviewed". Especially if this is being done piecemeal from an intended larger manuscript. This is obviously an honor for someone in your position. I don't want to distract from that aspect. But it is not part of an actual "peer review" process where several scholars in a specific field from several universities would review the work independently. Ideally these would be people unknown personally to you.

You really have no need to bolster your claims over and above simply stating that you are working on a book. You have unnecessarily opened yourself for external criticism. I should not have to be here telling you this. Less assuming titles and less making scholarly claims would serve you much better in this situation. Let your work speak for itself.

When it nears completion offer the manuscript to multiple university departments in your specialty. In the meantime you should focus on publishing segments of the work in actual peer journals. In fact you have somewhat overstepped yourself in trying to publish an actual book without working up from previously published monographs. It is actually much easier to work from previously reviewed independent segments of a larger whole.

You would also be wise to seek a reviewer heretofore unknown to you with published work in your specific field.

All this is "peer review".

I hope that I am neither an enemy or a detractor. I am actually taking time with this because of at least a passing concern. It was funny at first, and much of your organization remains hilariously funny to me; however I hope my words haven't been overly antagonistic.

I also hope that I haven't misspelled your name. If so it was not intentional.

(And if you are paraphrasing the older quotation then touche.)

On this past Saturday, I had a chance to talk to a younger friend who is graduating from a college in the USA this summer.  Her degrees are in political science and history.  I did not tell her about this conversation, so that there would not be a bias in her reply.  I simply asked what she thought about calling people historians who do not hold a degree in history.  She said that there are many amateur historians who specialize in various subjects who do not hold degrees.  The difference between historians with a degree and historians without is loosely the difference between a Historian with a capital H and a historian with a lowercase H.  I take it that she is basically saying that the word historian can be used to describe what someone does and can also be used as a title.  I interpret that her comments mean that it is OK for Rook to be described as a historian based on his knowledge and what he does, but not use it as a scholarly title (or whatever she means by historian with a capital H).
 
Rathpig, I appreciate your attempt at keeping the RRS honest at avoiding scholarly titles that are not earned, but nowhere have I seen Rook using "historian" as a scholarly title.  Since this is not the case, and our language allows for the word historian to describe someone who does not hold a degree, then your objections do not apply to Rook unless you can find an example where scholarly usage is stated or strongly implied.  As English is a spoken language, the meaning of the word "historian" as a description of what he does seems perfectly acceptable by its common usage today.  Also, I would like to include the following quote as not being an authority on the matter, but simply adding another opinion to the mix for the purpose of demonstrating that this is not just what RRS supporters think and is an example of how others use the word historian in our spoken language: