Neologism wanted

January 15, 2020 • 12:30 pm

I’m looking for readers to help invent a new word, since the concept I want to encapsulate isn’t represented by any words or phrases I know.

And here’s the concept. You’re all familiar with the ploy that theologians use when you criticize their ideas. Many of them—most notably Edward Feser, but also Alvin Plantinga and others—will respond by saying, “You haven’t read the best and most thorough exposition of my ideas, in books X, Y, and Z.” And if you read and criticize those works, they just shunt you on to other works.

It’s a never-ending trip down the illusory Rabbit Hole of Fuzzy Thought. They’ll even pull this stunt with other theologians, as when Catholic theologian Edward Feser argued with David Bentley Hart in 2015 about whether dogs go to Heaven—one of the more hilarious theological disputes I’ve documented. Feser, who said “no way dogs can get through the Pearly Gates,” told his opponent Hart that he’d better read Thomas Aquinas to settle the issue. Can you believe that people get paid to argue about such stuff?

Now, I find, advocates of panpsychism are pulling the same trick, saying that you can’t criticize their dumb ideas unless you read every book that’s ever been written about the Consciousness of the Inanimate. I keep reading and don’t find a “there” there, but am still being told to dig deeper. Fool that I am, I often comply, but it’s a futile endeavor.

So here’s my request:  Come up with a word or short phrase (two words) that describes the never-ending requests of those theologians or philosophers who require that that you keep reading ever more books and papers before you’re qualified to criticize their views.

If I find a word or phrase that I want to use, the winner will get a book of their choice among my two trade books, and with a cat or other animal of your choice drawn in along with an autograph. (A winner is not guaranteed, but do your best.)

Deadline: 5 p.m. Wednesday, January 22. You have one week.

Illustration from Feser’s post castigating Hart

 

200 thoughts on “Neologism wanted”

  2. Scholastic herring

    Scholastic agenda

    bibliography + ridiculous
    = bibliculous or
    = biblioculous

    Syllabus absurdum

    argumentum infinitae Syllabus
    ratio infiniti Syllabus
    Argument of the infinite syllabus.
    or the Infinite Syllabus for short.
    or Never ending syllabus.

  5. Sasquatching

    Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

  7. What is the aroma of old, possibly decayed, books? The wood fibers are supposed to emit vanilla-like compounds.

    Thus it could be something like “to go intoxicate oneself with the breakdown products of paper pulp, and don’t come back”

  13. Loosely based on posts from this very same website, from way back in 2008: whack-a-molists.

  14. A good neologism for this should express how, technically, it is true – one is assigned to “read” these various Bible fan fiction pieces. But it is a very different process than conventional reading, where a thought process – or more – of some sort(s) – is operating. What this “reading” is more akin to is the ancient monk in the abbey, patiently transcribing each letter, in gold leaf, with accoutrements, for hours, in addition to the numerous religious activities- liturgy, vespers, etc. Repetition, for the sensation of it – the numbness – a subservient resignation to the word of _insert_theologian_here_, the words ingrained at lighting up in conversation with others who did the same thing and memorized the same palaver. A god geek-out on par with Comic Con.

  17. Bibliobscurancy (bibbly-obskuransee”):

    The act of defending one’s position by repeated references to and reliance on obscure texts; evading an argument by such references and reliance.

    Bibliobscurant (bibbly-obskurant):

    One who engages in bibliobscurancy; the behavior of one who engages in bibliobscurancy, e.g., “He never fails to be bibliobscurant in our theological discussions.”

    2. I think you need “ad” not “ab”. “Ab” is away from and “ad” is towards. Also “ad” is followed by the genitive of the noun I believe….

      So your Latin would be “argument ad condescensionis”

      Wasn’t that all condescending of me? 😀

        1. I was following the appeal from authority format – argumentum ab auctoritate – but note that argumentum ad verecundiam is also used. But hey, I am no authority, and my only Latin is of the pig variety.

          1. Yes, I guess it depends how you see it. Ab would work too. Argument from condescension. I was thinking argument toward condescension.

      3. Actually, Diane, “ad” is followed by the accusative, as in “ad absurdum,” whereas “ab” is followed by the ablative, as in “ab absurdo.” So it would either be “ad condenscensionem” or “ab condescensione” (since “condescensionis,” if there is such a word, would be a third declension noun. How’s that for condescending? 😊

        1. Yeah, I meant accusative. Even as I wrote it I thought saying genitive felt wrong especially since Latin tends to use the ablative or the accusative case not the genitive for prepositions. I think i was mixing up some Greek. The only preposition cases I ever memorized with the German ones and only the datives since if it wasn’t in my dative list, it was probably in the accusative list.

  23. authoritarian snipe hunt

    While there are honest and legitimate reasons to point someone elsewhere for evidence to support your position, we’re talking here about illegitimate attempts to fend off valid criticism by playing the authority card. They know there’s no ‘there’ there, but they want you to exhaust yourself discovering that. That’s a form of snipe hunt*.

    In this case, the perpetrator is, more than anything else, attempting to defend his/her status as an authority (deserved or not), so this is an authoritarian snipe hunt.

    βPer

    * Mack @ comment #72 above used the expression ‘snipe hunt’ but not as his/her suggested neologism.

  24. Just want to mention another rhetorical strategy I often see deployed by theologians upon realizing that they’ve been worsted in debate: “My Faith has only been strengthened by this exchange”. (See especially Andrew Sullivan’s last response to Sam Harris in their on-line debate from a couple of years back. Sullivan is but a “lay” theologian, I know, after the manner of Rod Drehar of,”The American Conservative”, but he rivals the professionals in the frequency of his recourse to, “Inartful Dodging”.

  26. I thought of “leapfrogging,” since you’re forced to hop from one text, to the next, to the next. But this already appears to be a term in economics.

    So, how about “greengrassing”? As in the grass is always greener on the other side (i.e., where you are is never good enough; there’s always another, better source).

    Some other options: “rainbowing” or “asymptoting.” Since no matter how far you travel, you’re never any closer.

  28. I had a few ideas. I like best “Sisyphean homework assignment” which is easily shortened to “Sisyphean homework”.

    My original idea was “Quadruple E” to stand for “Endless Explained Elsewhere Evasion”.

    After reading some of the other’s ideas I changed my mind because I think the Sisyphus metaphor succinctly captures many aspects of the situation. You are put through this grueling task and end up back where you started with no progress made. I think if you heard it explained once you would remember the meaning the next time you saw it. I do kind of like my original too. It is clear and the repeated E’s act as a mnemonic.

  29. Dear Professor Coyne,

    My proposed neologism = INFINITE DIGRESSION

    With best regards,

    Peter Tchamitch Skara Sweden

    ________________________________

    1. Your comment suggests to me :

      Recursive digression

      I think many others suggested recursion

      1. First and foremost: until a few minutes ago I did not even know of the existence of the above discussion thread/comments/suggestions

        “Infinite digression” is the evil cousin of “Infinite regression”

        A pleasant surprise was that I noticed (again: only just a few minutes ago!!) that “mikeb” (posts 16 and 18) had previously suggested something very similar: “an infinite digress”

        1. There’s a button for “notify me of new comments by email”. That send comments made afterwards to the email address. The function works pretty good, but I wonder sometimes.

          1. Thanks for pointing that out, but what happened here was that I received the “Neologism wanted” post via email, and right at the top of that email it said “Respond to this post by replying above this line” : when you click on the little arrow above the line you get to a blank email form, so what happened here was that I never clicked on “Comment” at the bottom of the email (and certainly not on “See all comments”!!)

          2. Oh yes, that! I never wanted to find out what that does or means!

            I suspect it might divulge too much info – by virtue of being an email reply.

Comments are closed.