Hey guys, I've been meditating, recently, upon academia and many of their "practices" when the question entered my mind: Is there a word that denotes the practice prevailant amongst extremist scholars (such as Hutton) who, when they believe-- or agree with-- something will automatically invoke the academic concensus as the only "argument" that is necessary (which isn't actually an "argument" at all!); however, if they don't (or can't!) believe or agree with something they come up for as many reasons as they can for rejecting it, even regardless of the fact that most specialists in the field are of a different persuasion. (It simply doesn't seem like "polemic" would really apply as an apt denotation.) As an example of the latter, Hutton rather unequivocally ignored the general consensus of Celticists-- specialists in the field-- where an admittance of the Sovereign Rites and Sovereign-Goddesses of the Celtic tribes would have posed as useful information; not once, throughout "Pagan Religions" were we told that most Celtic scholars believe this (that is why I am so jaded, and why it pisses me off so desperately when other scholars that adore Hutton are so quick to excuse him or claim that he is simply following "academic protocol")! Indeed, another reason why I am so jaded is because he filtered what facts, or scholastic consensuses would be admitted to his readership-- this clearly leaves one with two impressions, because he is a "Professional Historian": 1.) There is NO evidence for such, 'cause he is a Historian and would certainly be aware of it if there were; and, 2.) either no scholars are in disagreement with him, or otherwise no other scholars have found any evidence, as well. I just hope I am not being too forward in admitting what harm this can potentially cause. Now, this isn't to say that one must believe everything one hears! However, it seems to me that it would be far more prudent to allow for other consensuses even if one does not, or cannot, agree with them; after all, why use, as an "argument" only the conclusions that agree with you, while denying the existence of those that you do not? Indeed, Hutton frequently uses, as "arguments", *only* the so-called "consensus" of specialist schoalrs where he agrees with them, chiefly throughout his recent "Witches, Druids & King Arthur". Hey, is there also an erudite term denoting this "practice" for "argument" within academia? *scratches his red head* I've just been wondering, is all...

Oh, and speaking of Hutton not giving equal weight to other scholastic leanings from specialists in a field, where he cannot bring himself to accept it, I just got ahold of a copy of Maire Breathnach's article from a Celtic studies journal (the title's in German and I don't feel like typing it out right now), called "The Sovereignty Goddess as Goddess of Death?" In it-- actually within a lengthy foot note-- the author brings our attention to the fact (as well as three other scholars, if I remember correctly without looking) that the Sheelagh-na-Gig carvings are STRIKINGLY similar to the description of many aged Sovereign-Goddesses throughout insular narrative lit. in which their pudenda is noted as hanging down between their knees, such as The Morrighan in "Da Derga's Hostel" (though, I may have to look that one up again, to see if I remmeber correctly).

Anyway, this clearly flies in direct opposition to Hutton's rather hard-nosed conclusions where he writes these carvings off as entirely a Christian invention for what seems to be to be VERY specious logic! (Of course, because Hutton write empirically-- why does he do that, anywya?!-- if one reads only his material *of course* one should expect him to make a superficially iron-clas "argument") I happen to tab this evidence right up there along with a scholar I found that reclaims the Green Man as a pagan god!

OH!!! And, one other important question I desperately would eventually appreciate an answer to (if I can find it, or anyone else here might know) is: Why DON'T scholars actually lay their cards out and explain why they have adopted a respective school of thought, and why they believe it to be superiour t all others that may very well lead to far different conclusions? It simply seems to me that Hutton often hides behind his personal methodology, which almost seems to *force* him to reach certain conclusions while rejecting everything else. So, I have come to believe that if he was open and honest in this way, than many more Pagans would simply view his material as one opinion of many, rather than that it is representative of the whole, or that every word he prints is infallible (a lot of cynical Pagans are of this belief regardless of when one PROVES to them otherwise-- and that's SO strange; for example, when PROVEN that what Norman Cohn said of Murray was demonstrably FALSE (in fact, it was a pack of lies!), they say "So?" and continue to proclaim that "she's a fool and has been debunked!" or even call her "the *biggest* Pagan douche!")! (Whew... Okay, Wade, catch a breath!)

Happy quantifying!

All my best,
Wade MacMorrighan

PS--A Happy (Belated) Summer Solstice to one and All!!!