Dr. Bergman

by Jerry Bergman 109 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gozz

  What credentials? You want to see Phd. DSc. Dqe? Or what? Farkel just said above: arguments stand and fall on their own. I've seen criticisms of Dr. Jerry Bergman, especially the ones GermanJW highlighted in his first post. It's something about credentials. It's also about the quality of research. Since Dr. Bergman has come on this board, he's in the kitchen, and should be ready to take the heat. But people should be kind with words and maintain good decorum. German JW's post contain some information about Dr. Beiser. If you wish to know more about him, type his name in a search engine; you should speak some German though...

  *
• 

  GermanXJW

  Since Dr. Bergman has come on this board, he's in the kitchen, and should be ready to take the heat.

  That's why I quoted Besier on this. He even gives the file number in his book.

  So these are hard facts. The only response I have seen so far is a Jerry Bergman who laments about an unanswered letter. Maybe he can post his letter here or answer the facts here on the board.

  And who is Dr. Beiser??

  Prof. Besier (sic!) teaches "Historical Theology" and "Research on Religions" (I don't know the exact term for "Konfessionskunde") at the University of Heidelberg. He has promoted in Theology as well as in History. He also has a diploma in Psychology.

  His Website is http://theologie.uni-hd.de/personalpages/besier.html

  Edited by - GermanJW on 19 August 2002 16:45:22

  Edited by - GermanJW on 19 August 2002 16:47:25

  Edited by - GermanJW on 19 August 2002 16:49:7
• 

  MikeMusto
• 

  GermanXJW

  Aboout Drs Singelenberg quoted above: several articles can also be found at Rado Vleugels http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/singelenberg.html

  For example, some quotes from Singelenberg's review of Bergman's US$ 59.00 "Comprehensive and Selectively Annotated Bibliography":

  "Unfortunately, the bibliography's comprehensiveness is the only positive characteristic of this work. The annotations suffer from subjective usage, unfounded or incomplete evaluations, and tabloid irrelevance. ... Next, Bergman qualifies hundreds of sources including some of his own (p. 119) - as "excellent" without providing any argument for this appraisal. ... Some annotations are painfully incomplete or embarrassingly void. A plain blunder is the comment on a publication commissioned by the former East German Secret Service with the specific intention to discredit the WBTS. Surely, Bergman labels the book "an Anti-Witness work," but he leaves out the vital (and well-known) information that the Stasi was behind its production (p. 97). ... Finally, the observation that the non-English entries are saturated with language errors points to sloppy - if at all - final editing, the sophisticated external care of the book aside. The best advice to the reader would be to concentrate on the titles and ignore the annotations."

  Edited by - GermanJW on 19 August 2002 17:5:49
• 

  Dia

  There is so much PASSION in the flaws you point up. It's like you want to destroy this guy.

  I can't help but wonder what's up with that?

  His writings make profound sense to me. Not to you?
• 

  GermanXJW

  What do you call Passion? I take advantage of this unique chance to get a response from Bergman himself about the scholarly comments about his work I quoted.
• 

  larc

  Dia, no one here wants to destroy Jerry. We want him to answer some legitimate questions. Yes, there is passion in his work. Yes, his objective is noble. Nonetheless, his book is mixed as far as strengths and weaknesses in it. The book needs a major over haul to be credible. I wish he would do that.
• 

  Farkel

  Dia,

  : His writings make profound sense to me. Not to you?

  I want to believe his writings (particularly on mental illness), too. I didn't even know what "peer review" was until several professors befriended me. Now that I do, I can understand why academics have such a large burden of proof on stuff they put out: they are the cream of the crop and generally have the most knowledge on subjects that are their specialties.

  They might be able to fool the average reader with sub-standard research, but they have a very hard time fooling their peers.

  This is NOT about Dr. Bergman personally. This is about how his work stands up under scrutiny from those who know the subjects he has written about.

  I've made mistakes with my facts in the past and have received a sound drubbing for it by those who knew the facts. Should Dr. Bergman with a PhD be held to any less of a standard than your average Farkel with only a high-school diploma?

  Farkel
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  : . He has never contacted me and this is a major indication that he is not interested in the facts. Any writing he has done about me is therefore suspect.

  Of course, this alone is enough of a logical fallacy to continue to haunt you. It's called a "false dilemma."

  No, all researchers when writing about someone else always contact that person if at all possible. It is the only ethical thing to do . What if I wrote a nasty article about you and never contacted you about it??

  "He didn't call me or write me. Therefore, he MUST be a liar."

  I did not say this and this is an example of irresponsible writing

  Of course, your conclusion didn't take into consideration that he:

  1) Was dead

  2) Was in the hospital and too sick to return your message

  or

  Not true because he has e-mailed me about other things

  3) He thinks not you are worthy of response, et. al..

  I resent this kind of response. This is one of the reasons why I left the Watchtower. People should be civil at least.

  In ANY case, his lack of response doesn't make him suspect at all. His arguments stand or fall on their own. Do yours?

  I will respond but it will take time to dig into the charges.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  I have ordered a copy of this book to insure that he indeed said this. If so, a libel lawsuit will be filed in court.