{"id":26313,"date":"2014-09-26T07:40:40","date_gmt":"2014-09-26T11:40:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/exploringourmatrix\/?p=26313"},"modified":"2014-09-26T07:40:40","modified_gmt":"2014-09-26T11:40:40","slug":"defining-pseudoscholarship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2014\/09\/defining-pseudoscholarship.html","title":{"rendered":"Defining Pseudoscholarship"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Scholarship involves the building of consensus and the challenging of thereof, and so it is easy to find oneself confused about when a view is merely a minority or even a fringe scholarly viewpoint, and when it has crossed the line into pseudoscholarship. And so I thought this comment by Paul Regnier<\/a> deserved to be highlighted in a post:<\/p>\n

\n

What defines a theory as pseudoscholarship is not that it goes against the consensus. Pseudoscholarship tends to<\/p>\n