Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

... not sure how one would go about doing that via search automation and doing it manually would take a very, very long time. Maybe someone else knows an easy way to do it.
...

About the only "easy" way, would be to create separate
text files for each of the Book of Mormon books, and then
perform word-searches in the on-line 1830 text, to locate
each Smith-only, Cowdery-only, Rigdon-only, & Spalding-only
occurrence, in each book of the Book of Mormon.

I'd guess that would take a couple of weeks' time -- but the
results would be very useful for our research efforts.

I have performed some "spot checks" of this documentation
system -- which is how I'm able to predict the Smith and
Cowdery frequency patterns, etc. But I've sampled less
than 10% of the Book of Mormon in that way. The entire
1830 text needs to be searched -- one word at a time,
book-by-book, and the results compiled.

For future reference, here are the "base texts" for our
four 19th century author-candidates:

http://premormon.com/resources/r011/Joe4.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r011/Joe4.htm

http://premormon.com/resources/r010/Oliver4.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r010/Oliver4.htm

http://premormon.com/resources/r010/Sidney4.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r010/Solomon3.txt

And here are the "only" tabulations for the four writers:

http://premormon.com/resources/r011/1830CowOnly.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r011/1830RigOnly.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r011/1830SmithOnly.txt
http://premormon.com/resources/r011/1830SpdOnly.txt

A master spreadsheet for all four authors is here:
http://premormon.com/resources/r011/1830SmCoRgSp.xls

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...If Smith was so good at dictating off the top of his head, why keep the operation secret? Why not do it for the public? Think of the publicity he would have gotten!
...

I believe that there were a few such "public" demonstrations
of Smith's dictating abilities -- in Badger's Tavern, near Colesville
and in front of the Whitmers and Hales -- and perhaps elsewhere.

I do not know that the results of such public demonstrations
actually ended up in the 1830 printed text, however. Smith
may have dictated all sorts of stuff that never made it into
the published volume.

Why didn't he perform this task continually in the public eye?
Some Mormons and Brodieites assume that he did just that, in
a semi-public manner, with Hales and/or Whitmers always
monitoring the "translation" process.

My conclusion is that even these semi-public demonstrations
were limited in scope, and did not apply to the entire text. The
Whitmers may have viewed a significant portion of the "act,"
but probably not those instances you and I are most interested in.

Did Smith hide pages in his hat (or under his hat)? Possibly so --
but I think he had a good enough memory to be able to avoid
such cumbersome tactics, most of the time.

Did he and Cowdery collude, to produce text in "shortcut" ways,
rather different from what the Whitmers viewed? I think so.

Did Smith dictate to Oliver, even when there were no onlookers?
Probably so! I think that was part of the mysterious ritual, and
a scheme by which Smith retained ultimate control over any
textual content intended to pass for "holy writ."

I further suppose that Oliver Cowdery supplied some content
for the Nephite record, at least up through the first part of
April, 1829. After that, I am unsure whether he functioned as
anything other than a scribe. But even if he merely wrote out
on paper what Smith was finalizing (by dictation, approval, etc.),
it still may have been the case that pre-April, 1829 Cowdery
creations nevertheless got interwoven into that finalized text.

As for Rigdon and Spalding -- their pre-April, 1829 contributions
might be similarly imagined; but I think we stand a stronger
chance of demonstrating a Cowdery collusion. If his own material
somehow ended up as insertions into the dictated Nephite record,
then it becomes much easier to fathom other writers' contributions.

I wouldn't put much stock in the head-in-a-hat trick -- but when
and where it was resorted to, I'm guessing that Smith's reported
extraordinary memory was also a key factor in the results.

UD

[_marg]

When you and Roger make blatant logical errors while at the same time accusing your opponents of being illogical and stupid, I decided not to hold back. I would have mentioned logic anyway, but not so strongly. You and Roger talk about what you think is logical or reasonable, only without any real knowledge of it.

Dan my recollect is it is you who keeps bringing up logic and accusing us of being illogical and often you throw in a fallacy label, which invariably I ignore because to address it would just lead to a tangent.

I haven't said you were stupid, but I may have said in different words (I'm not sure) that you are illogical..if I haven't said it I'll say it now, I do think given what I've seen of your reasoning in argumentation that "logic" is not your strong suit. That does not mean that I think you are unintelligent. You obviously have high verbal intelligence. I believe people have different types of intelligences which I believe Martin Gardner theorized. Some people are gifted with many of the different types of intelligences, others with only a portion.

If you are going to know logical fallacies you need to be able to apply them to yourself as well. Critical thinking or logic and the resultant conclusion, decisions etc is only as good as the premises or the assumptions used in the reasoning process. That's where your weakness lies.

As a basis for all your conclusions here are some of your assumptions ..the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible, they were either all in the conspiracy or they were not, the Book of Mormon was dictated, because the Book of Mormon witnesses are giving statements closer to the event in time on that basis they are more credible that the S/R witnesses who give statements to events further away in time, J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer after leaving had nothing to lose if he revealed a conspiracy. So your reasoning is founded upon those assumptions and more. And yet Dan there are good warrants to argue those assumptions are weak or flawed. But your approach appears to be that those assumptions enjoy presumption. Given this, I guess your fallacious reasoning falls into fallacies of presumption in which you do not enjoy an automatic presumption for those premises you presume.

The presumption in this discussion is not simply J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and others who disagree have the burden to prove otherwise, or the presumption is not simply the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and others have the burden to show otherwise..and in both those cases if they can't prove otherwise your position rests. Quite frankly Smith claimed he didn't write the Book of Mormon and evidence is not strong he did, and the Book of Mormon witnesses are not credible, they are themselves involved and have a vested interest in the Book of Mormon scheme. So it's not a matter of your position is the strong one nor that your position enjoys presumption. But that's essentially how you argue. You don't really argue why one should accept that Smith was the sole author, or why the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible. The whole group of people involved in the Book of Mormon scheme except hostile ones, make statements which show them to be highly non skeptical, rather gullible individuals. If they aren't gullible they certainly think other people are. Who the heck believes with little skepticism..that a rock can glow words? Yet they do, with little if any questioning? and they are the people you find highly credible. You even believe they believe a rock can glow words.

Let me just show you one example where an assumption in your use of logic leads you astray. You use Occam's Razor or the principal of parsimony and conclude the S/R theory is complex, therefore the Smith alone explains the data is simpler and on that basis is the better theory.

You have an assumption that you understand Occam's Razor and therefore can use it effectively and appropriately in support of the Smith alone theory over the S/R theory. Unfortunately you do not understand Occam's Razor. Where Occams' Razor is applicable is where there are 2 or more explanatory theories and they reach the same conclusion. In such cases, obviously it's not necessary to use the explanatory theory with the greatest amount of data supporting the same conclusion if the simpler (less data) theory adequately warrants that conclusion.

The situation with the S/R and Smith alone theories is that they are explanations with different conclusions. They are competing theories but they are not equal explanatory theories for the same conclusion.

Let's take an example..Out of Africa theory versus Multiregional Continuity theory.

They are competing theories but with different conclusions. Scientists don't say ...well this theory should be accepted because it has the fewest amount of data. That would be ludicrous. The fewest amount of data has nothing to do with deciding which theory has the best explanatory power.

Currently the Out of Africa theory is the one accepted because it's warranted with the strong DNA evidence, which I'm sure is very extensive but it's strong credible evidence. Deciding which theory is best with these competing theories has nothing to do with which one has the fewest data. I would bet if one looks at the data, that the multiregional theory has the fewest.

Now if there were some theories within the "out of africa" theory that reach the same conclusion that all homo sapiens evolved from a common ancestry out of Africa..let's just say we add God into the mix for argument sake. Same theory as the naturalistic one but with the added notion God started mankind in Africa and God led mankind around the world. Well god isn't necessary to the theory. It doesn't add any more explanatory power to the naturalistic out of africa theory/conclusion. In addition God is complex data, because we would have to get into all the ramifications and explanations on what God is first in order to add that data. So adding God wouldn't help reach the conclusion, it would only add increased complexity and that's where applying parsimony makes sense. That is to cut away excessive unnecessary explanatory data.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Scientists don't say
...

I once attended a lecture on the "scientific" application of theory to
history. The Professor said that the best one could hope for, was
that historians approach the status and outcomes of scientists.
It is too much to hope for, that babblers about the past can ever be
true scientists.

A scientific historian (if one exists), I suppose, would put forth his
or her reconstruction of the past as a work-in-progress, subject to
errors, both in substance and in interpretation. Such a scientist,
ever seeking a purity of content, would welcome criticism and
would lay ego aside, in order that truth might be brought forth.

I do not think we are going to find much of that among students of
Mormon history. Mormonism itself is a poor teacher for the would-be
truth-seeker. And even non-Mormons tend to become polluted and
corrupted, in their handling of so messy and falsified a subject.

But we may hope.

And my hope is for the anti-Brodie. For the observer and investigator
who does not claim to know what went on in Joe Smith's head, nor in
his private bedchamber. The explicator of the Book of Mormon who is
not so bound up in pseudo psychology, as to overlook possible leads
for additional investigation -- and for the overturning of paradigms
which have outlived their usefulness.

Show me the Book of Mormon scholar, who like Aquinas, is ready to
cast aside a life's work, upon the realization of a rare insight and
a more elevated perspective.

I carry my lantern about in the broad daylight, searching for such
a scientist in historians clothing.

Uncle Dale

[_Thexriddle]

Found at edge.org:

The Argumentative Theory
A Conversation with Hugo Mercier [4.27.11]
Last July, opening the Edge Seminar, "The New Science of Morality", Jonathan Haidt digressed to talk about two recently-published papers in Behavioral and Brain Sciences which he believed were "so important that the abstracts from them should be posted in psychology departments all over the country."
One of the papers "Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory," published by Behavioral and Brain Sciences, was by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber.
"The article,” Haidt said, "is a review of a puzzle that has bedeviled researchers in cognitive psychology and social cognition for a long time. The puzzle is, why are humans so amazingly bad at reasoning in some contexts, and so amazingly good in others?"
"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things."
"Now, the authors point out that we can and do re-use our reasoning abilities. We're sitting here at a conference. We're reasoning together. We can re-use our argumentative reasoning for other purposes. But even there, it shows the marks of its heritage. Even there, our thought processes tend towards confirmation of our own ideas. Science works very well as a social process, when we can come together and find flaws in each other's reasoning. We can't find the problems in our own reasoning very well. But, that's what other people are for, is to criticize us. And together, we hope the truth comes out."
Dan Sperber, an influential French social and cognitive scientist, is widely recognized as being among the most brilliant cognitive scientists writing about reason, language, culture, and human evolution. Hugo Mercier, his former student, is a post-doc at University of Pennsylvania and coauthor with Sperber of a number of papers.
Their Argumentative Theory has already generated much excitement in the academic community. Reaction — from heated rejection to enthusiastic acceptation — have never been indifferent. The paper has created a storm of interest and controversy and has has attracted attention well beyond academic circles. Sharon Begley (Newsweek) and Jonah Lehrer (Wired) were among the many journalists who wrote stories. In addition, many leading thinkers have taken note.
Gerd Gigerenzer finds this view on reasoning is most provocative as "reasoning is not about truth but about convincing others when trust alone is not enough. Doing so may seem irrational, but it is in fact social intelligence at its best." Steven Pinker notes that "The Argumentative Theory is original and provocative, has a large degree of support, and is strikingly relevant to contemporary affairs, including political discourse, higher education, and the nature of reason and rationality. It is likely to have a big impact on our understanding of ourselves and current affairs."
And Jonathan Haidt says the “the article is one of my favorite papers of the last ten years. I believe that they have solved one of the most important and longstanding puzzles in psychology: why are we so good at reasoning in some cases, but so hopelessly biased in others? Once I read their paper, I saw the argumentative function" of reasoning everywhere — particularly in the reasoning of people I disagreed with, but also occasionally even in myself. They're on to a very powerful idea with many social and educational ramifications."

Thexriddle

[_Uncle Dale]

"reasoning is not about truth but about convincing others when trust alone is not enough...."

At least deductive reasoning appears to often be so applied.

Years ago I was one traveler in a car full of New Age religious
zealots, zooming across the Nevada desert, on a "quest" to meet
with the American Indian shaman, Rolling Thunder.

As we passed Wheeler's Peak, near the Utah border, the driver
(a Rolling Thunder fanatic) proceeded to tell us all what existed
atop that mountain. His explanation of things was based upon his
deduction of "what must be up there."

My suggestion -- that we stop the car, climb the peak, examine
the glacier, and have a picnic in the ratified air -- was met with
utter contempt and derision. Deductive reasoning had already
convinced the others what we would find on the mountain, and
they saw absolutely no need whatsoever to go and take a look.

To four ex-Mormons and one ex-Jehovah's Witness, the driver's
reasoning (?) appeared to be flawless.....

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

"reasoning is not about truth but about convincing others when trust alone is not enough...."

At least deductive reasoning appears to often be so applied.

Years ago I was one traveler in a car full of New Age religious
zealots, zooming across the Nevada desert, on a "quest" to meet
with the American Indian shaman, Rolling Thunder.

As we passed Wheeler's Peak, near the Utah border, the driver
(a Rolling Thunder fanatic) proceeded to tell us all what existed
atop that mountain. His explanation of things was based upon his
deduction of "what must be up there."

My suggestion -- that we stop the car, climb the peak, examine
the glacier, and have a picnic in the ratified air -- was met with
utter contempt and derision. Deductive reasoning had already
convinced the others what we would find on the mountain, and
they saw absolutely no need whatsoever to go and take a look.

To four ex-Mormons and one ex-Jehovah's Witness, the driver's
reasoning (?) appeared to be flawless.....

UD

There is a certain logic in the reaction of those five people. (That car must have been a big one.) I can almost read their minds. "Why should I get out of a perfectly good automobile to climb, i.e. physical exertion, a mountain to the peak and look at a glacier in which I have no interest. On to Rolling Thunder, I say. "

Glenn

[_marg]

There is a certain logic in the reaction of those five people. (That car must have been a big one.) I can almost read their minds. "Why should I get out of a perfectly good automobile to climb, i.e. physical exertion, a mountain to the peak and look at a glacier in which I have no interest. On to Rolling Thunder, I say. "

Glenn

LOL..I have to agree with you there Glenn.

[_GlennThigpen]

I was just thinking :) that Smith may have on occasion used a trick hat. That is use a hat with a false top easily removable. With Cowdery I think he simply read off the sheets he had, unless someone was nearby .. but perhaps with his wife and a few others on occasion he would use a head in the hat. So all he would have to do is have the pages he intends to read off of in the hat. He could put the sheets to be read between material which makes up the false top. Then with a scribe sitting at a desk, and he's on the opposite side, puts his head into the hat, elbows on his legs, removes the false top and read off the written sheets. With people like David Whitmer, since Dan vogel seems to think a Bible would be acceptable in the room and not raise suspicion, he could also have sheets in a Bible to be read off and whenever a witness came too close he could discreetly hide the sheets into the book/Bible.

This is off the original topic, but everything else is also, so I'll put in my two cent's worth.

That would require some really dumb people. You've been watching too many sitcoms where someone gets caught in a potentially embarrassing situation and uses all kinds of silly and stupid antics to throw a suspicious but extremely dumb wife, lover, girl friend, etc. off the scent. Too many people were wont to wander in and out of that house.
Someone other than me needs to run an experiment by sticking their head into a hat and trying to read anything, or putting a pinhole in a hat and trying to read from papers through that pinhole.
In my opinion, the only way the dictation could have been pulled off, going y the descriptions of the witnesses, is for Joseph to have everything in his head (or from a seer stone).
I cannot see Joseph being able to conceal the number of pages necessary for a day's worth of dictation, especially when he would have had to flip the pages as the dictation progressed.

Glenn

[_marg]

Glenn I addressed your post regarding the "head in the hat" here