Marg,
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.
You have given us nothing but tangents, which I believe would have been unnecessary if you had some rudimentary knowledge of the logic.
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.
Yet you have recently questioned my intelligence. I have only tried to teach better, more disciplined ways of thinking—which can be learned if one takes time to do it.
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.
You evidently are under the delusion that if I would apply the same logic to my position, I would come to see things your way? Remarkable! But that’s why we’re debating, isn’t it? You are supposed to show me where my thinking has gone wrong. So far, we have spent a great deal of time on your wild speculations. Actually, I have told you that you are dealing in ad hoc hypothesizing. Allow me to introduce you to this concept, because it relates to Occam’s Razor mentioned by you below. In fact, it’s exactly how the principle of parsimony is violated.
In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. ...
[url]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis[/url]
An auxilliary hypothesis that lacks independent support which is adopted to save a theory from refutation. Such hypotheses are bad because any theory can be rescued from refutation in this way. Auxilliary hypotheses should be justified by independent evidence.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
This is what you were doing with our long discussion about “lost tribes”, and more recently with your “trick hat” theory.
As a basis for all your conclusions here are some of your assumptions ..the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible,
Not an assumption. This has been discussed at great length by Mormon apologists—Richard Anderson preeminently—without credible rebuttal, that is, as it pertains to the character and reliability of the witnesses (three and eight). Other witnesses—both Mormon and non-Mormon—viewed the translation process. None of which you have attempted to overturn except by insulation that they can’t be reliable.
they were either all in the conspiracy or they were not,
I haven’t mentioned this aspect, but since you bring it up you have to give us some rationale for including some and not including others in the conspiracy. The nature of conspiracy theories is that you include persons in the conspiracy in order to explain away their testimony. This becomes a vicious circle of evidence and proof. Ultimately, there is no independent reason to accuse key witnesses of conspiracy other than to negate them as an eyewitness.
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,
This is not an assumption but a fact that must be accounted for by Spalding advocates. Which is easier to believe? Which is easier to explain in terms of memory? Material evidence (i.e., the original Book of Mormon MS) supports the testimony of the witnesses. There is no material evidence to support the Spalding witnesses’ memories.
J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon,
This relates to the other items—if he dictated with head in hat, and one doesn’t believe he was really translating, then he is the author. The only other theory in competition with this view is Spalding/Rigdon authorship. I don’t think you could claim this is an assumption on my part. I think I have made my objections to this theory quite clear.
David Whitmer after leaving had nothing to lose if he revealed a conspiracy.
You are assuming he had something to reveal.
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.
You are not saying anything meaningful here. It’s only an assertion that needs evidence and argument. The preceding items are not assumptions, and there are no good warrants to overturn the many witnesses to the translation process. There is no reason to suspect all these witnesses of lying, and no great feat of memory involved.
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.
I’m not presuming anything. The lives and character of the witnesses have been studies in great detail. You are accusing them of lying without warrant.
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.
Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with his head in the hat according to our best evidence. That makes him the author. There was no MS used in the Book of Mormon’s production. The implications of Joseph Smith’s not being able to replaces the lost MS supports the multiple eyewitness testimony. The Spalding theory doesn’t fit with what we know are the facts. You can’t shift your burden to me.
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.
I hope you are not arguing that since Joseph Smith claimed he didn’t write the Book of Mormon, therefore he didn’t write it and Spalding did. That would be silly, right? Saying the Book of Mormon witnesses aren’t credible because they had a vested interest is inaccurate. Martin Harris had a vested or monetary interest prior to publication of the Book of Mormon. However, he was only paid back and didn’t make a profit. Others became converts because of what they observed. Still others—like Isaac Hale and Michael Morris—didn’t join. You can’t simply label those who subsequently joined Mormonism as interested witnesses and therefore unreliable. This would be similar to the Mormon apologists’ habit of labeling all negative testimony as biased and therefore unreliable.
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.
Excuse me, but the Spalding advocates are the ones who have the burden to prove their assertion. In that sense, it doesn’t matter who else wrote it.
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.
Previously you apparently argue that the witnesses were interested and therefore liars, but now in seem to argue that they were gullible and easily fooled. Which is it? Not that either argument matters, because neither can overturn their testimony. Normal, otherwise rational, and credible people believe in astrology, big foot, UFOs, divining rods, faith healers, magic numbers, etc. One of the qualifications for being a juror isn’t being free of superstition—or else no trials would be held. You are committing the fallacy of presentism to some extent—what doesn’t seem rational now, at one time actually was believable to many in Joseph Smith’s day. Millions have joined Joseph Smith’s church partly based on the belief that stones can translate, or at least convey revelation in some way. If you believe in miracles, anything is possible. Cowdery used a rod, and the Whitmers possible had seer stones. The rationale for them was—how could Joseph Smith dictate hour after hour with head in hat without being inspired? That’s what made them believe incredible claims. That was Joseph Smith’s gift. A con-man is a confidence-man—someone who fosters confidence.
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 admitted this was the case on your own in an earlier post. The Spalding theory requires constant maintenance and invention of ad hoc hypothesizing.
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.
You wording is confused and misleading. Occam’s Razor deals with competing theories that attempt to explain the same phenomenon—here the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon. It’s not “less data” vs. more data; it’s about competing theories attempting to explain all the data, or at least most of it, with the least qualifications, elaborations, and ad hoc hypothesizing. I’m going to skip discussion of your examples, because they only show your unfamiliarity with the principles under discussion. Instead, I will supply the following discussion of Occam’s Razor and ad hoc hypothesizing:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.
The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[4]
Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."[5] …
The razor's claim that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. The procedure to test this hypothesis would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. The validity of Occam's razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use).
It is coherent to add the involvement of Leprechauns to any explanation, but Occam's razor would prevent such additions, unless they were necessary.In the history of competing explanations this is certainly not the case. At least, not generally (some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary), and so there remains a justified general bias towards the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications which prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false.
Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true. A case in point: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g."And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations cannot be ruled out - but by using Occam's Razor.[22][23][24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
It’s only a rule of thumb, but the multiplying of ad hoc hypotheses is a sure sign that a theory is on its way out. The demise of a theory is rarely decisive, but usually fades away, with some adherents on the fringes—so also with the Spalding theory.