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

[_marg]

Dan,

It is not surprising to me, but you are missing out a critical component of Occam’s razor and hence still don't understand it. I’ll quote wiki which you used “is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, when the hypothesis are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.”

While you are correct that the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon, the competing theories Smith alone and S/R theory, do not have equal explanatory power, they are not “equal in other respects”. One could not simply interchange one theory for the other - each theory is not equally explanatory of the data. Both theories are competing but they can not given the contradictory nature of their conclusions, be both correct at the same time.

In applying Occam's Razor to two or more competing theories and a simplest one is chosen on that basis, it's only done because the complex one or ones add no greater explanatory power.

So it is irrelevant that you think I’ve used ad hoc justifications to stop you from falsifying the S/R theory. That has nothing to do with whether it is logical for you to apply Occam’s Razor as a decision tool in choosing a theory. Let me be clear because you keep arguing what a logical person you are and you are only interested in teaching me. It is not logical under any circumstances to use Occam's Razor as justification to chose a simpler competing theory to another theory with different explanatory power, and that differ in many respects.

Now onto your "ad hoc" argument. In some instance, in which a theory is presented and a counter is made to falsify it... what the wiki article explained was that an ad hoc counter to the falsification evidence and/or reasoning could justifiably be dismissed or Occam razored..in situations where the counter is not warranted and usually this is a situation in which the supernatural is employed as an explanation to counter good falsification evidence and/or reasoning. But that’s not what you are doing. You are not applying occam’s Razor to dismiss what you consider is my ad hoc counter against your theory that the S/R witnesses are confused and misremembering Spalding’s manuscript or against your lost tribe argument. No, you are using Occam’s Razor as a decision tool to argue it should be used as justification to choose Smith alone over the S/R theory.

So to summarize ..because I know how keenly interested you are in logic and I don't want you to keep on misusing Occam's razor in your argumentation.

First off…you have argued that Occam's razor should be used a a decision tool in favor of Smith alone theory over S/R because it is the simpler theory. You are incorrect in your application of Occam's Razor. Those are competing theories offering completely different conclusions.

Further Dan you did not falsify the S/R theory with this lost tribes argument, nor with your dismissal of the S/R witnesses based on your acceptance of Book of Mormon witness translation process. It is ludicrous for you to even make such a suggestion. My discussion with you was not to stop you falsifying the S/R theory in either case. It was and is to understand your point of view, and for myself to gain insight and evaluate it. By the end of that discussion on lost tribes, I felt comfortable for myself, that it was a non-issue that you've blown out of proportion in an effort to dismiss the S/R theory.

It is also disingenuous of you to now try to argue that you've been using Occam's razor to razor away what you viewed as my ad hoc justification to your lost tribes argument and that by razoring it away you falsified the S/R theory..leaving the Smith alone to stand. You brought up Occam's Razor much earlier in this thread when it had nothing to do with your ad hoc fallacy accusations.



http://atheism.about.com/library/glossa ... thesis.htm

The Latin phrase ad hoc means "for this [special purpose]." Almost any explanation could be considered "ad hoc" if we define the concept broadly because every hypothesis is designed to account for some observed event. However, the term is normally used more narrowly to refer to some explanation which is exists for no other reason but to save a favored hypothesis.

So it's very easy to accuse anyone of ad hoc fallacy isn't it? As long as you argue you are falsifying their theory (even if you aren't) and someone counters your argument then you simply accuse them of ad hoc fallacy.

I did not argue the lost tribe issue with you to save a favored hypothesis. I argued it because the evidence is that with so many S/R witnesses recalling lost tribes, I don't accept they were all confused with an Ethan smith theory, or confused with hearing someone describe the Book of Mormon as a lost tribe story, or they confused via their reading the Book of Mormon as being a lost tribe story. I'm satisified none of those arguments hold water. So there is another explanation. I appreciate that Spalding discussed his intentions with them, that they were exposed to a developing storyline and that spalding as he progressed appeared to go back in time in the story, As well I take into account you do not know what their understanding of lost tribes was or what Spalding told them.

And I consider, if I was a witness to an author writing a similar story with a blood connection to the lost tribes of 720 B.C. it would be for me a story trying to show the Am Indians were descendants of lost tribes. So if I accept that, why should I accept anything different from the witnesses. We've argued this already, I don't want to get into the lost tribe issue again. But it's unreasonable to dismiss all the witnesses as being confused on this and hence on everything else they recall also confused and that's your argument and it is simply unreasonable.

[_GlennThigpen]

And I consider, if I was a witness to an author writing a similar story with a blood connection to the lost tribes of 720 B.C. it would be for me a story trying to show the Am Indians were descendants of lost tribes. So if I accept that, why should I accept anything different from the witnesses. We've argued this already, I don't want to get into the lost tribe issue again. But it's unreasonable to dismiss all the witnesses as being confused on this and hence on everything else they recall also confused and that's your argument and it is simply unreasonable.

marge, you cannot consider how you would view any such thing as a witness. You are viewing that story from a present day S/R advocate position and trying to impose your ideas of what a lost tribes story could have possibly been about on the mindset and literature ofthe time.
You have admitted that anyone reading the Book of Mormon would not pick up on a lost tribes theme yet enjoin that all of those witnesses must have picked up on the fact that one early single mention that Lehi was a descendent of Joseh and one later mention that Lehi was of the tribe of Mannasseh would have been enough to clue them in that it was a lost tribes story.

This ignores the fact that several of those witnesses picked up on the lost tribes theme from conversations with Solomon, such as Sbner Jackson.

Glenn

[_MCB]

I am beginning to think that there is almost as much truth in the witnesses to Joseph's work as there is to the witnesses to Spalding's work. Spalding's work wasn't about lost tribes at all. The sources I have found indicate that.

And that, I think, was the point about Leffingwell's erroneous details.

The witnesses to Spalding were not familiar with the literature that Spalding used for his inspiration, therefore, they encoded and related it to the Lost Tribes theory that was then in vogue.

Spalding may have been irritated that none of the primarily English immigrants took the time to record the history in the North, like Clavigero did in the South. Therefore he made up one using the lore of the peoples of Northern Europe-- including their own foibles, like racism. Including the fact that Eric the Red was a murderer. Smith & Co. turned that story into a justification for murder, in their re-creation of first part of the book. Yes, some of those details by the witnesses
were good.

It is only when we cut away the speculation about how it was done, and find the sources, that we begin to get a clearer picture. Occam's razor is all about that. One must look at it from a distance, first, so the fuzzy details get fuzzier.

[_Uncle Dale]

...This ignores the fact that several of those witnesses picked up on the lost tribes theme from conversations with Solomon
...

What will happen, if one day an old letter from Solomon Spalding is
discovered, in which he tells his correspondent that he has an interest
in the "lost tribes of Israel?"

Will we then suddenly believe that he may have spoken to people in
Conneaut about that topic? Could we then accept the recollections
of Ethan Smith's grandson, who said that his grandfather and Spalding
communicated on the topic of these lost tribes?

Or -- would the LDS naturally tend to believe that the alleged old
letter was a forgery, and that Spalding never spoke or wrote about
the ancient Israelites?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I am beginning to think that there is almost as much truth in the witnesses to Joseph's work as there is to the witnesses to Spalding's work. Spalding's work wasn't about lost tribes at all. The sources I have found indicate that.

I still am of the opinion that most if not all of the witnesses to Solomon Spalding's writings were sincere in their statements, but I also believe that they were sincerely mistaken. I believe that the lost tribes issue is a very good indicator of such. I realize that marge will not agree with me on that, but it is a plausible explanation for the fact that the lost tribes shows up in at least five statements.

And that, I think, was the point about Leffingwell's erroneous details.

The witnesses to Spalding were not familiar with the literature that Spalding used for his inspiration, therefore, they encoded and related it to the Lost Tribes theory that was then in vogue.

What literature do you think Solomon used for his inspiration?
Most of the witnesses seemed to be going by the views that Solomon himself had proposed to them via their conversations.

Spalding may have been irritated that none of the primarily English immigrants took the time to record the history in the North, like Clavigero did in the South. Therefore he made up one using the lore of the peoples of Northern Europe-- including their own foibles, like racism. Including the fact that Eric the Red was a murderer. Smith & Co. turned that story into a justification for murder, in their re-creation of first part of the book. Yes, some of those details by the witnesses
were good.

It is only when we cut away the speculation about how it was done, and find the sources, that we begin to get a clearer picture. Occam's razor is all about that. One must look at it from a distance, first, so the fuzzy details get fuzzier.

The real problem is that most of the details are fuzzy.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

...This ignores the fact that several of those witnesses picked up on the lost tribes theme from conversations with Solomon
...

What will happen, if one day an old letter from Solomon Spalding is
discovered, in which he tells his correspondent that he has an interest
in the "lost tribes of Israel?"

Will we then suddenly believe that he may have spoken to people in
Conneaut about that topic? Could we then accept the recollections
of Ethan Smith's grandson, who said that his grandfather and Spalding
communicated on the topic of these lost tribes?

Or -- would the LDS naturally tend to believe that the alleged old
letter was a forgery, and that Spalding never spoke or wrote about
the ancient Israelites?

UD

I am not sure what your point is. The excerpt that you selected from my post assumes that Solomon indeed did have an interest in the lost tribes at one time and discussed those ideas with several of his neighbors and family. Those ideas also seemed to coincide pretty much with the prevailing theories of the time, as noted by Abner Jackson.
It is possible that he actually wrote a story about the lost tribes, but we certainly do not have any physical evidence of it. The possibilities are that he wrote such a story and it became lost. Another possibility is that he espoused those ideas in conversations early in his life at Conneaut and planned to write such a story, but became disillusioned at some point (as noted in the unfinished letter found with the manuscript) and wrote an entirely different story, which the witnesses over twenty years later conflated with their memories of the lost tribes conversations.
I cannot buy marge's contention that he wrote a story of a few people at Jerusalem who escaped from the area before the Babylonian invasion, and then discovered that they were of one of the lost tribes, and turned that into a lost tribes story.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The excerpt that you selected from my post assumes that Solomon indeed did have an interest in the lost tribes at one time and discussed those ideas with several of his neighbors and family.
...

I understand that -- and it is a reasonable conclusion.

However, over the course of the last 30+ years, I have had innumerable
conversations with LDS and RLDS, who refused to believe that Spalding
ever said a word about Jews, Israelites, or any ancient Old World peoples,
other than the Romans in his Oberlin story.

Of course the Book of Mormon is not about Jews or Romans either -- so
the content of that volume fits hand-in-glove with the assertions I've
heard all my life -- that Spalding/Rigdon/whomever did not write the book.

During the 19th century, an LDS writer in Liverpool composed a rather
intelligent article, showing how Spalding may indeed have written about
Israelites -- but not about the Israelites mentioned in the Nephite record.

That sort of reasoning was not a problem to Mormons, until in about
1885-86 they began to realize that Spalding had once written about
Romans -- and that his Roman story was going to be published.

The Israelites of the Book of Mormon are neither the sum total of the
"ten lost tribes," nor are they the Jews of the post-exilic period. They
appear to be a small part of "lost tribes" -- and perhaps eventually
overshadowed by members of the tribe of Judah, led by Zedekiah's
son, who perhaps came to America in far greater numbers, and became
"mingled" with the Lehites.

I've always said that a Spalding "ten tribes" story would not be an
automatic problem for Mormonism -- if its names and narrative did
not duplicate parts of the Book of Mormon. Elder Erastus Rudd seems
to have encountered just such a manuscript, and its contents did not
prevent him from converting to the Saints' religion.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I've always said that a Spalding "ten tribes" story would not be an
automatic problem for Mormonism -- if its names and narrative did
not duplicate parts of the Book of Mormon. Elder Erastus Rudd seems
to have encountered just such a manuscript, and its contents did not
prevent him from converting to the Saints' religion.

UD

To me, a Spalding ten tribes story is in no way a problem for the Book of Mormon. It would seem to be more of a problem for the Spalding/Rigdon theory.
It at least would confuse the issue even more than it already is.

I really wish that we had something from Elder Rudd himself. Although Daniel Tyler seems to be a fairly reliable witness, his story is secondhand and long after the events in question.

Glenn

[_MCB]

When you formulate a hypothesis, Glenn, you look at the overall picture, then you formulate, then you look at the details to see if they fit. It is possible that Spalding wrote a lost Jewish tribes story and then changed it to lost Norse tribes. The point is that the parallels, other than Biblical and Apocryphal and Clavigero, are with British and Icelandic material that was available in English at that time. Which was my original contention. Spalding may have spoken or even written about the Jewish tribes theory, but discarded it as much less believable than a lost Norse tribes story. Even M'Kee, a later witness, was vague about the ethnicities involved. Maybe Ether is a residue of the earlier story. Then Smith & Co. replaced many of the names with Old Testament'ish sounding ones, along with their other changes.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

It is not surprising to me, but you are missing out a critical component of Occam’s razor and hence still don't understand it. I’ll quote wiki which you used “is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, when the hypothesis are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.”

While you are correct that the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon, the competing theories Smith alone and S/R theory, do not have equal explanatory power, they are not “equal in other respects”. One could not simply interchange one theory for the other - each theory is not equally explanatory of the data. Both theories are competing but they can not given the contradictory nature of their conclusions, be both correct at the same time.

You’re the one who couldn’t accurately describe Occam’s Razor in the previous post, confusing phenomenon with “conclusion”. You hadn’t the foggiest idea what you were talking about, and still don’t. Now, you persist in trying to find a loophole that will prove you right in a different way.

Look, there are three competing theories attempting to explain the Book of Mormon—S/R, Smith alone, and inspired translation of an actual record (or possibly inspired fiction)—and the various advocates believe their theory is the best explanation for the Book of Mormon’s existence. No theory explains all data. All the data aren’t amenable to explanation. In science the data that must be accounted for are harder than in historiography, which makes it much more difficult for us to agree on sufficiency. Choices are made as to what questions are the most important ones to have answered, and which evidences are more salient. Nevertheless, since all sides believe they have answered the most important questions, have the most salient evidence, and can account for most of the counter-evidence, it’s time to take inventory and see whose theory is the most complicated--which makes the most assumptions and resorts to elaborate explanations ad hoc hypotheses to explain counter-evidence. It’s not likely that either side will agree that the other has an equally explanatory theory. That’s why the need to see not who can explain most of the data, but to see how that data is being dealt with—who is resorting to special pleading, wild speculation, and ad hoc invention.

Put another way, the requirement that both theories account for all data will cause the wrong theory to make more assumptions.

In applying Occam's Razor to two or more competing theories and a simplest one is chosen on that basis, it's only done because the complex one or ones add no greater explanatory power.

So it is irrelevant that you think I’ve used ad hoc justifications to stop you from falsifying the S/R theory. That has nothing to do with whether it is logical for you to apply Occam’s Razor as a decision tool in choosing a theory. Let me be clear because you keep arguing what a logical person you are and you are only interested in teaching me. It is not logical under any circumstances to use Occam's Razor as justification to chose a simpler competing theory to another theory with different explanatory power, and that differ in many respects.

You don’t like me teaching you anything, right? I never said that Occam’s Razor proves my thesis right and yours wrong. It’s only a rule of thumb, I said. I also said a theory can’t be decisively disproved, but multiplying ad hoc hypotheses are a sure sign that a theory is on its way out of favor and that it will usually begin to fade away. Your insistence that differences between theories prevent Occam’s Razor being used in this case is just another stalling tactic, similar to what you did for false memory theory.

Now onto your "ad hoc" argument. In some instance, in which a theory is presented and a counter is made to falsify it... what the wiki article explained was that an ad hoc counter to the falsification evidence and/or reasoning could justifiably be dismissed or Occam razored..in situations where the counter is not warranted and usually this is a situation in which the supernatural is employed as an explanation to counter good falsification evidence and/or reasoning. But that’s not what you are doing. You are not applying occam’s Razor to dismiss what you consider is my ad hoc counter against your theory that the S/R witnesses are confused and misremembering Spalding’s manuscript or against your lost tribe argument. No, you are using Occam’s Razor as a decision tool to argue it should be used as justification to choose Smith alone over the S/R theory.

I’m not talking about razoring anything. We’re talking about which theory has the strongest position by noting the tactics being used to defend the Spalding theory against counter-evidence. Ad hoc hypothesizing can be about the supernatural, but not necessarily. Those are examples that are easily understood. Scientists don’t normally resort to supernatural arguments. Ad hoc hypotheses usually are untestable and can’t be disproved or falsified. Occam’s Razor isn’t applied to ad hoc hypotheses so that a theory has fewer of them. It’s a way of assessing theories and preferring one over another. The theory with the fewest assumptions is most likely true, but not necessarily so.

So to summarize ..because I know how keenly interested you are in logic and I don't want you to keep on misusing Occam's razor in your argumentation.

First off…you have argued that Occam's razor should be used a a decision tool in favor of Smith alone theory over S/R because it is the simpler theory. You are incorrect in your application of Occam's Razor. Those are competing theories offering completely different conclusions.

Different “conclusions” is the wrong word. We’re talking about different explanations of the same phenomenon.

Further Dan you did not falsify the S/R theory with this lost tribes argument, nor with your dismissal of the S/R witnesses based on your acceptance of Book of Mormon witness translation process. It is ludicrous for you to even make such a suggestion. My discussion with you was not to stop you falsifying the S/R theory in either case. It was and is to understand your point of view, and for myself to gain insight and evaluate it. By the end of that discussion on lost tribes, I felt comfortable for myself, that it was a non-issue that you've blown out of proportion in an effort to dismiss the S/R theory.

What? It doesn’t matter what private reasoning you had, you were defending the Spalding theory against counter-evidence. That you would argue in this manner is ludicrous. Are you sure you’re not punking me? You lost that debate hands down, but you provided us with good examples of ad hoc hypothesizing.

It is also disingenuous of you to now try to argue that you've been using Occam's razor to razor away what you viewed as my ad hoc justification to your lost tribes argument and that by razoring it away you falsified the S/R theory..leaving the Smith alone to stand. You brought up Occam's Razor much earlier in this thread when it had nothing to do with your ad hoc fallacy accusations.

I have not made that argument. Razoring away ad hoc theories is not what Occam’s Razor is designed to do. You are attempting to assign your misunderstanding to me. When I first brought up Occam’s Razor, it was in connection with the complexity and convoluted argumentation necessary to maintain the Spalding theory—and you agreed!

So it's very easy to accuse anyone of ad hoc fallacy isn't it? As long as you argue you are falsifying their theory (even if you aren't) and someone counters your argument then you simply accuse them of ad hoc fallacy.

Didn’t you read your own definition? Here it is:

The Latin phrase ad hoc means "for this [special purpose]." Almost any explanation could be considered "ad hoc" if we define the concept broadly because every hypothesis is designed to account for some observed event. However, the term is normally used more narrowly to refer to some explanation which is exists for no other reason but to save a favored hypothesis.

I’m using it in a more narrow and specialized way. Remember my quote above gave the examples--"And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too". They are made up on the spot, off-the-cuff, and without justification. The following discussion gives examples that are close to what you have been doing here:

Ad hoc hypotheses are common in defense of the pseudoscientific theory known as biorhythm theory. For example, there are very many people who do not fit the predicted patterns of biorhythm theory. Rather than accept this fact as refuting evidence of the theory, a new category of people is created: the arrhythmic. In short, whenever the theory does not seem to work, the contrary evidence is systematically discounted. Advocates of biorhythm theory claimed that the theory could be used to accurately predict the sex of unborn children. However, W. S. Bainbridge, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington, demonstrated that the chance of predicting the sex of an unborn child using biorhythms was 50/50, the same as flipping a coin. An expert in biorhythms tried unsuccessfully to predict accurately the sexes of the children in Bainbridge's study based on Bainbridge's data. The expert's spouse suggested to Bainbridge an interesting ad hoc hypothesis, namely, that the cases where the theory was wrong probably included many homosexuals with indeterminate sex identities!

Astrologers are often fond of using statistical data and analysis to impress us with the scientific nature of astrology. Of course, a scientific analysis of the statistical data does not always pan out for the astrologer. In those cases, the astrologer can make the data fit the astrological paradigm by the ad hoc hypothesis that those who do not fit the mold have other, unknown influences that counteract the influence of the dominant planets.

Using ad hoc hypotheses is not limited to pseudoscientists. Another type of ad hoc hypothesis occurs in science when a new scientific theory is proposed which conflicts with an established theory and which lacks an essential explanatory mechanism. An ad hoc hypothesis is proposed to explain what the new theory cannot explain. For example, when Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift he could not explain how continents move. It was suggested that gravity was the force behind the movement of continents, though there was no scientific evidence for this notion. In fact, scientists could and did show that gravity was too weak a force to account for the movement of continents. Alexis du Toit, a defender of Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move. Stephen Jay Gould noted that "this ad hoc hypothesis added no increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation." (Gould, p. 160)
http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html

The following are ad hoc hypotheses introduced to save Spalding theory, which was based on initial claim that Book of Mormon was based on Spalding’s MS:

Counter Evidence: MS Hurlbut recovered not same as Book of Mormon
Ad Hoc Hypothesis: Hurlbut recovered two MSS and sold one to Mormons

CE: How did Joseph Smith get Spalding MS?
AHH: Sidney Rigdon stole Spalding’s MS, rewrote it, and passed it to Joseph Smith

CE: SR didn’t hear of the Book of Mormon until Nov. 1830
AHH: SR’s post-BOM conversion was a sham

CE: How did he know P P Pratt would lead missionaries to his home?
AHH: Parley P. Pratt was in on the SR conversion sham

CE: SR and Joseph Smith said they didn’t meet until Dec. 1830
AHH: That was a lie

CE: Multiple witnesses say there was no MS used in translation
AHH: They are either gullible or liars

CE: Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with head in hat
AHH: The hat had a false top and Joseph Smith read MS in lap

CE: Spalding witnesses said MS about Indians being lost tribes
AHH: They didn’t really mean lost tribes as understood by their contemporaries, but to one tribe with blood line same as one of the tribes that got lost

CE: The Book of Mormon isn't about the ten tribes, it rejects it
AHH: Those passages were added

…ad infanitum

I did not argue the lost tribe issue with you to save a favored hypothesis. I argued it because the evidence is that with so many S/R witnesses recalling lost tribes, I don't accept they were all confused with an Ethan smith theory, or confused with hearing someone describe the Book of Mormon as a lost tribe story, or they confused via their reading the Book of Mormon as being a lost tribe story. I'm satisified none of those arguments hold water. So there is another explanation. I appreciate that Spalding discussed his intentions with them, that they were exposed to a developing storyline and that spalding as he progressed appeared to go back in time in the story, As well I take into account you do not know what their understanding of lost tribes was or what Spalding told them.

And I consider, if I was a witness to an author writing a similar story with a blood connection to the lost tribes of 720 B.C. it would be for me a story trying to show the Am Indians were descendants of lost tribes. So if I accept that, why should I accept anything different from the witnesses. We've argued this already, I don't want to get into the lost tribe issue again. But it's unreasonable to dismiss all the witnesses as being confused on this and hence on everything else they recall also confused and that's your argument and it is simply unreasonable.

The fact is there is a problem with the witnesses saying “lost tribes”, which complicates their testimonies. I repeat: Either they accurately remember Spalding’s MS, and therefore the MS has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, or their memories failed them, and therefore they can’t be relied on. Your position assumes to read their minds, that they didn’t mean what they said, and that they had a specialized definition of “lost tribes”. That’s the nature of ad hoc hypotheses, there is no way to demonstrate your sub-theory, although Glenn and I showed how the phrase was commonly understood.