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

[_mikwut]

Dale,

Currently, the best edifice or framework that comports with all the data and historical evidence is the smith alone theory. I am not romantically wedded to it, I am evidentially wedded to it. If you provided evidence of other authors I am quite open to possibility. The anecdote that someone couldn't do that by themselves doesn't provide me much, particularly given the examples of greater feats by individuals than the mere Book of Mormon. I don't believe we have adequate source data for a wordprint analysis to properly attribute to smith alone, Jocker's even agreed with that. I greater anecdote I believe is the same mundane style used in the D&C, and PoGP. What do I need to get you to join me just a bit that J.S. wrote those all on his own?

regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
What do I need to get you to join me just a bit that J.S. wrote those all on his own?
...

You could begin by presenting the historical evidence for Smith being a
writer and documenting exactly what he wrote without help from others.

That would be a good beginning -- a website could be devoted to that
subject -- perhaps a graduate thesis -- even a book.

Once we had as much evidence for Smith the writer, as we have for,
say -- his own mother -- then the next step would be to determine
the relevant literary markers of his personal writing style. Wordprint
studies might form one aspect of that study's evidence, but other
methods of literary criticism and analysis might also be employed.

Given that body of evidence, I would like to see some pattern
distribution maps of the entire 239 Book of Mormon chapters (plus
the Preface) created and made available for inspection. Such
charts should show Smith's literary pattern(s) dropping off in those
sections of the book we know were copied from the Bible. Smith's
linguistic "voice" ought to pick up in those sections of the book which
best match what we know of his theology and other interests.

As I told Vogel -- compelling evidence might persuade me to admit
a Smith authorship of as much as 99% of the non-biblical text.

Would that be enough for you? Or does it have to be 100% -- with
no possibility whatsoever of even a few sentences originating with
Oliver, Hyrum or Lucy?

???

UD

[_mikwut]

I don't see the point. I concede you 1%.

mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

I don't see the point. I concede you 1%.

mikwut

The point is this --

Whether or not Mormonism originated as a conspiracy, with one or
more of Smith's close associates helping him promote his fraud
and cover up his lies --

or ...

Whether Mormonism originated as a Smith-alone deception, with all
of his converts unknowing dupes.

If the latter is true, then the LDS Church began as a benign, honest
association of sincere Christians, bent upon restoring the religion of
Jesus from 2000 years ago. They just happened to follow a bad leader.

If the former be true, then we need to reassess our toleration and
implicit support for the Church, as a reputable member of our society.

UD

[_Roger]

Book of Lehi?

Bingo!

But from where would Smith-Alone or Smith-Divine claim he got it?

[_Uncle Dale]

Book of Lehi?

Bingo!

But from where would Smith-Alone or Smith-Divine claim he got it?

From the same place that the Conneaut witnesses derived the notion
that the book deals with the northern tribes ----> from ignorant, foolish
imagination masquerading as true knowledge of the book's narrative.

UD

[Guest]

Ad hoc fallacy discussion with Dan cont'd.

Previously I wrote : Dan the ad hoc fallacy is applicable in situations in which the claim is open to verifiability and therefore can be falsified. One can not refute a claim which is not falsifiable. What happens in a situation in which the ad hoc fallacy is applicable, a claim is made and a counter claim refutes with evidence, or falsified it..and the claimant responds by changing the assumptions in a particular way that makes the original claim unfalsifiable.

So ad hoc fallacy works in situations such as in science, in which scientific claims are open to verifiability through observation and testing. Scientific claims which can not be tested, can generally be verified because they have predictive power which eventually is open to verification. The ad hoc fallacy will also work with any claim which is potentially falsifiable with evidence. Unless the claim has been refuted or falsified ...the ad hoc fallacy would not be applicable to the argument or theory.

So the ad hoc fallacy works like this:
Step 1 - Person A makes a claim
Step 2 - Person B refutes it with evidence
Step 3 - Person A counters with an explanation that changes the originial assumptions and makes the claim impossible to falsify.
Step 4 - Person B is now justifed in responding that Person A has committed an ad hoc fallacy ..hence the discussion on that claim would be irrational to continue..as it could go on indefinitely..with reasoning being irrelevant to resolving the issue.


Dan's response:

I think you basically get the process, but are trying to invent a loophole—hence, I would add that the original claim was falsifiable, but becames unfalsifiable when ad hocs were employed to save it, which are usually unfalsifiable themselves. The original claim may still be vulnerable to adverse evidence, which can always be remedied with further ad hocs and adjustments. And ad hocs don’t have to be adjustments to background assumptions. Let’s try your steps with the issue under discussion:

Step 1 – S/R theory postulates MS was used in production of the Book of Mormon, which is open to falsification.
Step 2 – Mormon witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, testify that no MS was used and that the translation was performed with Joseph Smith’s head in hat.
Step 3- The witnesses either lied, or were part of the conspiracy, or didn’t want to know the truth, or were fooled by Joseph Smith’s occasional demonstrations, or all the time with a trick hat. These can be seen as unfalsifiable ad hoc responses to counter-evidence, or as adjustments in background theory that once assumed a rewrite of Spalding’s MS without witnesses.
Step 4- I’m therefore justified in accusing a certain Spalding advocate of inventing ad hocs to escape adverse evidence.

As I explained before, the invention of ad hocs do not automatically disprove a theory—but it weighs the main theory down and eventually it will fall out of favor.

My response: Dan in my first sentence you quoted I was referring to the original claim being open to verification.

Please note the last line taken from the book you are using which I've underlined below in the quote.

"The moral of this story is that for a hypothesis to increase our
knowledge, there must be some way to test it, for if there isn't, we
have no way of telling whether or not the hypothesis is true."

So in order for ad hoc fallacy to be applicable we need claims open to verification. Note Dan, the Smith alone theory is not open to objective verification at least with the method we are employing which involves subjective interpretation of the evidence. Perhaps word print studies will eventually be accepted as objective verification with regards to these theories. So far the Smith alone has met no burden of proof in which evidence offered can be objectively verified to establish that Smith alone wrote the Book of Mormon. The Smith alone theory offers no predictive value (that I'm aware of ) which can be objectively evaluated to support it. So ad hoc fallacy would not apply because the claim doesn’t even get off the ground to offer anything to verify.

For ad hoc fallacy to be applicable an initial claim needs to be open to potential verification...and that is something which works well with science because science offers hypothesis which are reproducible, and if not reproducible then they offer predictive value which can be potentially verified. But historical event are not reproducible and generally don't offer predictive value for verification

I’m assuming that within the context of this discussion when you say “ad hocs” you are implying fallacious reaoning, or fallacious ad hocs.

You write: Step 1 – S/R theory postulates MS was used in production of the Book of Mormon, which is open to falsification.

My comment: How is this open to objective verifiable falsification Dan? It’s not. This is like with your smith alone theory…unless it it is open to objective verification ..there is no means to falsify it.

You write: Step 2 – Mormon witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, testify that no MS was used and that the translation was performed with Joseph Smith’s head in hat.

This is where your reasoning really really goes off the tracks into downright faulty reasoning. You so called evidence is useless here --- it’s not objective verifiable evidence. This is like asking a criminal if she committed the crime or not and taking at face value what she says as it being evidence and then accepting it.

You write: Step 3- The witnesses either lied, or were part of the conspiracy, or didn’t want to know the truth, or were fooled by Joseph Smith’s occasional demonstrations, or all the time with a trick hat. These can be seen as unfalsifiable ad hoc responses to counter-evidence, or as adjustments in background theory that once assumed a rewrite of Spalding’s MS without witnesses.

Ad hoc fallacy doesn’t apply at all, because the initial claim was not open to verification. But that’s the problem with pretty much all the claims involving determining what truly happened in the past.

you write: Step 4- I’m therefore justified in accusing a certain Spalding advocate of inventing ad hocs to escape adverse evidence.

No you aren’t.

If you read that chapter again Dan in which they discuss ad hoc fallacy they were talking about scientific hypothesis..that is hypothesis which are open to objective verification, or which offer predictive value which can be verified. You used that chapter and thought you could transfer the concepts covered there over onto historical accounts,but you were misunderstanding the background concepts of the applied reasoning for ad hoc fallacy applies to scientific claims or any verifiable claim which has been shown objectively to be faulty. Why do you think the explanation of ad hoc fallacy was discussed in the chapter dealing with science…why not discuss it in the other chapters?

I’m going to repeat this again…scientific claims are not a matter of a particular epistemological truth. They are explanations of observed phenomenon. Those explanations rely upon a background understanding of other theories and instrumentation available. New instruments, new reasoning, new ways of analyzing data, new data may change background assumptions behind theories and so theories themselves need to adjust to accommodate new background understanding. It’s not a function of there is only one epistemological truth in science..it is whatever best explains the phenomenon given what is known, and as long as those explanations offer predictive value, whether they are true or not doesn't matter, they have value.

But with historical accounts it’s different. It’s either true or false whether Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, It’s either true of false whether Smith used Spalding’s manuscript. And unlike science we can’t simply conduct a test to reproduce what happened historically. So ad hoc fallacy applies to scientific claims or claims which offer predictive value and are objectively verifiable...because it's a logical means to prevent theories being maintained which have been objectively shown faulty with objective verifiable evidence and good reasoning.

So to go through the steps again:

So step 1 - an initial claim is offered to explain a phenomenon..and it is open to verification. (This is not the sort of thing happening in this discussion of historical claims of an event which is not reproducible for testing and offers no predictive value for verification purposes.) So the kinds of claims we are dealing with - ad hoc fallacy doesn’t apply.

Step 2…Claim is confuted with objective verifiable evidence (not what you are doing Dan..you are using subjective evidence you happen to like and agree with)

Step 3 ..the background assumptions for the initial claim are changed for the sole purpose of maintaining the original claim from being confuted by the objective verifiable evidence which confuted it.

Step 4..now one can say an ad hoc fallacy was used.

-------------------------------------------------

Dan below I'm quoting from the book you have been using "How to Think about Weird Things - Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr. & Lewis Vaughn.

Note the context of your quotes (in red) and that the applied reasoning for ad hoc fallacy is for scientific hypothesis. There is a reason the authors did that Dan and didn't simply apply ad hoc fallacy to beliefs, opinions or claims... generally.

p 179 The goal of scientific inquiry is to identify principles
that are both explanatory and predictive. Without a hypothesis
to guide our investigations, there is no guarantee that the information
gathered would help us accomplish that goal.
>>>
Scientific hypotheses indicate what will happen if certain conditions
are realized. By producing these conditions in the laboratory or
observing them in the field, we can assess the credibility of the hypotheses
proposed. If the predicted results occur, we have reason to
believe that the hypothesis in question is true. If not, we have reason
to believe that it's false.


P 182-187 CONFIRMING AND CONFUTING HYPOTHESES

The results of scientific inquiry are never final and conclusive but are
always provisional and open. No scientific hypothesis can be conclusively
confirmed because the possibility of someday finding evidence
to the contrary can't be ruled out. Scientific hypotheses always go beyond
the information given. They not only explain what has been discovered;
they also predict what will be discovered. Since there's no
guarantee that these predictions will come true, we can never be absolutely
sure that a scientific hypothesis is true.
Just as we can never conclusively confirm a scientific hypothesis,
we can never conclusively confute one either. There is a widespread
belief that negative results prove a hypothesis false. This belief would
be true if predictions followed from individual hypotheses alone, but they don't.
Predictions can be derived from a hypothesis only in conjunction
with a background theory. This background theory provides
information about the objects under study as well as the apparatus
used to study them. If a prediction turns out to be false, we can always
save the hypothesis by modifying the background theory. As philosopher
Philip Kitcher notes:

“Individual scientific claims do not, and cannot, confront the evidence
one by one. Rather . . . "hypotheses are tested in bundles." . . . We can
only test relatively large bundles of claims. What this means is that
when our experiments go awry we are not logically compelled to
select any particular claim as the culprit. We can always save a cherished
hypothesis from refutation by rejecting (however implausibly) one of the other members of the bundle.10”


To see this point, let's examine Christopher Columbus's claim that the
Earth is round.
Both Christopher Columbus and Nicholas Copernicus rejected
the flat Earth hypothesis on the grounds that its predictions were contrary
to experience. They argued that if the Earth were flat, all parts
of a ship should disappear from view at the same rate as it sails out to
sea. But that's not what is observed. To someone on shore, the lower
part of a ship disappears before the upper part. As a result, they concluded
that the Earth must not be flat. Furthermore, they argued, if the
Earth were round, the lower part of a ship would disappear before
the upper part. Because this is what is observed, the latter hypothesis
is the more credible one.
But if the Earth were flat, all parts of a ship would fade from view
at the same rate only if light traveled in straight lines. If it traveled in curved lines,
concave upward, the lower part of a ship could well
disappear from view before the upper part. As a ship sailed farther out
to sea, the light from the lower part would curve into the ocean before
the light from the upper part did, thus making the lower part invisible
before the upper part.11 So we can maintain the view that the
Earth is flat as long as we're willing to change our view of the nature
of light. In general, any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of
seemingly adverse evidence if we're willing to make enough alterations
in our background beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be
conclusively confuted.
It is not true, however, that every hypothesis is as good as every
other. Although no amount of evidence logically compels us to reject
a hypothesis, maintaining a hypothesis in the face of adverse evidence
can be manifestly unreasonable.
[Note Dan you changed the wording to read "In general any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse beliefs." and you left out the last part of the sentence .."if we're willing to make enough alterations
in our background beliefs"]

So even if we cannot conclusively
say that a hypothesis is false, we can often conclusively say that
it's unreasonable.
The flat Earth hypothesis, for example, is manifestly unreasonable
— and yet it has defenders to this day. Although the voyages of
Columbus and other seafaring explorers nearly killed the theory in the
fifteenth century, it was resurrected in England in 1849 by an itinerant
lecturer who called himself Parallax (his real name was Samuel Birley
Rowbotham). The world, he argued, is a flat disc with the North Pole
at its center and a 150-foot wall of ice — the South Pole — encircling
its perimeter. According to Parallax, those who sail around the world
simply travel in a big circle. What makes the lower part of a ship disappear
before the upper part is atmospheric refraction and what he
called the zetetic law of perspective.12
Exactly what the zetetic law of perspective is is unclear. But its use
by Rowbotham is instructive, for it illustrates a popular method for
shielding hypotheses from adverse evidence: constructing ad hoc hypotheses.
A hypothesis threatened by recalcitrant data can often be
saved by postulating entities or properties that account for the data.
Such a move is legitimate if there's an independent means of verifying
their existence. If there is no such means, the hypothesis is ad hoc.
Ad hoc literally means "for this case only." It's not simply that a hypothesis
is designed to account for a particular phenomenon that
makes it ad hoc (if that were the case, all hypotheses would be ad
hoc). What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can't be verified independently
of the phenomenon it's supposed to explain.
For example, by 1844, it was known that the planet Uranus didn't
follow the orbit predicted by Newton's theories of gravity and planetary
motion. The observed orbit differed from the predicted orbit
by two minutes of arc, a discrepancy much greater than that of any
other known planet. In 1845, the astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph
Leverrier hypothesized that the gravitational force of an unknown
planet affected Uranus's motion. Using Newton's theories of gravity
and motion, he calculated the planet's position. On the basis of those
calculations, he requested that astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle in
Berlin search a particular region of the sky for it. In less than an hour
after Galle began his search, he noticed something that was not on
his charts. When he checked again the next night, it had moved a
considerable distance. He had discovered the planet that we now
call Neptune!
If the aberrant orbit of Uranus had not been accounted for, Newton's
theory would have been in jeopardy. So Leverrier's postulation of
another planet can be seen as an attempt to save Newton's theory
from negative evidence. But his hypothesis was not ad hoc, for it could
be independently verified. If he had claimed, however, that some unknown
and undetectable (occult) force was responsible for Uranus's
erratic behavior, that would have been an ad hoc hypothesis. For, by
definition, there would be no way to confirm the existence of such
a force.

When a scientific theory starts relying on ad hoc hypotheses to be
saved from adverse data, it becomes unreasonable to maintain belief in
that theory. The phlogiston theory of heat provides a case in point.
The scientific study of heat began in earnest shortly after Galileo's
invention of the thermometer (or thermoscope, as he called it) in 1593.
Over the years it was discovered that different substances absorb heat
at different rates, that different substances change state (solid, liquid,
gas) at different temperatures, and that different substances expand at
different rates when heated. To explain these phenomena, German
chemist Georg Ernst Stahl proposed in the late seventeenth century
that all combustible substances and metals contain an invisible substance
that came to be known as phlogiston



Phlogiston was considered to be an elastic fluid composed of particles
that repel one another. (This explained why things expand
when heated.) These particles were thought to be attracted to particles
of other substances with different strengths. (This explained why
some things heat faster than others.) When particles of phlogiston
come into contact with particles of another substance, they supposedly
combine to form a new state of matter. (This explained why ice
turns into water when heated.) Phlogiston also seemed to explain such
mysteries as why a substance turns to ash when burned (it loses phlogiston),-
why a metallic oxide turns back into a metal when heated
with charcoal (it gains phlogiston),- and why pounding on a substance
can make it expand (it releases stored phlogiston). Because the phlogiston
theory seemed to explain so much, it became the dominant
theory of heat in the eighteenth century.
It always had its detractors, however, for phlogiston was a very
mysterious substance. Not only was it colorless and odorless,- it was
Leverrier hypothesized that the gravitational force of an unknown
planet affected Uranus's motion. Using Newton's theories of gravity
and motion, he calculated the planet's position. On the basis of those
calculations, he requested that astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle in
Berlin search a particular region of the sky for it. In less than an hour
after Galle began his search, he noticed something that was not on
his charts. When he checked again the next night, it had moved a
considerable distance. He had discovered the planet that we now
call Neptune!
If the aberrant orbit of Uranus had not been accounted for, Newton's
theory would have been in jeopardy. So Leverrier's postulation of
another planet can be seen as an attempt to save Newton's theory
from negative evidence. But his hypothesis was not ad hoc, for it could
be independently verified. If he had claimed, however, that some unknown
and undetectable (occult) force was responsible for Uranus's
erratic behavior, that would have been an ad hoc hypothesis. For, by
definition, there would be no way to confirm the existence of such
a force weightless as well. Even though phlogiston was supposed to flow into
substances that were heated, careful experiments had found that increases
in temperature did not produce increases in weight. Phlogiston
was also thought to flow out of substances that were burned.
What ultimately led to the theory's demise, however, was the discovery
that some substances actually gain weight when burned. French
chemist Antoine Lavoisier found that when tin was burned, for example,
the resulting metallic oxide weighed more than the original
tin. If phlogiston were lost during burning, he argued, this weight gain
wouldn't be possible.
Defenders of the phlogiston theory tried to account for this phenomenon
by hypothesizing that the phlogiston in tin possessed negative
weight, so that when it was lost, the tin gained weight. But this
hypothesis was soon seen for what it really was — a desperate attempt
to save the theory from the facts. Unlike Leverrier's postulation of the
existence of the planet that was named Neptune, there was no way to
independently confirm or confute the negative weight hypothesis. It
was ad hoc in the truest sense of the term.
The moral of this story is that for a hypothesis to increase our
knowledge, there must be some way to test it, for if there isn't, we
have no way of telling whether or not the hypothesis is true

[_Roger]

Dan, Glenn and now mikwut:

You have all at one point or another, and probably in more than one place, indicated that science is on your side. I want to see some evidence to back up that assertion.

I want to know how your respective Book of Mormon production theories would PREDICT error patterns should be distributed across the 1830 Book of Mormon text.

This is a simple question. The data is empirical in that it can't be changed. Errors are errors and repeated errors fall in specific places. What kind of predictions would S/A and S/D make in terms of error patterns?

Also, I would like to know how S/A and S/D explain the wherefore/therefore shift. Why did it happen?

[_mikwut]

Dale,

A couple of comments.

Whether or not Mormonism originated as a conspiracy, with one or
more of Smith's close associates helping him promote his fraud
and cover up his lies --

or ...

Whether Mormonism originated as a Smith-alone deception, with all
of his converts unknowing dupes.

If the latter is true, then the LDS Church began as a benign, honest
association of sincere Christians, bent upon restoring the religion of
Jesus from 2000 years ago. They just happened to follow a bad leader.

If the former be true, then we need to reassess our toleration and
implicit support for the Church, as a reputable member of our society.

UD

On a historical response, the historical record (which is what most of these discussions concentrate on and this one has been) bears out evidence that clearly points to J.S. alone. That is the historical investigation and evidential outcome of it with the evidence we have today. In a pure academic discussion rationality leans there and there alone.

In a personal response, and If I may, in the spirit of this thread - your making a genetic fallacy. The motivation or the sincerity of the one or many that originated the religion is of interest for sure but is not decisive on how we respond to the Church. For one, the truth or falsity of the religion is the paramount determination, not whether that falsity was preceded by a degree of sincerity or not for our own personal acceptance or rejection of it.

Second, your distinction melds to the same answer no mater what. Whether the originator and/or originators were sincere or insincere dupes, hucksters or victims it need not matter because today shortly after the origination of whatever nature it is clear and plain that the vast majority of the Church and its current population today are sincere followers in a Mormon paradigm of Jesus Christ. So no matter where you begin - you end the same.

More relevant, for me and as I have said, detail to the actual evidence is our duty to those sincere followers finding the falsity of the religion.
me best, mikwut

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Again, nonsense. Your familiarity with the story is what makes you think this way. The claim is not that a guy sticks his head in his hat in order to dictate "a rather monotonous feigned elizabethean scripture" although, even if that was what they had claimed it would still not be ordinary. The claim was that he needed the hat to exclude the light so he could read the magic words as they appeared in the rock. You can't re-interpret the claims to fit your new mold. The claims are what they are and there's nothing ordinary about them.

None of the witnesses are claiming to be witnesses of the magic words appearing in the rock, they are relaying what was understood to be claimed by Joseph Smith, that is all - that is not extraordinary.

That is an inference on your part. Show me where the witnesses claim to have received this information from Joseph Smith. Regardless, the witnesses claim words appeared in the stone and that the hat was needed to exclude the light. You can't get around that.

That you and marg can't make that simple distinction is frustrating. You seem to have a slippery slope type of argument that if we accept those statements the truth of Mormonism is undeniable, that is silly and unnecessary.

Of course that's silly and it's not at all what we suggest.

First, the 116 page loss does not favor Smith-alone over S/R. But if you think it does, then demonstrate how. Second, no one, including marg, is disputing that Joseph Smith put on a show. Marg and I simply suggest that when accomplices were in the room there was no need for a show.

Yes it clearly and obviously does. We wouldn't expect it to be the problem it was if Joseph was using a very important and poured over and reviewed transcript from Rigdon. That doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense to someone who has already ruled out the possibility that Smith was adding details to Rigdon's "poured over and reviewed transcript." S/R, on the other hand is under no such silly restrictions.

What science are you referring to?

The purpose for this thread which has been supported further and not refuted is the Jocker's study has not only been shown fallacious in concluding support for S/R theory but actually provides evidence against it, it also isn't rocket science to understand that.

Are you labeling both studies "science"? I would be careful about that. The methods may be more rigorous than others, but neither is drawing empirical conclusions from indisputable data and both deal with probabilities.

Ben Macguire stated way back several chapters ago on this thread that if the real author is in the mix then Jocker's methodology is highly accurate. Do you agree with that assessment? Yes or no?

Since everyone likes science, let's do some... science involves making predictions based on one's theory in order to find support for or falsify one's theory. How would you predict error distribution should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text?

If you have an argument to make, make it if S/R has predictive power I would imagine that given the shape its in you and the other defenders shouldn't feign these possible supportive arguments in cloak and dagger like you are doing. State the evidence and the argument and I will give it credence if it due.

No mikwut. It's doesn't work that way. You claim to have science on your side. Put your money where your mouth is. Make a prediction.

I'll make it easy for you... S/R predicts that errors will not be distributed evenly across the text because the text is the work of more than one contributor. S/R predicts that the sections that have been plagiarized (especially the Bible) will contain fewer errors than other sections and that if there are other areas that have been plagiarized (but to a lesser extent) the error frequency within those sections will also likely be lower but not as low as in the sections that directly copy from the Bible.

Now that's a layman's prediction. I'm sure it can be stated better, but in general that's a prediction S/R would make about the text.

Also, S/R would suggest that a contributing factor to the therefore/wherefore shift is not because Joseph got bored with using therefore, but because Spalding never uses the term "wherefore." How do S/A and S/D explain the shift?

The floor is yours and Dan's and Glenn's.