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

[_MCB]

I doubt I will post on this thread again, unless it ceases being a mud-wrestling contest in a house of mirrors. All I would be doing is repeating my previous statements.

[_marg]

Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs—but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind, according to Schick and Vaughn said—“Such a move is legitimate if there’s an independent means of verifying their existence. … What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain” (p. 157). Note that “reasonable and plausible” isn’t the distinguishing feature. It’s unverifiability. Who would intentionally invent an ad hoc that was unreasonable and implausible? As I said before, historical novels are reasonable and plausible. You might think your trick-hat theory is plausible (I don’t), but it’s not verifiable and adds nothing to your central theory. The only reason it was called into existence was to protect your theory from falsifying evidence.

Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs

You are wrong... they are ad hocs, some are fallacious some are not.

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.
>>
and 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.

Ad hoc come into play when a claimant is attempting to save their claim or theory from recalcitrant evidence by making changes to background assumptions..it's fallacious when the changes are irrational and done to prevent recalcitrant evidence in order to maintain the theory.

The background assumptions include other scientific theories and known facts which a new hypothesis is dependent upon. To make a new hypothesis work sometimes scientists change or remove accepted scientific theories. Look at your Intro to Logic by Copi which gives an example of Watson and Crick changing background assumptions “known facts and accepted theories” in order to make their theory work. As it turned out they were correct in doing so P 512

“If all those suppositions had indeed been correct, their double helix could not have been the structure of the filament. In the actual case, however, Watson and Crick, having confidence in their hypothesis, came to suspect that the accepted theory describing the ways in which the basis (A, G, C, and T) bond to each other was not entirely correct. By relinquishing that element in the set, and replacing it with a different account, one that supposed hydrogen bonds instead, the newly hypothesized double helix (with its allied theories) could be confirmed.

The same thing occurs (that is a change in a background assumption) if magic or God or some mysterious force is employed..anything irrational which is unverifiable. That is why I said the S.R theory and the Smith alone theory have the same back ground assumptions…that is a naturalistic perspective.

but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind, according to Schick and Vaughn said—“Such a move is legitimate if there’s an independent means of verifying their existence. … What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain” (p. 157). Note that “reasonable and plausible” isn’t the distinguishing feature. It’s unverifiability.

Well let’s look at the sentence before and after to understand what they are saying

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.

They are talking about a scientific hypothesis which is warranted by evidence and reasoning and is open to verification. It’s not merely an opinion. Let’s call that Hypothesis A.

Hypothesis A is then challenged with counter evidence which is open to verification also..that's very important, otherwise the counter would simply be an opinion. Let’s call that Counter B. Usually that’s where you come in... you counter with what you perceive as evidence but it’s not evidence open to verification. It’s your subjective opinion for example that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible. It’s your subjective opinion that to refer to the concept “lost tribes” one must include the myth, it’s your subjective opinion that M.F. never existed, and the list goes on.

The next step a counter is made to counter B in order to maintain Hypothesis A. It is fallacious ad hoc if that counter argues irrationally (without evidence or good reasoning) by changing the background assumptions so that counter B’s evidence can no longer be rationally employed against the Hypothesis A.

Looking at what happens in the case between S/R advocates and you Dan, is that you object to a claim or hypothesis that we make. The evidence is often open to subjective interpretation..because that's the nature of historical evidence..it's not the fault of S/R advocates or Smith alone. Then you counter, but not with objective verifiable evidence which confutes, no instead you counter with evidence or reasoning that you assert should be accepted as fact. When we don’t accept what you assert …you resort to an accusation of ad hoc fallacy.

In short in this discussion the rules according to Dan are that only Dan gets to decide what is true and what isn’t. What Dan says is true must be accepted as evidence and any counter to that is labeled ad hoc fallacy.

Let’s look at an example...the missing M.F. You accuse S/R advocates of ad hoc fallacy to suggest that Hurlbut ever had M.F. and may have sold it.

S/R claim: MF existed

Dan: The Book of Mormon witnesses say Smith didn’t use any manuscript so their say so should be accepted as fact and their say so overrules S/R witnesses. MF doesn’t physically exist therefore it never existed.

S/R position: While MF. does not exist physically there are still plenty of good warrants to assume it did. MF hasn't simply been fabricated absent evidence. For example Hurlbut stopped in Palmyra to request the newspaper editor to print that he had obtained what he had set out for and they did print that information. The Conneaut witnesses testimony, R. Patterson testimony, Amity witnesses testimony, are all evidence. That spalding was a known writere writer, that he had brought a manuscript to a printer written in biblical style..are some of the warrants.

Dan: You are committing an ad hoc fallacy, you have no verifiable evidence and you are simply making the argument to save your theory.



Notice it’s Dan who gets to decide which evidence gets accepted or not.

But the facts are Dan that you are not offering verifiable evidence yourself. The nature of historical claims is that much is open to subjective interpretation..and it's no surprise that both theories have evidence non verifiable. Your counters to S/R claims/theory/speculation is not the sort of counter the authors you cite were talking about. They are talking about counters which are verifable evidence, not merely opinion or subjective interpretation of evidence. So you haven’t falsified a thing.

So, because there are good warrants to assume M.F existed, any speculation on what Hurlbut might have done with it is not ad hoc fallacy in light of the fact that your counter was not evidence which objectively proved MF didn't exist.

This whole business with ad hoc fallacy is an illogical means you are employing to justify your assertions and declarations of what you think should be accepted as true and what shouldn’t.

That you bring up the trick hat thing as an ad hoc fallacy is ridiculous.

The initial claim Dan doesn’t come from me it's from you. You are the claimant who is saying Smith truly dictated with his head in the hat to all the scribes the whole time. And your justification is ..' the Book of Mormon witnesses said so'. Then you like to add you’ve got some hostile witnesses for further proof.

This is not the kind of hypothesis the authors were talking about. This is not a claim supported by verifiable evidence. This is a claim which is unverifiable and in addition extraordinary. So this claim of yours can simply be countered it is too weak in light of the extraordinariness of the claim. It's too weak, because these witnesses had a vested interested, were motivated for personal gain, were closely related to one another..therefore their say so is insufficient evidence in order to accept an extraordinary claim that Smith for the whole process likely did as they said ‘.dictated with head in hat, elbows on knees and no other material present’.

So, I’m not trying to to save the S/R theory...by speculating on how on a few occasions such as with Emma he might have employed a trick hat. It is you Dan trying to maintain your theory by irrationally using ad hoc fallacy to dismiss the S/R theory.

In essence you are employing faulty reasoning of the sort like ad hoc fallacy when you use the accusation of ad hoc fallacy against S/R advocates. Essentially in order to prevent counter claims to your theory you are dismissing S/R evidence and reasoning as ad hoc fallacy..when it isn't. So you are using an irrational argument to dismiss the S/R theory, for the sole purpose of saving the Smith alone theory. That sounds pretty much like ad hoc fallacy to me.

In short you are using “the accusation of ad hoc fallacy” fallaciously to save your theory.

[_Uncle Dale]

Sandra doesn't have the strange attachment to the word of the Book of Mormon witnesses that Dan does. If you were to pick one or two to focus on and see if Sandra would be willing to investigate further, which would you choose?

I wouldn't offer anything more than she has already mentioned herself in
the past. What I would ask for is a charting of the distribution pattern for
such presumed textual borrowings. Do they occur more frequently in one
part of the book? Do they appear in clusters? Can any sequence be seen?
Are there parts of the book which appear to contain no textual borrowings?

In general, I've found Brodieites uninterested in such research. They have
discovered their version of historical truth -- and they'll only give up
their Smith-alone fantasy when you pry it from their cold, dead hands...

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Are there parts of the book which appear to contain no textual borrowings?
...

I would especially hope to apply some occurrence distribution charting in
the case of biblical borrowings. Sandra has already supplied a preliminary
list of these sorts of word-strings, by book and chapter in the Nephite record.

So far, so good... but that extensive list is not anywhere near exhaustive,
nor does it include duplicate borrowings within the same chapter.

When a rigorous listing of KJV phraseology is charted out, I predict that
many of the "low points" will be chapters in the last one-third of Alma,
and other parts of the book where Jockers and I see Spalding similarities.

UD

[_mikwut]

Hello Roger,

You inquired (while ignoring the substance of what I said),

Mikwut:

You know I really don't understand why you feel you have to bring this discussion down to a personal insult level. You and Dan both throw out personal insults and expect those of us who disagree with you to simply take it. Most of the time I try to resist the urge to respond in kind, but sometimes your statements (and Dan's as well) are so inflammatory I give in and respond in kind--although I still don't type half the things I'm thinking. But I don't understand why it has to get so personal? This is what I meant earlier when I said I am not interested in "winning" a juvenile debate. It ends up amounting to nothing more than who comes up with the best one-liner.

This isn't personal. Your terribly wrongheaded and I am showing why. I am now convinced this is your way of avoiding the substance that you can't answer and burdens you don't face. Toughen up and fight for your supposed "best fit theory", if it is such it should be easy without attempting to diverge your burden into personal nonsense or trying to claim your a victim to that, your a victim to your own faulty reasoning and that is all. Sometimes the strongest mind is the one that is able to say, you know I did come out with guns a blazing and not all the information I should have had, I need to back off a little. That would be impressive.

Next, if you were sincere in this nonsense your now spouting and not just using it as a red herring to avoid your burden then you would have defended Dan like I suggested from marg's ridiculous personal insults that have no basis in reality. For crying out loud Roger marg straight out has called him dishonest, a liar! Dan or I haven't called either of you liars. Why do you allow that from those that agree with you but then complain like you do above about those that don't? That is a real credibility issue. Even when I confronted you on marg you still attempted to defend it and worm out of it. So I don't believe you, empirically you have shown otherwise and we have 92 pages of a thread and about 3 other long threads where your behavior has been completely opposite of what you now suggest. You have utilized unnecessary polemics, speculation, non-evidential inferences and the like as if they were evidential and validated. You have argued with others that know much more than you in an insistent and incorrigible manner. Rarely if ever do you provide proof in your dialogue that above is what you desire. We don't see discourse from you such as, "you know Dan that is an excellent point", "that is indeed evidence for what your arguing", "I recognize the weaknesses in my theory" etc.....

Third, if someones ego and stubbornness becomes so radical and profound there is nothing to say except that is absurd, that is silly, that is ridiculous and it has to be said Roger, it simply has to be said. Particularly when tact, grace and patience have been shown for a long time. Take this for example, Dan has pointed out the use of ad hoc's in obvious instances, so have I, so has anyone who criticizes the S/R theory, it is a nearly universal criticism and obvious observation. This is simple logic, that's all. Marg has nuttily shifted from Dan doesn't understand the ad hoc fallacy, to she is justified in using it in the way she has and it isn't ad hoc; to she is using "applied reasoning", to she is just offering "her opinion", to admitting that she has used ad hoc's sometimes; to in her last post as I write this she says,

"In essence you are employing faulty reasoning of the sort like ad hoc fallacy when you use the accusation of ad hoc fallacy against S/R advocates. Essentially in order to prevent counter claims to your theory you are dismissing S/R evidence and reasoning as ad hoc fallacy..when it isn't. So you are using an irrational argument to dismiss the S/R theory, for the sole purpose of saving the Smith alone theory. That sounds pretty much like ad hoc fallacy to me.

In short you are using “the accusation of ad hoc fallacy” fallaciously to save your theory.

The Gods of reason be damned! So, now, after rightly being critiqued as using obvious fallacious reasoning that is quite simple to observe and recognize, she actually has the audacity to claim it is really that Mormon church infiltrating Dan that is really using the ad hoc fallacy in order for it to save his theory! Roger, that is stupid. That is absurd. And when you engender yourself by implicitly agreeing with that same reasoning what else can someone say to you? Your taking things personal that aren't there they are simply the outcome of a ridiculous acceptance and a stubborn non-rational argumentation that repeat ad naus. combined with your and marg's egos. Humility is your prescription sir.

I asked, in a thread you were apart of, nearly two years ago for Dale to just lay out his best theory of the Spaulding/Rigdon idea soup to nuts historically. He didn't and he hasn't. If he did the speculative and ad hoc nature is so glaring that my atlantean criticism isn't misleading. A theory cannot be the best fit if it cannot even be laid out in such a fundamental method.

You asked me whether I agree with marg's statement and I gave you my honest answer. Not content with that, you jump all over it and start accusing marg and I of "unthinking devotion to an idea and zealotry and irrationality towards the evidence" and that marg's statement represents the "height of arrogance and stupidity" and my own request for clarity from Dan on whether or not he believes words actually appeared in the stone, because the way he phrased it made it sound as if he did--you characterize as "your clarity seeking was misguided" (sheesh!)

Yup. And I still maintain it.

And then you have the audacity to claim we don't think before we post. If all you're going to post in what is supposed to be a Celestial discussion is insults why bother posting?

I have listed huge problems with the theory, substantively. I offered you substance for which no reply is still been forthcoming. I provided in depth and resource provided scientific basis for the memory foundations, not just insults. Pointing out and specifically describing ridiculous reasoning is not merely "insulting" just because you or marg's egos are insulted because of how far a field of logic you have allowed yourselves.

The fact is Glenn sets an example we should all follow. I have never seen Glenn attack anyone on a personal level. I will do my best to follow Glenn's example. I wonder if maybe you and Dan could do so as well?

No sir! I will not treat you as a child by changing anything I have said to you. If you can show me any gratuitous insults that aren't directed at the egregiously faulty reasoning and stubbornness and repeating of faulty reasoning I will happily and sincerely apologize. Without such I have no reservations about what I have said. I maintain it all.

Can't we just have a discussion about what we disagree on without throwing in stuff about what we think the other person knows or doesn't know, how ignorant or stupid or irrational they are, etc. etc etc.?

It would be impressive if you should show the ability to recognize the problems of your stance that would engender what you propose toward discussion, I patiently await. I posted real problems with the theory and Dan has done over the course of this thread as well, I previously posted:

It doesn't fit the historical data, it doesn't fit the empirical data, it doesn't fit the theological data:

Doesn't fit Historically:

1. It doesn't offer a coherent historical narrative to begin with, that does't provide for a "good fit" right off the bat.
2. It can't even tell us basic factors like what does a historical romance novel redacted over tens of years into a religious scripture that includes contemporary to it being published historical data and Smith biographical inclusions look like that the witnesses could identify it? What kind of fit is that?
3. It just dismisses the independent dictation witnesses that falsify the S/R theory. It doesn't "fit" that data.
4. It doesn't fit the historical data of J.S. reciting stories of the indians years before the Book of Mormon.
5. It doesn't fit the historical data regarding any connection between Rigdon and Smith when necessary nor connection between Rigdon and Spalding or his work.
6. It doesn't fit the historical data of Pratt's genuine missionary excursion where he met Rigdon and gave him the Book of Mormon.
7. It doesn't fit the Conneaut witnesses themselves sometimes, like the ten tribes issue, or Jackson's statement that accurately described the real MS discovered before its discovery.
8. It doesn't fit the 116 pages of the lost manuscript historical data which evidences he wasn't using a manuscript.
9. It doesn't fit the historical data of Solomon Spalding working on the manuscript right up until moving to Pittsburg.
10. It doesn't fit the historical data of the Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, Inspired Version of the Bible and the Doctrine & Covenants.
11. No second manuscript and strong historical data that there wasn't one at all (Martha's daughter had handled it and knew it to be in the trunk).

Doesn't fit Empirically:

1. The Jocker's paper has been shown to be evidence against the theory.
2. The Book of Mormon contains evidence of authorship by J.S. such as his autobiographical inclusions, the poor grammar and syntax, the historical and present context of when he dictated certain parts.
3. The manuscript evidence bears out and confirms the eyewitness testimony that it was dictated.
4. It doesn't fit the Brent Metcalfe's wherefore/therefore shift. This occurs throughout the Book of Mormon and D&C revelations that are contextually concurrent providing strong indication of Joseph's dictation and not the use of a manuscript.
5. The dialect, syntax, monotonous droning style and the poor grammar are apparent in the Book of Mormon indicating Joseph Smith and not the use of a manuscript from a Dartmouth educated Spalding and redacted and worked on for years by Rigdon.
6. Timely historical insertions that don't correspond in any way to Spalding and dictation context.

Doesn't fit theologically:

1. The very concept of deity in the Book of Mormon is not compatible with Rigdon as a Campbellite and not being converted this doesn't fit.
2. The corporeality of deity presented by Christ's finger for example doesn't fit.
3. The fall upwards doesn't fit.
4. The pre-existence doesn't fit.
5. Gods in embryo doesn't fit.
6. Polygamy doesn't fit.
7. Literal gathering of Israel in the latter days and the literal prognostications of the latter days doesn't fit.

This is just off the top of my head, but how on earth are your claiming best fit theory with these and other don't fit at all facts.

To which I only received a "lol". Those are real problems, care to acknowledge any of them as such? Many of them flat out falsify the S/R theory.

But we can't even have the real discussion you long for and I sure this is Dan't frustration as well. Because your egos. To those that have read the primary sources of both sides of this a rich tapestry exists that your not even aware of that doesn't fit with the S/R theory. The deepest and richest problem with the S/R theory is the deep and rich tapestry of history that we know of during the time period. The mundane history that is done violence to with the theory. The S/R theory outside of the talking points that are repeated doesn't fully acknowledge the historical record. This is easily dismissed by those that just read "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" and Uncle Dale. The S/R theory is a vacuum of focus that dismisses this tapestry and if you are aware of the tapestry it is glaring. That is why professional historians (Brodeites, omg!) don't accept it. We have personal journals, records, and a deep history that isn't reasonable to deny that go well beyone the Book of Mormon witnesses. Parley Pratt is an example. If one reads his autobiography (outside of whether the church is true or not) no reasonable historian would doubt his sincerity and how he came to Rigdon - but we must to accept the S/R theory. This is one example of the destruction of the historical tapestry and a clear sign we are not following a proper historical investigation. The D&C and PofGP, and retranslation of the Bible are other examples of this. Another example that I have previously alluded to, the theology of Rigdon and Campbell, Criddle for example (as he must) makes the claim that the Book of Mormon is consistent with what he would expect from a Campbellite preacher like Rigdon, but that is, to anyone familiar with primary sources outrageous and deeply in error (I studied this for my masters work). I pointed out long ago that, Richard T. Hughes, "Tanner Lecture: Two Restoration Traditions: Mormons and Churches of Christ in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of Mormon History 19 (Spring 1993): 34-51 explains how Craig is inaccurate. The general resemblance of restorationism allows for Craig to make this seeming parallel but a closer examination shows that it isn't a parallel at all. The way Joseph Smith and Alexander Campbell and Signey Rigdon envisioned the "restoration" brought their understanding to similar words, vastly divergent meanings. Joseph Smith was more of a romantic, or caught away with the spirit of American Romanticism as opposed to Alexander Campbell and Sidney Rigdon being a deeply rooted child of the 18th century enlightenment. Joseph Smith's vision included God as in the actual days of the prophets of old speaking directly to humankind, the heavens being actually opened and closed at different periods of time. Just like the days of Old Joseph's restoration was a literal opening. Campbell and Rigdon in his sermons had no use for these silly romantic notions, God speaks through a book and man (as rational man) can understand the Bible. A rational approach to everything would allow for a restoring of the ancient glories. Technology and mans enlightenment were all prerequisites. They shared a general vision but clearly diverged in their understanding, meaning and how the vision would be implemented.

Sidney Rigdon would have understood the "rational" vision much better, Joseph Smith was a familial product of an element of restorationism thought called Seekers, who not only agreed that there had been an apostasy, but also believed there was a need for a new dispensation of power. This included revelation beyond the Bible, and perhaps even apostles. Joseph Smith’s mother and her brother Jason Mack were seekers.[Dan Vogel Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism.] Rigdon was a divergent theology that used similar words but different meanings. J.S. personal history and the new American govermant and nation are better explanations and richer as to where these themes derive their rich acceptance from this part of history. Alexander Campbell and Rigdon in debates often spoke of his authority granted to him and concluded its source as the rational understanding of scripture and deriving it therefrom. Campbell and Rigdon prior to his conversion would have thought Peter, James and John placing their actual hands on Joseph and Oliver to be ridiculous. But if you don't know the history and have just memorized nuggets of the Conn. witnesses testimony you don't even see this, but is glaring in this and many other ways. S/R does unnecessary destruction to this deep tapestry. The D&C and PofGP, and the retranslation of the Bible are other examples of this.

It is historically implausible and odd that Rigdon would have the Book of Mormon elucidating the conception of God as Sabellianist, or modal as found in Abinidi's teachings. Rigdon was a binitarian. Godhead consisted of a separate Father and Son and the Holy Ghost represented qualities that they shared. You can see Rigdon's influence in the Lectures on Faith here very clearly, but why would he not so include such a fundamental and foundational belief in the seminal Book of Mormon after showing prior to and just to quickly change back after joining the church?

Rigdon was headstrong prior to his conversion in using the traditional concepts of God as transcendent and the product of the long history of the cosmological argument - this wouldn't evolve the way J.S.'s concept of God evolved. The concept of God is beginning of any theology.

But this is the kind of discussion that is impossible because it is born out of time and effort in the real tapestry of history not in the limited spectrum of memorized talking points repeated in arguments that only include the limited witness statements and vast oceans of speculation and imagination and defensive tactics to protect that lacunae from reality. And, finally, that lacks deep humility on the side that should be foisting it. History knows and shows much more than the limited conspiracy theory of S/R and many hours of laborious study and work have been that don't deserve to be decried by the thoughtless epithets of "Brodeites".

my best, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi Dan,

I must be doing something right if I get accused of being too sympathetic towards Joseph Smith and Mormonism while at the same time being a critic of it. Ironic, that Marg calls herself unbiased, when she has nothing to support that self-description but her own words. Still more ironic, I have Marg to thank for the endorsement of my fair and even-handed handling of the sources.

I can't believe how remarkable the irony is in so many ways. Do me a favor, don't bring up Collingwood or anything like him with marg, I don't think I could stand to read her calling him dishonest and a purveyor of poor critical thinking.

Thanks for making an appearance here. I don’t know how much more I can take of this myself. Who knows, I might do a book on this topic:)

Sure. There is a book here for sure. Have you read Dead Certainties by Schama? There is a clear and I think academically good example of fallacious historical constructivism, but a certain psychology is at work as well. It think the tidiness of the S/R solution is more satisfying to proselyting to Mormons and ignoring the harder work of the real complexities of life and history.

my best, mikwut

[_Roger]

Mikwut:

I asked why you feel the need to make personal attacks and you claimed it's not personal while then proceeding with personal attacks. The irony of your second sentence alone is mind-numbing:

This isn't personal. Your terribly wrongheaded....

If you can't see (or fail to acknowledge) the irony there, then I can only conclude you aren't capable of rational discussion.

Your posts seem to represent an expansion of the tactic that asks: Are you still beating your wife? The very framing of the question is faulty on its face.

To illustrate, let's just say you're right that I'm "wrongheaded." In the first place, you say "it isn't personal" but your very next assertion is a subjective assessment about an alleged personal characteristic of mine. You're not addressing this characteristic of being wrongheaded to the S/R theory in general or even for all S/R proponents, or even simply to all those who disagree with your point of view. Instead, your assertion is very specifically addressed to Roger who you assert is wrongheaded. No matter how you slice it, that's personal. So again, if you fail to see the irony, as I suspect you probably will, then I can only conclude you are simply here to cheer-lead for Dan.

To respond to your entire post would be a waste of what little time I have and would likely only illicit another pointless personal barrage from you.

One last point... you wrote:

We don't see discourse from you such as, "you know Dan that is an excellent point", "that is indeed evidence for what your arguing", "I recognize the weaknesses in my theory" etc.....

Case in point:
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:50 pm
To Chris Smith (no friend of S/R) I wrote:

It's not a matter of whether someone can "mislead a computer". The computer is just an analytical tool for performing measurements designed by fallible human analysts. Those measurements work fine for analyzing certain kinds of problems, but not for analyzing other kinds of problems. If a human analyst applies this method to the wrong kind of problem, he will get misleading results. It's that simple.

Yes I agree that was probably an oversimplification,

And...
Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:39 pm

I tend to point to what I perceive to be the weak spots in Chris's logic, while at the same time I think he makes some valid points.

Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:18 pm

First, I enjoyed the opportunity to better understand where you’re coming from so thanks for interacting with me. This conversation will certainly help to clarify what I read from you from this point forward.

On this one post alone, Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:22 am, I count at least 12 times where I agreed with Dan and stated it. I also noted a "fair question" from him, pointed out that my own personal experience does not amount to evidence and even agreed with the possibility that Dan "knows the Spalding theory well" and still rejects it.

You do realize the statement isn’t true to begin with.

Yes, I'm glad we agree on that,

Okay, I'm glad you stated it this way.

You are not following me here. I was talking about the published Testimony included in every Book of Mormon. That is a single document, which as I argue in my essay was ambiguously worded and therefore allowed for different readings by different readers. The Testimony described seeing an angel showing the plates, but later interviewers of the witnesses were surprised about how spiritual and subjective the vision was.

I agree.

First, I am not making that assumption. I agree that false memories can be specific.

Second, I agree that "The false memory theory [you] mention is one way of explaining the disparity between their memories and the physical evidence we have."

(realizing, of course, that it is only my personal experience and does not count as "evidence")

You don’t know that they forgot to mention the Bible, only that the sources we have do not mention that subject.

Correct, which is why I wanted to approach this from the standpoint that you and I agree that a Bible was used.

The Bible is a different matter.

Agreed, but in the case of the Bible as well as the Westminster Confession, etc. we don't have specific allegations arising from otherwise credible witnesses indicating that they had heard these sources before and now recognize them again in the Book of Mormon with some additional religious material inserted.

It’s equally possible that John did see the plates in vision, by a “supernatural power” as he said, but had come to reject Joseph Smith’s later teachings as he claimed. The problem your statement above doesn’t address is how does he get eleven men to lie in the first place?

Okay, I think that's a fair question,

As to your question, I agree that Joseph Smith may have had some uncommon powers of persuasion, but certainly nothing supernatural or that can't be found in certain individuals today.

We don't know that is what happened, but I agree that there is a lot of consistency to their statements and that is one way to explain it.

However, I don’t believe Hurlbut manufactured the Spalding testimony since the witnesses were making these claims before he arrived to take their statements.

Well then, we agree on that!

Oddly, it is this physical evidence that brings the Spalding witnesses’ statement into question. There has never been a question about Spalding’s writings, only one about its relationship to the Book of Mormon.

Agreed

The dictated MS does support their descriptions that Joseph Smith dictated it sentence-by-sentence, and that Cowdery was the scribe who wrote most of it down as it was being dictated.

In places, yes.

There is also the possibility that I know the Spalding theory well and still reject it.

Okay, I agree, that's possible!

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:22 pm

It’s difficult to establish plagiarism without textual similarity. That’s one reason I don’t claim Joseph Smith read any of the books I cite, with the exception for the KJV.

I agree. Establishing plagiarism is a very difficult thing to do.

I could keep going, but the above more than makes the point. I have also stated repeatedly on this thread and elsewhere that I believe the weakest element of the S/R theory is the fact that it hypothesizes a manuscript that is no longer extant.

Now...

1. please show me, as in CFR, where Dan (or you) have ever acknowledged what the weakest aspect of Smith-alone is.

2. please pull some quotes where either Dan (or you) explicitly state:

"you know [Roger] that is an excellent point", "that is indeed evidence for what your arguing", "I recognize the weaknesses in my theory" etc.....

I must have missed them.

[_marg]

Mikwut, you accused me of calling Dan a liar and that's not true. Tthe way I used the word “dishonesty” was not in the sense of lying. It was in the sense of playing games to avoid the issue. I'll put the quote of that discussion below.

For someone so perturbed that I should suggest Dan might be dishonest by avoiding the issue of Occam’s Razor and instead shifting focus on accusing me of misusing words when I had not.. one would think you’d never accuse anyone of dishonesty yourself.

As one of your over the top ridiculous litany of insults to Roger you also accused him being dishonest when you say “So I don't believe you, empirically you have shown otherwise and we have 92 pages of a thread and about 3 other long threads where your behavior has been completely opposite of what you now suggest.”

Your rhetorical gameplaying is over the top. You aren’t interested in the discussion moving forward. Do you think Dan doesn’t discuss well and you need to attack those he’s discussing with? Or do you think you think the Smith alone theory is in trouble and it bothers you emotionally and so you attack those who argue for the S/R theory? Or do you just want to be noticed for the sake of being noticed?

This is just one of your posts in which the whole post is essentially one huge attack post on Roger. If we take out your insults there's not much left in your post. This is not suitable for the Celestial level.

Post reference: link

Your terribly wrongheaded and I am showing why.

I am now convinced this is your way of avoiding the substance that you can't answer and burdens you don't face.

Toughen up and fight for your supposed "best fit theory"

if it is such it should be easy without attempting to diverge your burden into personal nonsense or trying to claim your a victim to that

your a victim to your own faulty reasoning and that is all.

if you were sincere in this nonsense your now spouting

and not just using it as a red herring to avoid your burden

then you would have defended Dan like I suggested from marg's ridiculous personal insults that have no basis in reality.

For crying out loud Roger marg straight out has called him dishonest, a liar!

that is a real credibility issue

Even when I confronted you on marg you still attempted to defend it and worm out of it

So I don't believe you, empirically you have shown otherwise and we have 92 pages of a thread and about 3 other long threads where your behavior has been completely opposite of what you now suggest.

you have utilized unnecessary polemics, speculation, non-evidential inferences and the like as if they were evidential and validated.

You have argued with others that know much more than you in an insistent and incorrigible manner.

Rarely if ever do you provide proof in your dialogue that above is what you desire.

We don't see discourse from you such as,… I recognize the weaknesses in my theory"

Third, if someones ego and stubbornness becomes so radical and profound there is nothing to say except that is absurd, that is silly, that is ridiculous and it has to be said Roger, it simply has to be said.

Marg has nuttily shifted

Your taking things personal that aren't there they are simply the outcome of a ridiculous acceptance and a stubborn non-rational argumentation that repeat ad naus. combined with your and marg's egos.

Humility is your prescription sir.

Pointing out and specifically describing ridiculous reasoning is not merely "insulting" just because you or marg's egos are insulted because of how far a field of logic you have allowed yourselves.

No sir! I will not treat you as a child by changing anything I have said to you.

But we can't even have the real discussion you long for and I sure this is Dan't frustration as well. Because your egos.

Here are the quotes of the discussion I had with Dan to which you say I called him a liar…which I did not. And the way I used the word “dishonesty” was not in the sense of lying. It was in the sense of playing games to avoid the issue.

Marg: So you misrepresented my reasoning on why one should be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses, .and yes I did insult you because I've had enough of your insults and what looks to me like dishonesty when you are misrepresent what I've said. So you stop insulting me, and I'll stop insulting you.

Dan: That’s going to be hard to do since you interpret lessons in logic as an insult. Why do you interpret a paraphrase of your and Roger’s position, whether right or wrong, as dishonesty? Why not simply correct it without getting personal? Ironically, you confirm in this post that what I said was basically correct.

Marg: The misrepresentation of my position appears deliberate to me. We spent 6 days in which the concept of Occam's Razor was discussed. I argued why it wasn't applicable as a decision tool in determining best fit theory of actual historical events. Not once did you acknowledge or address that reasoning. That appears as deliberate dishonesty to me Dan, especially when instead of addressing the issue, you shifted focus to an attack on how I conceptually used words..yet your criticism of my words used was unwarranted. This to me is rhetorical game playing..it's not carrying on a discussion with intellectual honesty..in order to reach some mutually acceptable conclusion.

Dan: You should never accuse people of dishonesty, when the only evidence you have is in your own mind.

Marg: There is a pattern I'm noting of you Dan. I present reasons why Occam's Razor is not an applicable tool, to use in choosing between competing theories with different conclusion..such as the Smith alone theory with Smith as sole author as the conclusion and the Spalding/Rigdon theory with Smith and multiple contributors. You ignore my reasoning, don't continue to discuss or counter why Occam's Razor is valid between competing theories with different conclusion ..but instead shift focus essentially to an attack me and my comprehension of the words phenomonem, conclusion and theory. You continue to insist I'm misusing the words when I am not..so I suppose I'll have to spend time and continue to address this. But the real focus you are attempting to do, is shift away from providing reasoning which counters my point that Occam's Razor is inappropriate in circumstances involving historical accounts. (Please see the wiki quote which also explains this)

Then I find you misrepresent the reasoning I've given why the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable witnesses.

Then I also find out you have misrepresented and it looks like a blatant misquoting of the book How to think about weird things.

So what am I to make of this Dan. These are not minor mistakes in this discussion and the mistakes are self serving for you.

How should I interpret these misrepresentations and misquoting as well as avoidance of the real issue in the discussion which is whether or not you have been using Occam's Razor and ad hoc fallacy correctly in your dismissal of the S/R theory?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
what the weakest aspect of Smith-alone is.
...

Perhaps its weakest aspect is that -- it depends upon the veracity of
early Mormon sources to "prove" that Smith acted alone in constructing
the text, while ignoring the same early Mormon testimony asserting that
Oliver Cowdery attempted to contribute to the "translation."

Now -- either those early Mormon sources are reliable, unreliable, or
else some mixture of these two extremes. But if they are to be read
as reliable, then some standard needs to be put in place whereby the
Cowdery "translation" efforts report is excluded as unreliable.

If it be argued that Cowdery made such a "translation" attempt, but
utterly failed -- then some confirming evidence should be brought forth,
by which that conclusion can be made compelling.

Standing in opposition to the conclusion that Cowdery contributed no
text to the book, is the occurrence of at least one extant example of
an entry in the MS in Smith's own handwriting. Did he dictate to himself
as "temporary scribe?' -- Or, was he recording part of Cowdery's attempt
to add to the text?

Aside from manuscript oddities, there is also an 1829 Cowdery "revelation"
which purports to have been a communication to him, from God. There is
no claim made that the oracle was delivered to Cowdery by Smith. On its
face it seems to be Cowdery's recording on paper of his personal epiphany.
To make matters worse, significant portions of the phraseology of that 1829
document overlaps phraseology found in the Book of Mormon and in the
1833 Book of Commandments. While it might be argued that the shared
language was a coincidence (or Cowdery's borrowing from holy writ), the
discussion has yet to be entered into, and no conclusions are evident.

Besides which, Orsamus Turner, Benjamin Winchester, D. H. Bays, and
others have asserted a Cowdery role in creating the text itself. Whether
their allegations have any merit cannot be determined until some research
and reporting has been carried out. But, again, that discussion has yet to
occur -- and it is doubtful that the Brodieites want it to happen.

A case can be made for Cowdery's probable collusion in compiling/fabricating
the Book of Mormon text -- even if the lion's share of the narrative is
positively determined to have been exclusively Smith's own creation.

The lack of Brodieite investigation of a possible Oliver Cowdery contribution
to the text stands as the Smith-alone theory's weakest aspect. When that
fact is coupled with recent computerized word-print analysis (supporting a
multiple authorship conclusion), it is clear that the Smith-alone advocates
have paid little or no attention to the weakest link in their chain of "facts."

But, then again, if their starting point is an argument that application of
Occam's razor excludes any possibility of multiple authorship, then I can
well understand their disinterest in conducting any such investigation.

UD

[_Roger]

Dale:

Perhaps its weakest aspect is that -- it depends upon the veracity of
early Mormon sources to "prove" that Smith acted alone in constructing
the text, while ignoring the same early Mormon testimony asserting that
Oliver Cowdery attempted to contribute to the "translation."

Yes. Excellent point. How can it be argued that Smith is the sole author when even the official version states that Cowdery at least attempted to contribute?

Now -- either those early Mormon sources are reliable, unreliable, or
else some mixture of these two extremes. But if they are to be read
as reliable, then some standard needs to be put in place whereby the
Cowdery "translation" efforts report is excluded as unreliable.

If it be argued that Cowdery made such a "translation" attempt, but
utterly failed -- then some confirming evidence should be brought forth,
by which that conclusion can be made compelling.

Standing in opposition to the conclusion that Cowdery contributed no
text to the book, is the occurrence of at least one extant example of
an entry in the MS in Smith's own handwriting. Did he dictate to himself
as "temporary scribe?' -- Or, was he recording part of Cowdery's attempt
to add to the text?

Good questions. Which verses are those again?

Aside from manuscript oddities, there is also an 1829 Cowdery "revelation"
which purports to have been a communication to him, from God. There is
no claim made that the oracle was delivered to Cowdery by Smith. On its
face it seems to be Cowdery's recording on paper of his personal epiphany.
To make matters worse, significant portions of the phraseology of that 1829
document overlaps phraseology found in the Book of Mormon and in the
1833 Book of Commandments. While it might be argued that the shared
language was a coincidence (or Cowdery's borrowing from holy writ), the
discussion has yet to be entered into, and no conclusions are evident.

Besides which, Orsamus Turner, Benjamin Winchester, D. H. Bays, and
others have asserted a Cowdery role in creating the text itself. Whether
their allegations have any merit cannot be determined until some research
and reporting has been carried out. But, again, that discussion has yet to
occur -- and it is doubtful that the Brodieites want it to happen.

A case can be made for Cowdery's probable collusion in compiling/fabricating
the Book of Mormon text -- even if the lion's share of the narrative is
positively determined to have been exclusively Smith's own creation.

The lack of Brodieite investigation of a possible Oliver Cowdery contribution
to the text stands as the Smith-alone theory's weakest aspect. When that
fact is coupled with recent computerized word-print analysis (supporting a
multiple authorship conclusion), it is clear that the Smith-alone advocates
have paid little or no attention to the weakest link in their chain of "facts."

Of course not, it's much easier and more fun to attack S/R--especially when they can falsely portray it by making dumb statements like "If Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon then why...."

But, then again, if their starting point is an argument that application of
Occam's razor excludes any possibility of multiple authorship, then I can
well understand their disinterest in conducting any such investigation.

Such a use of Occam amounts to a misuse, but one that serves a purpose.

I also think a glaring weakness that has come to the fore in this discussion is the acknowledgment of the use of a Bible with no rational ground for considering nothing else. Textual evidence demonstrates that a Bible was used. But the story freely admits to quoting the Bible so the authors knew they did not have to cover up the plagiarism. They only had to present a reason for why Nephites would copy the Bible. Well of course, they were Jews who allegedly brought copies with them.

But David Wright makes a compelling case that the Book of Mormon reacts to the KJVB which, of course, no Nephite had access to. The Book of Mormon also copies KJVB mistakes. There is no question then that the Book of Mormon author(s) plagiarized from the KJVB even though the text has it quoting from ancient manuscripts. It is this basically irrefutable evidence that forces many LDS and most Smith-alone proponents to acknowledge a dependence on the KJVB when there is, in fact zero testimonial evidence in support of that from the same set of witnesses they otherwise rely on after excluding whatever they deem not to be "ordinary" from their testimonies. Dan makes a very weak case when he suggests there was no reason for them to mention that a Bible was used. On the contrary, there was every reason to avoid mentioning it because the text itself implies the copying was done by ancient Nephite authors! The evidence shows otherwise.

So you have the fact that Cowdery is officially mentioned as--at the very least--attempting to produce content for the Book of Mormon. We have a portion of the ms in Smith's handwriting and it cannot be denied that a Bible was used. Unless one is a believer, the stone and hat routine can be nothing other than a show designed to fool people. No words ever appeared in the stone, so we know that Joseph Smith was actively deceiving people. From that, there is no logical reason to conclude no one other than Joseph could have contributed to the text and no outside source other than the Bible could have been used. So far as I can tell, the logic used to defend that comes exclusively from a reliance on the word of witnesses whose testimony is not otherwise credible.

In my book, that's a pretty glaring weakness.