no evidence for is not evidence against

[_keithb]

Well, you make the claim that you exist, right?

Prove it.[/quote]

Kishkumen: I exist.

Belmont: No you don't, prove it.

Kishkumen hits Belmont in the head with a 2x4. When Belmont wakes up, he goes back to Kishkumen.

Belmont: That's still not proof that you exist.

Kishkumen: Let me get my 2x4 for a refresher course.

[_Morley]

I don't get the obsession with historicity, but that's just me.

Hmm, Kish. Not what I would have expected from a historian.

[_Kishkumen]

Hmm, Kish. Not what I would have expected from a historian.

Well, it is what I would expect of a historian. LOL.

[_Morley]

Hmm, Kish. Not what I would have expected from a historian.

Well, it is what I would expect of a historian. LOL.

When I pause and really think about it, I get your point.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Help to educate me.

This kind of thinking usually comes from a misunderstanding about the Philosophy of Science. People erringly believe natural science is an inductive program (it’s not, it’s abductive) and some hold on to Popper’s idea that science can’t prove a hypothesis, just disprove it.

You get this sort of dated thinking from Intelligent Design advocates.

[_Droopy]

However, in some cases, it misses the point. No one is arguing that because there is no evidence for ancient Mormon civilizations, that means they couldn't exist. What one is arguing is that given that we do have extensive evidence for civilizations in the past, we would likely have found evidence for Book of Mormon civilizations also had they existed.

There are several severe problems with this statement, beginning with the claim that "we do have extensive evidence for civilizations in the past."

No, we don't Perhaps in absolute terms, this claim could be supported, but in relative terms - relative to the evidence and data that have existed, or which now exist but are not extant or within our reach - its a fantastic exaggeration of the actual state of historica/archological knowledge of the past.

As perhaps 99% of all literature ever written in the ancient past is now no longer extant (or at least, known at the present time), we have, relative to all that has eve been recorded by ancient peoples, very, very little.

Given that, even to the present time, only a small percentage of all known Mesoamerican archeological sites have ever actually been excavated and studied (

as well as the countless artifacts and data that have become unavailable due to flooding, geologic upheavals, urbanization, and/or disappeared into private/underground markets for ancient artifacts/documents (which has been going on, at the very least, for many generations in Latin America, and indeed centuries, with respect to Mediterranean/Middle Eastern archeology), the above claim is, at best, a wild overstatement of the actual state of our archeological/anthropological knowledge of ancient America.

Virtually the entire corpus of Mayan literature, a truly vast corpus corresponding quite well with the Book of Mormon's description of the importance of record keeping and other kinds of chronicles to ancient American peoples, is lost to us, and this must be considered only a small fraction of the total that has existed in various forms, from very ancient times.

Further, since we cannot, as of yet, read and understand a number of the ancient languages/hieroglyphics we have discovered there, it would appear that sniping that "no evidence" of the existence of Book of Mormon peoples has yet been found is at once both vastly premature as well as indicative of ignorance of the really massive lacuna in our knowledge of breadth, depth, extent and complexity of Mesoamerican civilization over thousands of years on a continent-wide scale.

Mesoamerican archeology is still a very young discipline and study. Not even a fraction of the evidence that exists is in yet, leaving aside the data that is not recoverable or recoverable only with the most extreme exertions.

That is different than just saying "no evidence", although I think most Mormon apologists will not understand the distinction.

As I have shown above, there is a problem in that you do not appear to comprehend the nature of the kind of evidence with which we are dealing, nor the infant state our knowledge of Mesoamerica remains in, even at the present time.

Much of the evidence for Book of Mormon peoples may, indeed, have already been unearthed, but will remain, until the languages and hieroglyphic systems we at present cannot read have been deciphered. Until then, any actual evidence of the kind required would remain unknown as to its status as evidence, and hence, of no use to Book of Mormon apologetics.

It is also possible that such evidence as may exist has yet to be discovered

[_Droopy]

Help to educate me.

This kind of thinking usually comes from a misunderstanding about the Philosophy of Science. People erringly believe natural science is an inductive program (it’s not, it’s abductive) and some hold on to Popper’s idea that science can’t prove a hypothesis, just disprove it.

You get this sort of dated thinking from Intelligent Design advocates.

Poppers ideas are still alive and well within science and philosphy of science, and still critical to a proper understanding of how science works.

However, Archeology is not a natural or hard science, but a humanities discipline, the primary language and critical methadology of thought of which is, indeed, inductive (inferential) reasoning.

Archeology is also a very data poor discipline, and hence, is theory rich, which means that inference and extrapolation from available shards of evidence must be both rigorous and display the humility and tentativeness inherent in the very nature of the data itself.

[_MrStakhanovite]

However, Archeology is not a natural or hard science, but a humanities discipline, the primary language and critical methadology of thought of which is, indeed, inductive (inferential) reasoning.

This is really misinformed.

Archeology is a subset of anthropology, and is a part of the social sciences, which are all data driven. All social and natural sciences rely on inferences to the best explanation as the criteria for picking which theories are probably true from the infinitely many that rival.

The only discipline that relies on inductive proofs are the various maths and logics.

Archeology is also a very data poor discipline, and hence, is theory rich

You can’t have a theory without data, so if something is data poor, it cannot be theory rich.

Please learn something about the Philosophy of Science before you seek to instruct people on it.

[_wenglund]

Whenever I am confronted by this approach, my response is this: show me evidence that supports your claim, and then I will judge whether it is worth entertaining. I firmly believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. Mormons contend that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. I say, "provide the evidence." So far, the evidence is very slender indeed. It is hardly sufficient to show that the Book of Mormon is in fact an ancient record. What need does anyone have to prove it is not? Prove it is. You LDS folk are the ones who claim this.

I agree with Kish that the asserter bears the burden of proof for their assertions.

However, insufficient proof to warrant belief isn't the same as evidence against a belief.

For example: If person "A" says she believe that person "B" burglarized her home yesterday around 7pm. If person "A" lacks sufficient proof that person "B" was at her home at that time and buglarized, that is different than if person "B" can show proof that he wasn't there, but was somewhere else far away at the time. Lack of evidence of a belief in this instance is not the same as evidence against the belief because with the former it is still possible that the belief is true, whereas with the latter it is not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

However, insufficient proof to warrant belief isn't the same as evidence against a belief.

Yes, insufficient proof to warrant a belief is the same as evidence against said belief. It may or may not be conclusive--but it is evidence against it.

(edited for clarity)