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

[_mikwut]

Roger,

Your logic here is simply flawed. It is NOT incorrect "to say the onlooker of the illusion is claiming something extraordinary about being a witness and testifying that they saw a human body in a box with a head and feet exposed on each end sawed in two and yet the person lived and was reattached." In fact, the claim is quite extraordinary.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. What extraordinary evidence would you require from audiences members that report seeing an illusion if what they are testifying about is extraordinary? If you claim the use of the word what is the evidential burden that comes with it?

Your conflating the meanings of the words in order the shift where the demanding evidence is required. To believe J.S. we would require (or the most skeptical among us) extraordinary evidence. To believe someone that reports what they watched, or recalled things he said regardless of his extraordinary claim doesn't require such a demand, and it doesn't impugn them. It places them as witnesses to be evaluated like any other witnesses. I have never in practice, or reading seen the demand for extraordinary evidence be placed on reporters of what they saw happen. Are you just claiming it in this instance or there is another source you could refer me to as to this proper use of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If a man while camping with friends disappears for 7 hours and comes back disheveled, speaking in latin and clearly disturbed and out of it but claims he was just abducted by aliens is making an extraordinary claim, those that report that he indeed was gone from their presence for that period of time, indeed was disheveled, speaking in latin and disturbed are not making an extraordinary claim they are reporting what they saw. If there are 4 witnesses and two believe the man was abducted by aliens and two do not, they still aren't making extraordinary claims by reporting what they saw.

I might add, I don't accept the skeptical verse "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I am simply trying to allow for it. I think it trite, stupid, silly and most of all unmeaningful. Claims require evidence. We have evidential standards, those standards don't change or morph or become different based on the claim, evidence, good solid evidence is what we use to evaluate all claims. In my post-graduate history work no research class taught me that principle, in law school it is not found in any of my evidence texts or teaching. It comes from skeptical debunkers lexicon, it is means to separate natural from supernatural claims. As a theist I am confused why you accept the trite skeptical phrase.

In the first place, we all agree (except for Glenn) that they were deceived (unless they were part of the deception, in which case we can't believe them!) How accurate is the testimony of deceived people?

Hence the historical process that Dan has laid out quit nicely of checking the reports against context, time, place etc... they are independent witnesses making consistent reports with minor confusions readily explained from the sources. That is as good as history gets.

my regards, mikwut

[_MCB]

Dale, I am in the process of reworking my statistics. Information request. Please check e-mail.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Responding to your comments to Mikwut on ad hoc fallacy:

There are two reasons I called your apologetic of Spalding witnesses connecting Book of Mormon with ten tribes an ad hoc rationalization:

1. You insisted that Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes despite its explicit denial with the following irrational arguments:

a. Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon.

b. Lehi’s belonging to the tribe of Joseph is good enough to identify the American Indian with the ten tribes.

c. Witnesses who said Spalding’s MS linked the American Indians with the “lost tribes” were using that term in a different way than commonly understood.

2. You speculated that Spalding had some of the dispersed tribes from 720 B.C. move to Jerusalem, and then eighty years later had two families from the tribe of Joseph leave to America.

These arguments were unfounded speculations designed to save your cherished Spalding theory from adverse evidence. You eventually admitted they were ad hoc, but not ad hoc fallacy. This was evidence that you didn’t know what you were talking about. It’s a fallacy if you are using ad hocs to counter negative evidence in a debate. I have several times told you that ad hoc are more tolerable in interpretation, but can’t be used as evidence in a debate. Intellectual honesty demands that distinction. Once you stop giving yourself permission to use such arguments, the evidence will begin to fall into line and the strongest reconstruction will emerge.

The explanation Ben, Glenn, and I offered was that the Book of Mormon was prompting the Spalding witnesses’ memories, and since the popular misconception of the Book of Mormon was that it was about the ten lost tribes, the witnesses’ memories of Spalding’s MS conformed to that belief. As I said, either the witnesses’ memories about Spalding’s MS were accurate and therefore it wasn’t like the Book of Mormon, or their memories were mistaken and their testimonies are unreliable. Note we are dealing with firsthand statements of twenty-year-old memories. Standard historical methodology recommends skepticism in such situations.

Marg, you didn’t want to accept this evidence, so you launched into a serious of ad hoc defenses, which I outlined above. It was your unrestrained speculation and imagination that prompted my discussion of ad hoc fallacy. I had to do this because you could see no problem with your logic and method of argumentation. You were deluding yourself that you were actually a good defender of the Spalding theory, because no one could shut you down and you could deal with anything anyone threw at you. In reality, you were immunizing your cherished theory against adverse evidence by traveling a well-worn path of the pseudo-scientists and pseudo-historians.

Dan (I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mikwut) says lost tribes story does not entail tribes leaving jerusalem ..per myth it has them leave from North Israel ..head north, travel enmasse to far corners of the world. S/R witnesses likely confused, thought Book of Mormon was a lost tribes story, they would have understood lost tribes story popularized by Ethan Smith in 1823 and onward into 1830’s. Therefore the S/R witnesses are confused at best, lying at worst in order to have their recall jive with their misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon was about.

You have this backwards. This is in response to your unfounded ad hoc speculation (below). You tried to defend the Spalding witnesses’ mention of “lost tribes” by inventing an anomalous theory of your own, which was nothing more than an imaginative harmonization of the ten tribes theory with the Book of Mormon. To which Glenn and I tried to remind you what the theory entailed. The prevailing explanation that linked the American Indian with the ten lost tribes was informed by the apocryphal book Esdras, which explained that the tribes escaped their Assyrian captivity and traveled northeast a year and a half to a land called Arsareth (“another land”). Not everyone explicitly mentioned Esdras, but it was the basis for such discussion. But the key part is that one tribe didn’t fulfill anyone’s version that we know of. Thus the argument went as follows:

Marg: Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on.

Ben/Glenn: Their claim that Spalding linked the Indian with the “lost tribes”, and by inference the Book of Mormon as well, is evidence that their memories are unreliable and may have been tainted by hearing the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes.

Marg: The Book of Mormon is about the “lost tribes”, and Spalding could have written a different kind of lost tribes story that conforms to the Book of Mormon (ad hocs #1 and #2).

Glenn/Dan: The Book of Mormon isn’t about the lost tribes, and if Spalding wrote such a story it too wouldn’t be about the lost tribes in America—at least not recognizable enough to deserve the label “lost tribes” by the witnesses.

Marg: Lehi being of the tribe of Joseph, one of the tribes that had gotten lost, qualifies the Book of Mormon as a history of the lost tribes (ad hoc #1b). Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon (ad hoc #1a). Witnesses who said Spalding’s MS linked the American Indians with the “lost tribes” were using that term in a different way than commonly understood (ad hoc #1c). Spalding could have had some of the dispersed tribes from 720 B.C. move to Jerusalem, and then eighty years later had two families from the tribe of Joseph leave to America.

Glenn/Dan: We know your motivation for speculating that, but what would be Spalding’s motivation for changing the popular explanation of Indian origins?

Marg: Spalding was a biblical skeptic (factually backed up with evidence) who would likely have accepted as historically true being as he studied theology..that Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. were exiled by Assyrians. He would not likely have accepted mythical stories of lost tribes as historically true.

Glenn/Dan: Spalding’s being a biblical skeptic doesn’t help you; it doesn’t prove he would have written as you speculate. Glenn said it would tend to indicate that Spalding wouldn’t have likely linked Indian origins to the Bible, but rather the Romans and Asians; and Dan it’s not likely that he would defend the Bible (and diminish his potential readership) by changing a popular myth to a more realistic version?

My response: Spalding was a biblical skeptic (factually backed up with evidence) who would likely have accepted as historically true being as he studied theology..that Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. were exiled by Assyrians. He would not likely have accepted mythical stories of lost tribes as as historically true.

So, you can see from the above that your ad hocs are not “factually backed up with evidence” as you state, because you have not accurately reconstructed the chain of arguments. Spalding’s being a biblical skeptic doesn’t justify any of your ad hocs.

The S/R witnesses were relating what Spalding wrote, they didn’t get into an explanation of what their understanding was of lost tribes but even so there is no reason to assume they would not appreciate Spalding’s understanding (being as they described that he discussed his story with them) , nor is there evidence to suggest any of them would have bought into the mythical understanding popularized by Ethan Smith. While Ethan Smith's speculation may have been popular with theologians it was not the accepted theory by all in that day.

You’re assuming what you are trying to prove.

Ethan Smith’s book went through two editions in two years and was popular among all classes of people, not just theologians. You are just guessing to give any kind of response. Curious, how popular was your version of the ten tribe theory? Glenn has told you more than once that Ethan Smith wasn’t the only book or only person talking about the ten tribe theory.

Based on the availability of such books and speeches, no doubt, Josiah Priest would write in his American Antiquities in 1833: “The opinion that the American Indians are descendants of the lost Ten Tribes, is now a popular one, and generally believed.”47 He had good reason to celebrate the popularity of the idea, for the fifth edition of his book (published in 1835) announced that 22,000 copies had been sold in thirty months.

47. Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (Albany, 1825), 73.

– Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon 44.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=602

An understanding of lost tribes does not need to entail anything more than the historical acceptance of North Israelite tribes exiled in 720 B.C. by Assyrians.

The “lost tribes” origin of the American Indian entails a lot more than that.

And confusion for so many S/R witnesses is not likely nor do they all have reason to lie.

No one has accused them of lying, although there was motivation to lie. Given the fact that no MS was used by Joseph Smith in dictating with his face in hat, and that the Spalding witnesses aren’t independent witnesses, apparently confused about the Book of Mormon’s contents, undoubtedly interested to provide evidence against the hated Mormon religion, and drawing on vague twenty-year-old memories, it is highly probable that they were confused, mistaken, and trying too hard.

This is not ad hoc fallacy Mikwut is for 2 reasons

#1- Dan’s counter that the S/R witnesses must have all been confused based on his restricted allowable understanding of lost tribes and what he claims everyone must have understood lost tribes to be... is simply not factually warranted..it is his speculation. He can assert all he wants, but he’s speculating on what he thinks the S/R witnesses must have understood and his speculation is for the sole purpose of attempting to dismiss their entire statements as being faulty due to confusion or lying. His argument is weak at best. It’s not likely they are all completely confused nor lying.

Let’s see. I’m speculating because I define the term “lost tribes” in a straightforward fashion and rely on the best evidence for understanding the term in Joseph Smith’s day. But Marg isn’t speculating when she asserts the witnesses had a unique definition that happens to conform to her need to defend the Spalding witnesses against adverse evidence. Never mind your definition doesn’t make any sense to begin with. It’s ad hoc because it’s a definition you made up and has no existence outside your use of it.

I’m not trying to rescue against an argument by Dan which has been well warranted with evidence, I’m countering his speculation adding more reasoning in response to Dan’s poor ...not well warranted argument against the S/R witnesses.

Yes, you are trying to rescue the Spalding witnesses from adverse evidence that challenges the reliability of their memories. Your definition of the term “lost tribes” is improbable and contrived. Once you stop this kind of ad hoc response, you have to deal with the conclusion that the witnesses’ memories were probably tainted with popular misconceptions of what the Book of Mormon contained.

[_marg]

marg,

Your simply repeating yourself, I have read the thread, Dan has clearly answered everyone of your charges. I would just be repeating him, and he is probably clearer than me.

Yes you probably would be repeating him but I was interested to see if maybe you had a degree objectivity and could speak for yourself and address my explanation why those 2 examples were not ad hocs.

Your charge regarding the witnesses is mere opinion because you want to save the Spalding witnesses it is clearly based on a bias you have that isn't necessary and doesn't impugn anyone of being apologetic of Mormonism.

Believe what you want Mikwut. I won't bother reading the rest of your response to me.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Which witness makes the claim that they witnessed the words appear in a stone rather than simply taking J.S. word for it?

Show me the witness who admits to having this knowledge only because they were "simply taking J.S. word for it"

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Ok Mikwut I'll address # 2.

You wrote: "Your trick hat idea has no even shallow witness justification, it is simply guessing and rightly called ad hoc by Dan."

In what follows, you do not defend your trick-hat theory, but change the subject entirely. Have you changed your theory to conspiracy only? If so, why don’t you just say so? The trick-hat theory was ad hoc, and so is conspiracy when it is used to explain away adverse evidence.

Ad hoc fallacy Mikwut is changing the explanation one speculates for a set of facts against counter evidence..in order to rescue the hypothesis.

I don’t understand this definition. Ad hoc is where one changes one’s speculation to “a set of facts” in response to counterevidence?

There is no counter here Mikwut, the say so of Emma who has a vested interest is not reliable evidence nor is the say so of every other individual who had a vested interest ...in support of establishing this new religion/enterprise.

You are apparently arguing that your trick-hat theory wasn’t ad hoc because it wasn’t responding to adverse evidence. Even if you have changed your approach and don’t want to explicitly say so, that doesn’t make your trick-hat theory any less ad hoc. You asked Mikwut for an example, and he provided one. You are allowed to change your mind. I knew you would anyway. I knew it all comes down to a massive conspiracy theory—it always does.

There are 2 hostile witnesses. One was Emma's dad in which Cowdery and Smith carried on their work at a cabin on his property. Emma's dad simply appreciated it was a con...he didn't even bother to try to investigate. On a few occasion he observed the head in the hat ..but there is no reason to assume Cowdery and Smith weren't prepared, that they couldn't see him approaching the cabin as they worked. Hence they could easily put on a show. Why did they leave his property to work at the Whitmers. It's not like they were hounded by anyone..and so what if outsiders were to come and observe.

The other witness Emma's brother in law as well didn't have much exposure and a temporary show could easily have been orchestrated by Cowdery and Smith.

The two hostile witnesses in Harmony were Isaac Hale and Michael Morse, the latter said he stopped at the cabin on business more than once and went into Joseph Smith’s presence as he was translating. Joseph Smith and OC worked in a room upstairs where they window faced east, while Isaac’s farm was west and Joseph Smith’s front door faced north—although one could argue Joseph Smith and OC could hear him coming up the stairs. Regardless, the speculation that the hat was quickly taken out when these hostile witnesses came into the house shows that MArg is not willing to accept any kind of evidence against her theory, even if it means inventing ad hoc explanations to immunize it.

Those 2 hostile witnesses are not good evidence for the translation process.

Yes, they are, especially when you don’t give yourself permission to indulge in ad hoc speculation.

So what the situation for ad hoc fallacy entails is a shift in burden of proof due to adverse evidence. But no burden of proof with a high degree of probability has been met to establish the claims by Book of Mormon witnesses..none are reliable and provide sufficient reliable evidence to establish their claims.

What ad hoc theories do is to immunize a cherished theory against adverse evidence, because ad hocs can’t be tested or refuted. You can only make this statement, because your ad hoc has explained away the very evidence you are demanding.

The ONLY reason I suggested a hat trick was as speculation (and I pointed it out it was speculative) for possible occasions such as with Emma who I thought maybe Smith might not have wanted her too involved and knowing too much and that she herself may not have wanted to know too much.

You only switched to the I-was-only-speculating line when I persisted with the ad hoc argument and it became clear after further examination on your part that it was indeed ad hoc. Then you admitted that it was ad hoc, but not ad hoc fallacy.

But I'm not trying to rescue any hypothesis here, I'm simply making a possible suggestion because there is NO explanation that has strong evidence to support it as to how the translation process was carried on.

No so. It is clear that Joseph Smith’s method of translation involved his head in a hat. The only reason you suggested the trick hat is to smuggle the Spalding MS into the translation room. That was an ad hoc.

Cowdery, Smith, Emma, Whitmers, Harris ...none of them are reliable witnesses able to meet a burden of proof to establish with high probablity the claim that Smith put his head in a hat and dictated the Book of Mormon. Claims such as Smith would continue where he stopped off the previous day without review, claims that he didn't review as he dictated..are not highly probable. We know none of the witnesses bothered to mention a Bible, even though one was used. The witnesses are not noted trustworthy witnesses who appeared to objectively evaluate with any significant degree. hey are all quite content to accept the improbable with little to no skepticism/investigation. There is speculation that Smith had an amazing memory, but there is no evidence for that either.

These are independent witnesses, who more or less told the same story, and they are supported by unfriendly witnesses. That the witnesses are trustworthy is supported by non-Mormons who knew them. This can’t be overcome by replacing the trick-hat theory with another ad hoc theory that dismisses both believer and non-believer testimony.

This is using ad hoc fallacy gone wild when there is a mystery involved and one is accused of faulty reasoning(ad hoc fallay) for offering some speculation to solve that mystery. You may not like the idea ..that others don't find the Book of Mormon witnesses credible or reliable. But there are reasons and they are well justified for expecting much better evidence than reliance on the say so ..of those involved in a fraud ...with a vested interest in that fraud.

The best interpretation of the evidence is that Joseph Smith dictated with head in hat. This is established by multiple independent testimonies. There is no mystery that needs solving with ad hoc speculation that happens to support your cherished theory. There is no evidence that the witnesses were involved in the fraud or that they had a vested interested, if you mean financial reward.

Under your and Dan's reasoning....detectives of unsolved murder crimes when they try to reason to solve the crime would be doing so fallaciously, commiting ad hoc fallacy and that they should simply accept the say so of all those potentially involved in the crime?

[/quote]

This makes no sense. There’s no analogy here. It’s not ad hoc to test hypotheses. Ad hoc is giving unfounded speculations against adverse evidence. How can you say things like this and understand what an ad hoc is? Despite everything you attempt to argue above, the bottom line is your trick-hat theory was ad hoc.

[_Dan Vogel]

mikwut:

Which witness makes the claim that they witnessed the words appear in a stone rather than simply taking J.S. word for it?

Show me the witness who admits to having this knowledge only because they were "simply taking J.S. word for it"

Roger, I gave you several instances where witnesses said "he [Joseph Smith] said so at least". Did you forget?

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Your conflating the meanings of the words in order the shift where the demanding evidence is required. To believe J.S. we would require (or the most skeptical among us) extraordinary evidence. To believe someone that reports what they watched, or recalled things he said regardless of his extraordinary claim doesn't require such a demand, and it doesn't impugn them. It places them as witnesses to be evaluated like any other witnesses. I have never in practice, or reading seen the demand for extraordinary evidence be placed on reporters of what they saw happen. Are you just claiming it in this instance or there is another source you could refer me to as to this proper use of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I highlighted the key sentence. This is where your logic (and Dan's) goes off into left field. They are NOT "like any other witnesses." The skeptical witnesses (like Isaac Hale) only corroborate head in hat with a few sentences. No one--not even me--disputes that. The key witnesses, on which this debate is centering, are by no means "like any other witnesses." That is a glaring flaw in your argument. They are highly interested in what they are reporting. They are highly devoted to both the cause and the key man promoting the cause. They are invested in it.

If a man while camping with friends disappears for 7 hours and comes back disheveled, speaking in latin and clearly disturbed and out of it but claims he was just abducted by aliens is making an extraordinary claim, those that report that he indeed was gone from their presence for that period of time, indeed was disheveled, speaking in latin and disturbed are not making an extraordinary claim they are reporting what they saw. If there are 4 witnesses and two believe the man was abducted by aliens and two do not, they still aren't making extraordinary claims by reporting what they saw.

But we would want to know whether the witnesses knew the man, and if so how well. We would want to know if he was related to any of them. We would want to know if they were a part of a group that shared the same values and religious beliefs, particularly if the claims of that group were extraordinary. We would want to know if any of them lied or withheld damaging information about the same individual on other occasions. All those factors (and probably some additional ones) would help us in our quest for the truth about what really took place.

I might add, I don't accept the skeptical verse "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I am simply trying to allow for it. I think it trite, stupid, silly and most of all unmeaningful. Claims require evidence. We have evidential standards, those standards don't change or morph or become different based on the claim, evidence, good solid evidence is what we use to evaluate all claims. In my post-graduate history work no research class taught me that principle, in law school it is not found in any of my evidence texts or teaching. It comes from skeptical debunkers lexicon, it is means to separate natural from supernatural claims. As a theist I am confused why you accept the trite skeptical phrase.

Because, as a theist, I've seen way too many unsupported but extraordinary claims. To the point where I realize that extraordinary claims are not difficult to make.

Hence the historical process that Dan has laid out quit nicely of checking the reports against context, time, place etc... they are independent witnesses making consistent reports with minor confusions readily explained from the sources. That is as good as history gets.

my regards, mikwut

Did you read my post about Emma? The facts about just that one witness throw a monkey wrench in your (and Dan's) logic that simply wants us to think of these witnesses as "like any other witnesses."

[_Roger]

Dan:

Roger, I gave you several instances where witnesses said "he [Joseph Smith] said so at least". Did you forget?

Would any of those include Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith or David Whitmer?

[_Roger]

Mikwut produced the follow analogy:

If a man while camping with friends disappears for 7 hours and comes back disheveled, speaking in latin and clearly disturbed and out of it but claims he was just abducted by aliens is making an extraordinary claim, those that report that he indeed was gone from their presence for that period of time, indeed was disheveled, speaking in latin and disturbed are not making an extraordinary claim they are reporting what they saw. If there are 4 witnesses and two believe the man was abducted by aliens and two do not, they still aren't making extraordinary claims by reporting what they saw.

And, making the mistake of following his logic I replied:

But we would want to know whether the witnesses knew the man, and if so how well. We would want to know if he was related to any of them. We would want to know if they were a part of a group that shared the same values and religious beliefs, particularly if the claims of that group were extraordinary. We would want to know if any of them lied or withheld damaging information about the same individual on other occasions. All those factors (and probably some additional ones) would help us in our quest for the truth about what really took place.

Which is quite true, however, I should also have pointed out that mikwut's analogy further skews what actually happened in the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses. They (that is the believers) weren't just innocent bystanders reporting a missing guy who comes back speaking latin. On the contrary, they were actively promoting the idea that the guy was abducted by aliens. They even claimed to have witnessed the ship! (plates) They later claimed to have seen real aliens. They were an active part of promoting the alien story and they produced testimonies to support and build up that extraordinary claim. And I suggest that at least some of them left out key information that would have done damage to the alien abduction account.