Dan Vogel wrote: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.
I insisted that the Book of Mormon was about the 10 tribes? That thought never occurred to me Dan. I'd have to know what the 10 tribes story was about to think the Book of Mormon was about that. I was being told from the beginning I believe by Glenn that the Book of Mormon was not about the 10 tribes. I wasn't going to argue that it was if I didn't know what the 10 tribes story entailed. So I looked into what the 10 tribes was about.
With regards to
a. Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon.
I did argue when it was pointed out to me by Glenn of a few passages in the Book of Mormon that mentioned 10 tribes living elsewhere ..and said, that a few passages could easily have been added..because I also was thinking that the set up by Spalding wasn't necessarily discussed much in his book. It was not as if the writers would have to take out many mentions of lost tribes in Spalding's story., But despite lack of much mention of lost tribes in Spading's story, which could easily be forgotten in time, the S/R witnesses memory was also a function of their discussions with him and about the local mounds. So if he had written an introduction which explained his characters were descendants of the lost tribes for the purpose of giving a point in history and blood line to tie the Am. Indians to...that would not have to continually mentioned throughout the storyline. It would be easy for someone especially someone exposed to the Ethan Smith story written in 1823 who wanted to use Ethan Smith's popularized speculation or who themselves bought into that speculation to make slight changes to a Spalding manuscript by stating the lost tribes lived elsewhere..albeit still keeping the idea of the bloodline through Lehi essentially going back to the lost tribes. There would be no point to have a blood line going back to Jews. Jews have migrated everywhere..there is no particular point in time to trace back to that is accepted historically as it is with lost tribes. So the Book of Mormon has Lehi's bloodline connected to a particular lost tribe..which is essentially all that the witnesses were talking about Spalding doing. The difference is, the Book of Mormon simply makes mention of lost tribes living elsewhere.
With regards to b.
Lehi’s belonging to the tribe of Joseph is good enough to identify the American Indian with the ten tribes.Well see above, the S/R witnesses had discussion with Spalding,not just about his story but about the local mounds and who built them. So this is why that particular point "lost tribes" being part of the story of Spalding's would be memorable. They remember why Spalding wrote..to explain the local mounds..he tied those in with Am. Inds...and tied the moundbuilders and am indians ...back to a point in time by blood line recognized historically ...the lost tribes Northern Israelite tribes in 720 B.C.
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.
It's your argument Dan that there is only one way "lost tribes" can be understood and referred to. The average person in their day didn't buy into the lost tribe Ethan Smith speculation, that was what many theologians may have bought into. Morse's geography which one of them mentioned was used in that day, had Am Indians being of Asian descent.
So for a person back them to refer to Lost tribes..does not mean they are referring to the myth. Added to this what the witnesses were testifying to was what Spalding had said. Spalding being a believer that the Bible was entirely man-created with nothing to do with a God, and that he was educated in these matters, would likely have accepted as historically true that the Assyrians exiled the Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. And he likely was familiar with a lost tribes speculation that may indeed have had the tribes exiled enmasse and travel north. But Spalding being educated wouldn't have accepted speculations based upon the Bible and so his story line didn't need to follow that speculation. By using the lost tribes as historically factual he could tie the blood line to a group of people, for which history had no account after 720 B.C. All that was available was speculations. And so it would give his story believability.
Dan wrote:(b)
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.
See above as to what I'm arguing. I haven't decided at what point Spalding began his story. I suspect with the Conneaut witnesses his story as they understood it began around 600 B.C. but I think Spalding may have continued writing and taken the storyline back further after his departure from Conneaut.
You don't have negative evidence Dan sufficient to meet a burden of proof that establishes by the mere mention of "lost tribes" that the witnesses who mentioned Spalding used lost tribes to explain where the Am. Indian came from..to establish they all must have been confused or lying. That's what it boils down. For ad hoc fallacy to apply, the counter claim must meet a burden of proof which overturn the initial hypothesis/claim. Your argument doesn't meet that burden of proof..that establishes the S/R witnesses had to have been mistaken. My response to you is not irrational, it is warranted.
You are the one highly motivated for personal reasons to dismiss the S/R witnesses..claiming for example they all must have faulty memory and are confused in their memory of MSCC. You tried to use E. Loftus's studies to back up your argument and when I investigated it turned out the argument you used didn't apply to the situation with the witnesses.
If you actually had good argument's Dan, truly I'd respect that. But you don't.
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.
Look Dan I read the Book of Mormon and not once did the words "lost tribes" stand out or even occur to me. So Hurlbut arrives on the scene questioning the Conneaut witnesses (they don't spend months preparing to answer him, they briefly review the Book of Mormon. What on earth would compel them from looking at the Book of Mormon to mention "lost tribes"?
You assume the S/R witnesses have great interest in this Mormon issue. They had no idea Hurlbut would show up, then didn't seek out reporters ..they were sought out. And they looked at the Book of Mormon and that's probably pretty much the extent of their investigation into the issue. They probably weren't even aware of Ethan Smith's book.
You are the one making up a convoluted theory. You've got these witnesses reading Ethan Smith, misreading the Book of Mormon, lying, confused...when none of that is necessary. They are simply recalling what Spalding discussed with them and what they remember his story was about.
Dan wrote: 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.
You are absolutely right 20 year old memories are often faulty..but there is too much consistency with too many people for confusion to explain their statements. They also had the Book of Mormon to jog their memories. They acknowledge fading memory but on some things they clearly recalled often because of having their memory jogged. And there is no benefit to them to lie. You are arguing fallaciously when you appeal to authority of "standard historical methodology" because that is now sounding like a catch phrase, but what it really means is according to Dan's interpretation. Simply argue with good critical thinking explaining yourself rather than this appeal to authority.
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.
As I said Dan if you presented good well reasoned arguments I'd respect that but you don't. Your use of ad hoc fallacy has been a rhetorical ploy which is convincing to those who don't appreciate what it's about. Ad hoc fallacy, requires good counter evidence which shifts a burden of proof from the original claim. You don't have good counter evidence sufficient to meet a burden of proof which justifies shifting. You have no memory studies which support that all those witnesses's memories must have been unreliable. That was simply Dan's desperation and misuse perhaps misunderstanding of what the memory studies do say. Same with your use of lost tribes to dismiss them, as I explain above your theory is convoluted and unnecessary when a much simpler explanation makes more sense.
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:
Dan, I'll make my comments in
[blue] [MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not use red text. That's reserved for moderators only. Thank you.]Marg:
Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on.Incorrect, certain portions can be relied upon. Biblical language, things they say they clearly remember due to their memory being jogged such as names...and in my opinion "lost tribes" because they linked that to why Spalding was writing..which was to explain where the moundbuilders and am. Indians came from historically [/size]
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”, Incorrect..for one thing Dan I've never claimed to understand well what the Book of Mormon was about. I said I read it once and don't even have a good memory of it. What I got out of it, was a repetition of a common theme ...that one must believe in that God or else likely be punished. Having Lehi be a descendant of one of the lost tribes..is what I pointed out. When you and Glenn brought up lost tribes, I had no idea what lost tribes was. And I looked into it. it took me time to understand your argument. Dan paraphasing me:
and Spalding could have written a different kind of lost tribes story that conforms to the Book of Mormon (ad hocs #1 and #2).My explanation evolved as I learned more. But you are misrepresenting me, either than or I didn't explain myself well. The S/R witnesses do not say Spalding wrote a "lost tribes" story. I don't think Spalding wrote a lost tribes story. He wrote a fictional account which he thought might be viewed as historically true, to give a history to the the Am. Indians and the local moundbuilders..and he had them descend from some lost tribes. Being as Spalding was educated in these matters ..he would have known the lost tribes have no history after 720 B.C. ..and so it would be convenient to use them and give his story credibility.
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. Dan paraphrasing me:
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). No Dan, I'm fairly certain that I never said the Book of Mormon is a history of the lost tribes. I would have said that Lehi is connected by blood line to the lost tribes and therefore there is a connection in the Book of Mormon to the lost tribes. Dan paraphrasing me cont'd :
Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon (ad hoc #1a).
Yes a few passage with lost tribes living elsewhere could easily have been added. Lehi is still connected by bloodline to the lost tribes and that is all the witnesses need to be referring to with their mention of "lost tribes' as per their recall of what Spalding wrote and said.
DAn paraphrasing me cont'd :
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). At first I bought into Glenn and your argument about what was "commonly understood" in those days. But after giving it more thought I've changed my mind on that. As I looked into it ..it seems it was something that theologians gave thought to and many accepted perhaps because of Ethan Smith's book, but it was not something the vast majority of people gave much thought to. As I have pointed out many times, what the S/R witnesses were recalling was what Spalding told them and their understanding was a function of what he told them. They weren't asked to give an explanation of lost tribes per their understanding or what they accepted. What they gave was their recall of what Spalding wrote and explained to them..and there is good reason to assume Spalding appreciated lost tribes ..historically factual..that they were tribes exiled in 720 B.C....but would not have accepted any biblical myths or speculation using the Biblical Esdras..even if he was aware of others doing so. Dan paraphrasing me cont'd :
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. Yes he could have ..he could also have continued to evolve his story going back in time..and different witnesses depending on what they were exposed to might have different recall as a result. I don't claim to know what he wrote exactly...other than I don't accept your argument that their recall of "lost tribes" indicates they are all confused or lying. Glenn/Dan:
We know your motivation for speculating that, but what would be Spalding’s motivation for changing the popular explanation of Indian origins?I know your motivation Dan for wanting to dismiss the S/R witnesses. You have more motivation in this than I do. I truly am attempting to look at this issue objectively. That is why I can say the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable that greater evidence than their say so is required...because that's what an objective person critically evaluating this should say. I also in critically evaluating the evidence see why you wish to focus on "lost tribes" in an attempt to dismiss them...but your argument is not warranted. It's a much more convoluted argument, than simply accepting...that with all the witnesses recalling biblical language with MSCC did not have, with many of the witnesses pointing out they clearly remember certain aspects such as name which the Book of Mormon served to jog their memory with, that they are not recalling MSCC. There is good strong evidence to support they are not recalling MSCC. So this "lost tribes"issue you have blown way out of proportion in an attempt and it's a desperate attempt to dismiss them all.
As I said i read the Book of Mormon, not once did the thought of lost tribes or words lost tribes occur to me. Not once. So why would it for them? You say they must be confused, that they had heard the Book of Mormon is a lost tribe story. Give me a break. They were not fixated on Mormonism...trying to develop a story to discredit Mormonism, reading everything they could on it, going to reporters to talk about it. There is no evidence they knew or even read Ethan Smith's book. Hurlbut went to them, they gave a statement, and their statement in key respects is consistent with later witnesses completely unconnected to them.
As far as Spalding's motivation, the lost tribes is a point in time of a group of people for which there is speculation but no historical account of what happened to them after 720 B.C. His motivation could be that he's trying to present a fictional account as if historically true. To write the storyline from the point of 720 B.C. and discuss the exile of so many may have been too daunting..instead to focus on a few characters with a blood line would be easier.
The problem that you have Dan is you really need to meet a burden of proof which overturns what the witnesses say. It's not just "lost tribes" that they say..whatever it is they are recalling it is not the MSCC. And then there are later witnesses as well as the printer...who confirm recall of a story written in biblical language. There are too many, and independent from one another with no motivation to lie, who recall a Spalding manuscript..that does not match MSCC written in biblical language.
So it's not a matter of me not being able to counter you, it's that you have not presented a strong argument which successfully meets a sufficient burden of proof to discredit the S/R witnesses. 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?
The burden of proof to discredit so many witnesses, with no motivation to lie, who are independent from one another who all recall a manuscript not matching MSCC , written in biblical style, whose memories were jogged on names and phrases because of the Book of Mormon ..is on you Dan.
I don't know why Spalding wrote whatever he did..I'm only going by the recall of witnesses. So you can speculate what you think Spalding should have written but that's not what the witnesses say he did. It is highly unlikely to all have been lying or confused. When we throw the printer into the equation with his memory of a manuscript in written in biblical style brought in to him, along with later witnesses ..MSCC is thrown out of the equation. So in that context, as well as other points I've mentioned...it seems highly probable that another manuscript existed and therefore highly probable with so many witnesses after reviewing the Book of Mormon...remembering names and portions the same as Spalding's..that there is indeed something legitimate to their claims. Dan wrote: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.
Dan my explanations are warranted, they are not irrational..simply to rescue the S/R witnesses. Your counter evidence to which I respond does not meet a burden of proof evidentially or with reasoning ..sufficient to overturn the testimonies of the S/R witnesses. And I know MCB would jump in here and say I shouldn't assume their recall is perfect. My response to that is I'm not claiming they have perfect recall. But I am arguing there is no justification to dismiss their recall entirely as being a function of lying or confusion. With the number of witnesses, the independence in time and place to one another, with their lack of motivation to lie..with the consistency in key respects, with an appreciation that memory does get jogged even if recall due to time can be lost..with all those factors and more....the witnesses are not recalling MSCC they are recalling another manuscript and there is no reason to doubt that they truly are recalling a manuscript from Spalding that did indeed match up to portions in the Book of Mormon.
Personally I couldn't care less whether Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own as he dictated..but that doesn't seem likely. People don't typically dictate a story without review, without corrections, without going back changing the story here and there. And then to convince everyone of his ignorance that he couldn't spell, when he in fact could...to plan it all and be successful is highly unlikely. So even without Spalding...in the equation...the Smith alone theory is not strong. But when we add the evidence of the Spalding...the Smith alone theory becomes even less probable.
Dan wrote: 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.
No Dan, I'm not assuming anything which is not warranted. You are the one trying to overturn what the S/R witnesses say, but to do so, you are speculating not only that their understanding of lost tribes would be a function of Ethan Smith's book according to you popularized, but that they would have thought the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes..despite there is virtually no mention of lost tribes in it. So according to you all those who mention lost tribes from the Conneaut to Amity witnesses are confused or lying. You are totally ignoring the fact that that they were recalling what Spalding discussed with them and told them his story was about. Dan wrote: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.
It's you doing the guessing Dan. Morse's geography was also popular in their day, and had Am. Indians being of Asian descent. Only some religious individuals not all, who took any interest in this sort of speculation for am. indians would have bought into the Esdras inspired myth. But you are making assumptions unwarranted. The witnesses were recalling Spalding's story. I don't doubt Spalding knew of the lost tribe myth, but there is no reason for him to use it as is..especially when he would have appreciated it had no other grounds as being true being as it stemmed from biblical Esdras.. and Spalding didn't think the Bible was anything more than man created. Dan wrote: 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
You are still ignoring recalling the fact that they were recalling Spalding's story. There is little reason for them to assume the Book of Mormon was a lost tribe story so your speculation that they thought it was ..is unwarranted. You are also accusing them of lying..that because they think the Book of Mormon is a lost tribe story they are lying about their recall of Spalding in order to make it seem that Spalding's story was used. You've now got a huge conspiracy theory going on...and yet there is no motivation ..no benefit for all the witnesses to conspire against Mormonism.
As far as using Josiah Priest...what exactly does "this is now a popular one, and generally believed" How is it, that Morse's geography talked about Am Indian being of Asian descent if the lost tribe theory is so well believed.
Is Josiah Priest a noted non fiction writer, now the authority you are relying on in this as to how people would truly understand the concept of lost tribes? In wiki it says
"
Josiah Priest (1788 – 1851) was a popular American nonfiction writer of the early 19th century. His books and pamphlets, which presented both standard and speculative history and archaeology sold in the thousands. Although Priest appears to have been poorly educated, he attempted to portray himself as an authority in his books. Priest is often identified as one of the creators of pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric literature.[1] Although his work was widely read and several of his works were published in multiple editions, his books were characterized by theories that were used to justify the violent domination over both the Native American and African-American peoples. Priest's works were among the most overtly racist of his time.He doesn't sound like an authority nor someone with much scholarly objectivity. That people read fiction and it is popularly read does not mean they accept what they read as true.
Dan wrote: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.
So says Dan..who happens to be highly motivated to discredit the S/R witnesses but unmotivated to do any discrediting of the Book of Mormon witnesses.
Dan wrote: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.
Oh I see, the Book of Mormon witnesses have no motivation to lie according to you, but the S/R witnesses do. So Hurlbut shows up at their door and ..they just decided to lie...for what exactly? It's a start up religion that in their minds they likely thought would likely fizzle out. What on earth are they going to gain?
But what is more interesting in this is how obvious your bias is showing in that for witnesses with little if any vested interest or reason to lie, you are saying they have a reason to lie, but for the witnesses are part of a scam...you argue they don't have a reason to lie.
Dan wrote:Given the fact that no MS was used by Joseph Smith in dictating with his face in hat
Relying on those unreliable Book of Mormon witnesses with a vested interest in a scam ..as your only evidence does not warrant establishing that as likely what actually happened for the entire Book of Mormon
Dan wrote:and that the Spalding witnesses aren’t independent witnesses,
I see, so the Amity, the printer and the conneaut witnesses in your mind are not independent witnesses.
Dan wrote: apparently confused about the Book of Mormon’s contents,
So says Dan with his unwarranted speculation
Dan wrote: undoubtedly interested to provide evidence against the hated Mormon religion,
Had they been the ones to approach the media, had they given indications they were highly motivated to discredit Mormonism by lying about what Smith wrote..you might have a point..but you don't. They did not go out of their way to give statements, and the printer confirms that Spalding wrote a story in biblical style.
and drawing on vague twenty-year-old memories, it is highly probable that they were confused, mistaken, and trying too hard.
No because memory does get jogged and people do know when they that memory is being jogged when that memory has been formed and has associated source memory attached. Added to that fact that there are too many recalling a biblical style manuscript written by Spalding with unique names which match..to chalk it up to memory confusion, mistaken on key respects or trying too hard.
Dan wrote: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.
Your use of and interpretation of a fictional writer Josiah Priest is best evidence for how everyone understood lost tribes is it? You've "defined the term" is correct, you have not taken into account that witnesses were describing what Spalding discussed. 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.
Dan of course I speculate as do you. But I have warrants for that, it is not irrational. I don't think their definition was unique, I think your definition is highly restricted in that you don't allow Spalding to use the lost tribes simply as a focal point and blood line to tie moundbuilders and Am. Indians to. Not only do you want to bring in the myth as being necessary , but then you want to speculate how you think everyone understood lost tribes to be, speculate that the witnesses thought the Book of Mormon was a lost tribe story and speculate they were trying to make Spalding's story match the Book of Mormon this way...despite the fact the Book of Mormon has about 2 mentions of lost tribes in the whole thing.
You've blown this lost tribes issue way out of proportion in an obvious attempt to rescue your theory by discrediting the S/R witnesses. You do not apply the same critical standards against the Book of Mormon witnesses as you do against the S/R witnesses. And you fallaciously use the Book of Mormon witnesses as reliable evidence to dismiss the S/R witnesses.
Dan wrote: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.
Dan..lost tribes is a concept. It's has a historical foundation which is scholarly accepted did happen..that historical fact ends from the point of exile in 720B.C. After that is speculation ...of which some religious people inspired by Esdras ..speculate a particular myth..and some have written books to enlarge upon that myth. Spalding would likely have known about those speculations but appreciated them as such. The witnesses were recalling Spalding's story and what he told them.
Dan wrote: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.
I've address this above.
And today I've spent way too much time on this.
***********************************************************
Dan I think it's gotten to the point that you are committing the fallacy
Proof by verbosity
• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
(from wiki)
This is an example in which you appear to be addressing my point and making an argument but you are not..and to untangle it, for me is simply too time consuming. It's an intellectually dishonest rhetorical ploy.
Link: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=459292#p459292
…[size=85]but after reviewing Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion, I will modify my point. This statement is based on philosopher Philip Kitcher’s analysis of what an ad hoc move or invention does, that is, by implication. It deals with a larger philosophical discussion on disproving hypotheses in general (see their discussion of the Quine-Duhem hypothsis on p. 155, as well as the problem of underdeterminism), not just with ad hocs.
I fail to see any modification. The point I was addressing was your comment: “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs".
Ad hocs are a result of changes to background assumptions done to maintain a hypothesis…that’s what the book you are using says. It's not simply a matter of changing "background assumptions", the changes must also be irrational, that is unwarranted with any evidence and reasoning except that it's done to maintain a hypothesis or claim. So ad hoc fallacy is not simply a matter of changing the hypothesis or claim by adding new evidence or warranted reasoning. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It’s the irrational changes to background assumptions Dan, those which which lack evidence and warranted reasoning..that are considered ad hoc fallacy.
Let’s look at the quote from Kitcher that you bring up as somehow supporting your position.
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
How is the relevant to your claim: "Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs." ? What that quote is discussing is the interdependence of scientific theories, that each one does not exist independent of all others. One theory can not contradict another.
You also added this from copi:
The general situation seems to be that it is not necessary to invoke ad hoc hypotheses—in either the second or third senses of the term, which are the derogatory ones—to prevent experiments from being crucial. Even if we confine our attention to theoretically significant hypotheses, and never invoke any ad hoc hypotheses at all, no experiments are ever crucial for individual hypotheses, since hypotheses are testable only in groups. (p. 454 in 1972 ed.).
Again Dan this has nothing to do with your claim that I addressed “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs.” It doesn’t refute my argument "which is that it is irrational changes in background assumptions as defenses against adverse evidence which is ad hoc fallacy" against your statement that “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence but they’re not ad hocs”.
So I’ll be interested to see if we can resolve this one issue or not.[/quote]
[/size]