Cont'd "ad hoc fallacy/Occam's Razor" from another thread

[_marg]

As I still have more posts of Dan’s to respond to and we’ve already had an extensive amount in the thread Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

I’ll continue my responses in this thread, so as this issue will not be a distraction to the issues of the theories under consideration.

The following excerpt from Dan’s post gives the essential point I’m arguing against, which is Dan’s use of Occam’s Razor and ad hoc fallacy to reject the S/R theory.

Post reference: link to post by Dan - Mon May 16, 2011 6:21 am


Dan wrote:
"I never said that Smith-alone is the correct theory merely because it was the simplest. I said that Occam’s Razor favors the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and ad hoc theories, that when a theory increasingly relies on these things that it will eventually fall out of favor."


My response: Mon May 23, 2011 12:07 pm

To the first part regarding Occam’s Razor it is applicable only in situations where they are 2 or more theories with equal explanatory power explaining the data equally well. In that case simplest explanation is usually the best choice...less unnecessary data.

Smith alone and S/R theory do not have equal explanatory power ..do not explain the data equally..Occam’s Razor is not applicable in any sense in choosing between those 2 theories.

Now onto your second part which is ‘that increasing ad hoc justification indicates a problem with a theory’.

In science theories are dependent on assumptions such as the tools or apparatus used, reasoning applied/interpretation of data, previously accepted theories. So a new hypothesis relies upon previously established information, tools and theories. In science all of the previous data is considered temporary...not absolute. So it's perfectly acceptable to changes assumptions if it seems doing so is warranted. So if a new hypothesis changes the background assumptions that other previously accepted data, tools, theories are not reliable and it’s done for the sole reason of maintaining the new hypothesis..the chances are going to be that the more assumptions that have previously been established as reliable that need to be changed, the more likely the problem is with the new hypothesis. The more ad hoc changed assumptions to previously accepted theories the more likely it is the ad hoc changes that are wrong as opposed to the previous theories and/or tools, data or theories.

That is why Dan, it is said the more ad hoc changes to assumptions(in science) done in order to maintain a hypothesis the more likely there is a problem with a new hypothesis.

What happens in science, is far removed rationally from what you are doing in your argumentation. Your counter arguments against S/R theory as I’ve pointed out are your opinion. There is no justification your opinion is superior to the opinion of S/R advocates. For S/R advocates to counter your opinion which has no objective verifiability ..is not irrational..especially when there are good warrants to do so.

To emphasize …your counter opinions to S/R theory have not been objectively established as being superior or more reliably true that S/R claims. So to respond to your opinion is not ad hoc fallacy,or another way of putting it. It is not faulty reasoning to respond to opinions which may themselves be faulty and unreliable.

So all those counter explanations to your opinion are not ad hoc fallacy.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
These are links to posts in the discussion Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available



Summary of previous post discussion with links on Occamr’s Razor with Dan Marg -Sat May 14, 2011 11:28 pm

My post to Dan –more on ad hoc fallacy: Marg Sun May 15, 2011 10:59 am

My response to Dan’s justification of how he uses Occam’s Razor
Marg -Mon May 16, 2011 5:30 pm

Another response to Dan on his use of Occam’s Razor and his shifting focus away from that issue onto words I used
Marg -Tue May 17, 2011 4:52 pm

First post- ad hoc fallacy explanation to Dan: Marg- Mon May 16, 2011 8:42 am

Second post – ad hoc fallacy explanation to Dan
Marg-Wed May 18, 2011 6:00 pm

Dan’s response to my May 15 post: Dan -Wed May 18, 2011 4:12 pm

My post to Glenn on ad hoc fallacy Marg -Thu May 19, 2011 12:31 pm


Dan’s response to my post addressed to Glenn on May 19, 12:31 p.m. Dan -Thu May 19, 2011 9:59 pm

My partial response to Dan’s post of May 19, 9:59Marg-Fri May 20, 2011 9:42 am

A continuation of my partial response to Dan on May 20, 9:42 a.m.
Marg - Fri May 20, 2011 12:20 pm

Dan’s response to my post on May 20, 9:42 a.m.Dan-Fri May 20, 2011 10:02 pm

First response to Dan’s May 20, 10:02 post
Marg -Sat May 21, 2011 8:38 am

Second response to Dan’s May 20, 10:02 post: Marg-Sun May 22, 2011 4:06 pm

Third response to Dan’s May 20, 10:02 post: Marg - Tue May 24, 2011 3:13 pm

Fourth response to Dan’s May 20, 10:02 post: Marg- Tue May 24, 2011 5:10 pm

Fifth response to Dan’s May 20, 10:02 post:
Marg - Tue May 24, 2011 5:43 pm

Dan’s response to my May 21 post:
Dan - Tue May 24, 2011 10:00 pm

Dan’s post on conspiracy theory:
Dan - Wed May 25, 2011 9:10 am

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Responding to your post of 21 May on ad hoc hypotheses.

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

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.

I don’t see “ad hoc” in this quote, 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. This is why Copi says:

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.).

My focus is less theoretical and more on the construction of the argument in the avoidance of adverse evidence, which is why the quote of me above continues:

… but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind

I was responding to your assertion that

There is “faulty reasoning” with after the fact changes of assumptions which is ad hoc fallacy and then there is after the fact reasoning/ ad hoc, which is reasonable and plausible and has nothing to do with faulty reasoning. My ad hocs which you accuse of being fallacious are reasonable and plausible and have nothing to do with the ad hoc fallacy.

There aren’t two groups of ad hocs—one that adjusts background theories using “faulty reasoning” and others that are “reasonable and plausible” that don’t change background assumptions and therefore are legitimate. Copi distinguishes three kinds of ad hocs (p. 452-53):

1. An after-the-fact explanation with empirically testable consequences, which haven’t been done at time of formulation—which may or may not be confirmed.
2. An after-the-fact hypothesis which accounts only for the particular fact or facts it was invented to explain and has no other explanatory power, that is, no testable consequences.
3. A descriptive generalization that has no explanatory power or theoretical scope.

It’s not always which category of ad hoc that matters—it’s the amount and a disposition to use them that weigh a theory down. This is why Wiki on “ad hoc hypotheses” states:

Naturally, some gaps in knowledge, and even falsifying observations must be temporarily tolerated while research continues. To temper ad hoc hypothesizing in science, common practice includes Falsificationism (somewhat in the philosophy of Occam's Razor). Falsificationism means scientists become more likely to reject a theory as it becomes increasingly burdened by ignored falsifying observations and ad hoc hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

Another source attempts to distinguish between science and pseudo-science:

You call something ad hoc when it's introduced for a particular purpose, instead of for some general, antecedently motivated reason. So, for instance, an ad hoc decision is a decision you make when there's no general rule or precedent telling you what to do.
Philosophers sometimes accuse their opponents of making ad hoc hypotheses (or ad hoc stipulations, or ad hoc amendments to their analyses, etc.). These are hypotheses (or stipulations or amendments) adopted purely for the purpose of saving a theory from difficulty or refutation, without any independent motivation or rationale. They will usually strike the reader as artificial or "cheating."
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/glossary.html

Not all illegitimate ad hocs are irrational—it has more to do with the irrational use of them. Often blatant examples are used from pseudo-science to make the point more clear, but they also happen in less clear-cut situations. As one source discussing ad hocs explained:

Often enough, the decisive experiments and observations ringing the death knell of a theory are only to be identified in retrospect. However, even if the distinction between ad hoc moves and the legitimate introduction of auxiliaries may be vague in a technical sense, or difficult to distinguish in historical cases, some examples are so blatantly ad hoc that they cannot be regarded as legitimate by any stretch of reasoning. Indeed, by having a look at such blatant examples of ad hoc reasoning from the hinterland of pseudoscience, we may be better able to make sense of charges of adhocness in more complicated cases.

-- The Hypothesis that Saves the Day. Ad hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience
(draft version - to appear in Logique et Analyse)
http://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/ad-hoc

This same source goes on to use examples from pseudo-science to illuminate general principles:

Or similarly, consider the defender of biorhythm theory who resorts to the hypothesis that some people are “arrhythmic” some of the time when his predictions do not fit the observed patterns. (Carroll 2003, p. 7) Why are we entitled to reject these moves of ad hoc? Because we realize that, by the same token, any failed prediction can be explained away, and hence that there are no constraints on the use of the (type of) auxiliary hypothesis in question. …

As is clear from these examples, the broader context of a theoretical move is fundamental with regard to its being ad hoc. Although the presumption of ad hoc reasoning is strongest when we have actually witnessed several instances of opportunistic and inconsequential use of an auxiliary hypothesis, suspicion can also be warranted on the basis of a single case, provided that the lack of constraints is immediately transparent, and that it is clear that the hypothesis can yield nothing beyond explaining away particular failures.

In historiography, ad hocs are “suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs” (McCullagh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method). That is, suppositions that have no evidentiary basis. They are quite rational, although they are unfalsifiable. Historical interpretations with fewer ad hocs are given preference.

NOW BACK TO YOUR RESPONSES--

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.

An illegitimate move isn’t always obvious and “irrational”—some can be quite reasonable and beguiling. NOTE YOU HAVE GIVEN NO SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM AND HAVE IGNORED MY REFERENCES TO DEFINITIONS.

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.”

You must have a later edition than mine. I did not locate this quote in my copy, which is the 1972 edition. Regardless, the adjustments in background theory may or may not be legitimate until independently tested. In historiography, testing and verification can’t happen the way it does in science, so pointing to Watson’s and Crick’s ad hoc that turned out to be right isn’t applicable with historical ad hocs. Note the example Schick and Vaughn give (which is also in Copi):

Theory 1: The earth is flat.

Theory 2: The earth is round.

Evidence from observation: If earth were flat all parts of ship would shrink from view at same rate; instead the bottom parts disappear before top—therefore earth is round.

Ad hoc hypothesis: What makes the lower part disappear first is atmospheric refraction called the zetetic law of perspective.

This move in response to adverse evidence was ad hoc, not simply because it was after the fact, but because it introduced a new concept that had no support outside defending the flat-earth theory and was untestable and unfalsifiable in that day. By implication it challenged a background theory that light travels in a straight line, but the ad hoc part was the invention of an untestable and unfalsifiable theory or explanation (although Copi says it was potentially testable and therefore should be placed in the first category mentioned above).

Note also that at the time this ad hoc was issued, the inventor (Parallax) had a degree of plausibility. To Parallax, common sense said the earth was flat and, since that is so obviously true, there had to be another explanation for the observations. This is also true of vitamin C analogy you quoted. The assumption that vitamin C works justified the ad hoc explanation—no matter how unlikely the explanation seemed to those not sharing the assumption. This is also true for the ad hocs you have invented in response to adverse evidence for the S/R theory. Also note that round-earth advocates could not immediately disprove Parallax’s theory, which allowed the flat-earth theory to live longer than it needed to.

You quote the following from Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion of legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs:

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.

Then comment--

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.

Of course they are not talking about opinion. They are talking about scientific hypotheses—good and bad. The bad one’s that no longer have any force or basis might be called opinions in a loose way. But once an opinion is formulated into a hypothesis or argument, it’s no longer just an opinion. T. Edward Damer explains:

Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between an argument and the expression of a personal opinion. They use the words “argument” and “opinion” interchangeably. … When students criticize an argument by saying of its conclusion something like, “Well, that’s just his (or her) opinion,” I remind them that an opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is no longer “just an opinion.” It may not be a very good argument, but it is no longer “just an opinion”; it is just a bad argument. All claims, even those that are the conclusions of arguments, are, of course, still opinions. The question is whether they are supported opinions or unsupported ones. An argument is a supported opinion. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 12)

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.

This is nearly unintelligible. (by the way, I put a lot of unnecessary time in just deciphering your crabbed prose.) You now seem to change your approach. It’s not about legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs; it’s now about subjective opinion. Your position is really getting convoluted. Let me finish this thought for you, because all you have done is insinuate such is the case without actually going through the steps. If you recall, I already did this in a previous post:

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

Note that Step two is not unsupported opinion, but unlike your trick hat response is supported by evidence. Verification has no meaning in this context. It’s not my opinion, it’s based on evidence—eyewitness testimony--analysis of the evidence (which we went through), and argument. The same is true for “lost tribes”, to which you responded with ad hoc definitions and extended speculation about what Spalding could have written. I told you fantasy is not evidence. Ben’s and Glenn’s interpretation was grounded in defining the term according to the cultural lexicon of the day in which the statements were given; your definition was idiosyncratic and unsupported. You can go through the same steps above if you like, and it will show that your claim that the Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on is challenged by their mention of “ten tribes”, and that your attempt to save them is ad hoc and without foundation.

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.

That’s not a true characterization of what’s been going. The initial Spalding claim is founded on testimony, which by itself is incomplete, so immediately speculation and conspiracy theory began to proliferate into a complex theory. The way the conspiracy theory has been managed (without actual evidence), it’s a magical agent explaining and explaining away major portions of the evidence. That’s verges on the irrational, and conspiracy in this instance substitutes for gods and ghosts. This is not the normal situation in historiography. Nonetheless, you state that historical evidence is “open to subjective interpretation”, then attempt to diminish counter-evidence by implying that it’s not “objective verifiable evidence which confutes.” This betrays a basic ignorance of what happens in historical analysis. It also implies that all historical interpretations are mere opinions and carry the same warrant and historical weight. I hope that’s not what you mean, because that would be relativism. I’m not accusing anyone of ad hoc fallacy because they don’t accept my counter-evidence, but because they actually are committing it. I’m attempting to get them to deal more honestly with the sources. If you can’t use the trick-hat theory, then you will have to face the full force of eyewitness testimony.

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.

Why the ad hominem? Don’t be silly. You know I didn’t invent this discussion of ad hoc maneuvering against counter-evidence.

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.

[1] S/R claim: MF existed

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

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

This is kind of a comical reconstruction of the debate, which makes me question if you understand the issues involved. You have more than one thread of argument mixed together, and no clearly developed idea. I numbered the steps for comment, with the strands of argument labeled [a], [b].

[1a] To make sense with the next step, this should read--“S/R claim: MF was used in the production of the Book of Mormon.”

[1b] “S/R claim: MF existed” is vague and packed with several complicating issues, which S/R advocates have the burden to prove. This should be reworded.

[Second Amendment] “Dan: The Book of Mormon witnesses say Smith didn’t use any manuscript.” The rest (“so their say so should be accepted as fact”) is hyperbole and violates the rule of charity, which stipulates that “if a participant’s argument is reformatted by an opponent, it should be in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer” (Damer, 5). You know that my handling of the eyewitness testimony is not naïve or uncritical. Your use of the Spalding witnesses, however, is. This is legitimate counter-evidence to [1a]. The part about “and their say so overrules S/R witnesses” is better stated as—“Since Mormon testimony is less problematic than the 20-year-old memories of the Spalding witnesses, explanations involving memory studies are relevant.”

[2b] “Dan: MF doesn’t physically exist therefore it never existed.” The last sentence is a misrepresentation of my position. While a missing MS is consistent with there never having been a MF, it’s not proof of it. However, it is a problem for those who suggest Hurlbut recovered two MSS, which leads them to speculate ad hoc that Hurlbut sold MF to the Mormons.

[3a] Nothing.

[3b] “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.” I never made the argument above [2b], and I never said there weren’t warrants for believing MF existed. Each piece of evidence has to be examined and given relative historical weight. That’s a different discussion than the one you are formulating here. This isn’t in response to [2b], but rather should be the beginning of the discussion in [1b], as part of the burden of proof. To which opponents can respond. None of which is reflected in step [2].

[4] “Dan: You are committing an ad hoc fallacy, you have no verifiable evidence and you are simply making the argument to save your theory.” This is a non sequitur. This conclusion doesn’t follow from the preceding.

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

As I said, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy or logic or historical methodology.

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.

Your statement about “verifiable” is an attempt to apply scientific language to historiography. This is a red herring. Everyone knows history isn’t science, but that doesn’t mean that some historical reconstructions are not better than others. It’s not just people expressing opinions; it’s the marshalling of arguments and evidence, according to certain standards. Historians talk about ad hocs too, not just scientists. You have only shown that you don’t know what an ad hoc is, and therefore are doomed to repeat this mistake. You mentioned warrants above; we are attempting to determine who has the best. Both can’t be right. That can’t be done when you want to short-circuit the process by avoiding counter-evidence with ad hoc rationalizations.

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.

I never made such an argument. You postulated the MS existed and was recovered by Hurlbut. This begged the question of what happened to the MS, and why Hurlbut didn’t use it? The question was so obvious no one had to ask it. This forced S/R advocates to invent an ad hoc about selling it to the Mormons. So don’t blame me for a problem you created.

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.

As I keep saying, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy. Historians talk about it all the time.

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

It’s ridiculous that you even brought up the trick-hat theory to distract and delay consideration of the eyewitness testimony.

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.

No, Marg. As I showed time and again, the initial claim is that a MS was used by Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. The counter-evidence is the eyewitness testimony about the head in a hat. Your counter to that is the trick-hat theory, which is ad hoc—plainly and simply.

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’.

You are repeating yourself, and still not making any sense whatsoever. You are desperately trying to find a quibble-point. You are missing a chance to improve your historical skills. We have gone over the witnesses already and found that you are hypercritical and biased against them due to their beliefs and religious experiences and your own over-commitment to a theory. You sense the weakness in your handling of the witnesses, which is the reason you resorted to the trick-hat theory. You are attempting to dismiss the witnesses categorically when they represent a myriad of situations.

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.

Gibberish. It’s irrational of you to make such a ludicrous statement. The trick hat would have been employed more than a few times for Emma, but for all the witnesses if we dismiss your other ad hoc theory that most of the witnesses were part of the conspiracy. Of course, your trick-hat theory was designed to save S/R theory from the implications of eyewitness testimony. I’m not irrationally using ad hoc fallacy to dismiss the S/R theory—it can’t do that. What it can do is limit the kinds of responses you can make to adverse evidence, or at the very least recognize their weakness, especially as responses in debate.

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.

This kind of conclusion is why it hard to take you seriously. You are saying things that sound dismissive, but in fact have no meaning at all.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Responding to your post of 21 May on ad hoc hypotheses.

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

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.

I don’t see “ad hoc” in this quote, 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. This is why Copi says:

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.).

My focus is less theoretical and more on the construction of the argument in the avoidance of adverse evidence, which is why the quote of me above continues:

… but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind

I was responding to your assertion that

There is “faulty reasoning” with after the fact changes of assumptions which is ad hoc fallacy and then there is after the fact reasoning/ ad hoc, which is reasonable and plausible and has nothing to do with faulty reasoning. My ad hocs which you accuse of being fallacious are reasonable and plausible and have nothing to do with the ad hoc fallacy.

There aren’t two groups of ad hocs—one that adjusts background theories using “faulty reasoning” and others that are “reasonable and plausible” that don’t change background assumptions and therefore are legitimate. Copi distinguishes three kinds of ad hocs (p. 452-53):

1. An after-the-fact explanation with empirically testable consequences, which haven’t been done at time of formulation—which may or may not be confirmed.
2. An after-the-fact hypothesis which accounts only for the particular fact or facts it was invented to explain and has no other explanatory power, that is, no testable consequences.
3. A descriptive generalization that has no explanatory power or theoretical scope.

It’s not always which category of ad hoc that matters—it’s the amount and a disposition to use them that weigh a theory down. This is why Wiki on “ad hoc hypotheses” states:

Naturally, some gaps in knowledge, and even falsifying observations must be temporarily tolerated while research continues. To temper ad hoc hypothesizing in science, common practice includes Falsificationism (somewhat in the philosophy of Occam's Razor). Falsificationism means scientists become more likely to reject a theory as it becomes increasingly burdened by ignored falsifying observations and ad hoc hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

Another source attempts to distinguish between science and pseudo-science:

You call something ad hoc when it's introduced for a particular purpose, instead of for some general, antecedently motivated reason. So, for instance, an ad hoc decision is a decision you make when there's no general rule or precedent telling you what to do.
Philosophers sometimes accuse their opponents of making ad hoc hypotheses (or ad hoc stipulations, or ad hoc amendments to their analyses, etc.). These are hypotheses (or stipulations or amendments) adopted purely for the purpose of saving a theory from difficulty or refutation, without any independent motivation or rationale. They will usually strike the reader as artificial or "cheating."
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/glossary.html

Not all illegitimate ad hocs are irrational—it has more to do with the irrational use of them. Often blatant examples are used from pseudo-science to make the point more clear, but they also happen in less clear-cut situations. As one source discussing ad hocs explained:

Often enough, the decisive experiments and observations ringing the death knell of a theory are only to be identified in retrospect. However, even if the distinction between ad hoc moves and the legitimate introduction of auxiliaries may be vague in a technical sense, or difficult to distinguish in historical cases, some examples are so blatantly ad hoc that they cannot be regarded as legitimate by any stretch of reasoning. Indeed, by having a look at such blatant examples of ad hoc reasoning from the hinterland of pseudoscience, we may be better able to make sense of charges of adhocness in more complicated cases.

-- The Hypothesis that Saves the Day. Ad hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience
(draft version - to appear in Logique et Analyse)
http://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/ad-hoc

This same source goes on to use examples from pseudo-science to illuminate general principles:

Or similarly, consider the defender of biorhythm theory who resorts to the hypothesis that some people are “arrhythmic” some of the time when his predictions do not fit the observed patterns. (Carroll 2003, p. 7) Why are we entitled to reject these moves of ad hoc? Because we realize that, by the same token, any failed prediction can be explained away, and hence that there are no constraints on the use of the (type of) auxiliary hypothesis in question. …

As is clear from these examples, the broader context of a theoretical move is fundamental with regard to its being ad hoc. Although the presumption of ad hoc reasoning is strongest when we have actually witnessed several instances of opportunistic and inconsequential use of an auxiliary hypothesis, suspicion can also be warranted on the basis of a single case, provided that the lack of constraints is immediately transparent, and that it is clear that the hypothesis can yield nothing beyond explaining away particular failures.

In historiography, ad hocs are “suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs” (McCullagh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method). That is, suppositions that have no evidentiary basis. They are quite rational, although they are unfalsifiable. Historical interpretations with fewer ad hocs are given preference.

NOW BACK TO YOUR RESPONSES--

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.

An illegitimate move isn’t always obvious and “irrational”—some can be quite reasonable and beguiling. NOTE YOU HAVE GIVEN NO SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM AND HAVE IGNORED MY REFERENCES TO DEFINITIONS.

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.”

You must have a later edition than mine. I did not locate this quote in my copy, which is the 1972 edition. Regardless, the adjustments in background theory may or may not be legitimate until independently tested. In historiography, testing and verification can’t happen the way it does in science, so pointing to Watson’s and Crick’s ad hoc that turned out to be right isn’t applicable with historical ad hocs. Note the example Schick and Vaughn give (which is also in Copi):

Theory 1: The earth is flat.

Theory 2: The earth is round.

Evidence from observation: If earth were flat all parts of ship would shrink from view at same rate; instead the bottom parts disappear before top—therefore earth is round.

Ad hoc hypothesis: What makes the lower part disappear first is atmospheric refraction called the zetetic law of perspective.

This move in response to adverse evidence was ad hoc, not simply because it was after the fact, but because it introduced a new concept that had no support outside defending the flat-earth theory and was untestable and unfalsifiable in that day. By implication it challenged a background theory that light travels in a straight line, but the ad hoc part was the invention of an untestable and unfalsifiable theory or explanation (although Copi says it was potentially testable and therefore should be placed in the first category mentioned above).

Note also that at the time this ad hoc was issued, the inventor (Parallax) had a degree of plausibility. To Parallax, common sense said the earth was flat and, since that is so obviously true, there had to be another explanation for the observations. This is also true of vitamin C analogy you quoted. The assumption that vitamin C works justified the ad hoc explanation—no matter how unlikely the explanation seemed to those not sharing the assumption. This is also true for the ad hocs you have invented in response to adverse evidence for the S/R theory. Also note that round-earth advocates could not immediately disprove Parallax’s theory, which allowed the flat-earth theory to live longer than it needed to.

You quote the following from Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion of legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs:

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.

Then comment--

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.

Of course they are not talking about opinion. They are talking about scientific hypotheses—good and bad. The bad one’s that no longer have any force or basis might be called opinions in a loose way. But once an opinion is formulated into a hypothesis or argument, it’s no longer just an opinion. T. Edward Damer explains:

Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between an argument and the expression of a personal opinion. They use the words “argument” and “opinion” interchangeably. … When students criticize an argument by saying of its conclusion something like, “Well, that’s just his (or her) opinion,” I remind them that an opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is no longer “just an opinion.” It may not be a very good argument, but it is no longer “just an opinion”; it is just a bad argument. All claims, even those that are the conclusions of arguments, are, of course, still opinions. The question is whether they are supported opinions or unsupported ones. An argument is a supported opinion. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 12)

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.

This is nearly unintelligible. (by the way, I put a lot of unnecessary time in just deciphering your crabbed prose.) You now seem to change your approach. It’s not about legitimate and illegitimate ad hocs; it’s now about subjective opinion. Your position is really getting convoluted. Let me finish this thought for you, because all you have done is insinuate such is the case without actually going through the steps. If you recall, I already did this in a previous post:

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

Note that Step two is not unsupported opinion, but unlike your trick hat response is supported by evidence. Verification has no meaning in this context. It’s not my opinion, it’s based on evidence—eyewitness testimony--analysis of the evidence (which we went through), and argument. The same is true for “lost tribes”, to which you responded with ad hoc definitions and extended speculation about what Spalding could have written. I told you fantasy is not evidence. Ben’s and Glenn’s interpretation was grounded in defining the term according to the cultural lexicon of the day in which the statements were given; your definition was idiosyncratic and unsupported. You can go through the same steps above if you like, and it will show that your claim that the Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on is challenged by their mention of “ten tribes”, and that your attempt to save them is ad hoc and without foundation.

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.

That’s not a true characterization of what’s been going. The initial Spalding claim is founded on testimony, which by itself is incomplete, so immediately speculation and conspiracy theory began to proliferate into a complex theory. The way the conspiracy theory has been managed (without actual evidence), it’s a magical agent explaining and explaining away major portions of the evidence. That’s verges on the irrational, and conspiracy in this instance substitutes for gods and ghosts. This is not the normal situation in historiography. Nonetheless, you state that historical evidence is “open to subjective interpretation”, then attempt to diminish counter-evidence by implying that it’s not “objective verifiable evidence which confutes.” This betrays a basic ignorance of what happens in historical analysis. It also implies that all historical interpretations are mere opinions and carry the same warrant and historical weight. I hope that’s not what you mean, because that would be relativism. I’m not accusing anyone of ad hoc fallacy because they don’t accept my counter-evidence, but because they actually are committing it. I’m attempting to get them to deal more honestly with the sources. If you can’t use the trick-hat theory, then you will have to face the full force of eyewitness testimony.

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.

Why the ad hominem? Don’t be silly. You know I didn’t invent this discussion of ad hoc maneuvering against counter-evidence.

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.

[1] S/R claim: MF existed

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

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

This is kind of a comical reconstruction of the debate, which makes me question if you understand the issues involved. You have more than one thread of argument mixed together, and no clearly developed idea. I numbered the steps for comment, with the strands of argument labeled [a], [b].

[1a] To make sense with the next step, this should read--“S/R claim: MF was used in the production of the Book of Mormon.”

[1b] “S/R claim: MF existed” is vague and packed with several complicating issues, which S/R advocates have the burden to prove. This should be reworded.

[Second Amendment] “Dan: The Book of Mormon witnesses say Smith didn’t use any manuscript.” The rest (“so their say so should be accepted as fact”) is hyperbole and violates the rule of charity, which stipulates that “if a participant’s argument is reformatted by an opponent, it should be in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer” (Damer, 5). You know that my handling of the eyewitness testimony is not naïve or uncritical. Your use of the Spalding witnesses, however, is. This is legitimate counter-evidence to [1a]. The part about “and their say so overrules S/R witnesses” is better stated as—“Since Mormon testimony is less problematic than the 20-year-old memories of the Spalding witnesses, explanations involving memory studies are relevant.”

[2b] “Dan: MF doesn’t physically exist therefore it never existed.” The last sentence is a misrepresentation of my position. While a missing MS is consistent with there never having been a MF, it’s not proof of it. However, it is a problem for those who suggest Hurlbut recovered two MSS, which leads them to speculate ad hoc that Hurlbut sold MF to the Mormons.

[3a] Nothing.

[3b] “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.” I never made the argument above [2b], and I never said there weren’t warrants for believing MF existed. Each piece of evidence has to be examined and given relative historical weight. That’s a different discussion than the one you are formulating here. This isn’t in response to [2b], but rather should be the beginning of the discussion in [1b], as part of the burden of proof. To which opponents can respond. None of which is reflected in step [2].

[4] “Dan: You are committing an ad hoc fallacy, you have no verifiable evidence and you are simply making the argument to save your theory.” This is a non sequitur. This conclusion doesn’t follow from the preceding.

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

As I said, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy or logic or historical methodology.

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.

Your statement about “verifiable” is an attempt to apply scientific language to historiography. This is a red herring. Everyone knows history isn’t science, but that doesn’t mean that some historical reconstructions are not better than others. It’s not just people expressing opinions; it’s the marshalling of arguments and evidence, according to certain standards. Historians talk about ad hocs too, not just scientists. You have only shown that you don’t know what an ad hoc is, and therefore are doomed to repeat this mistake. You mentioned warrants above; we are attempting to determine who has the best. Both can’t be right. That can’t be done when you want to short-circuit the process by avoiding counter-evidence with ad hoc rationalizations.

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.

I never made such an argument. You postulated the MS existed and was recovered by Hurlbut. This begged the question of what happened to the MS, and why Hurlbut didn’t use it? The question was so obvious no one had to ask it. This forced S/R advocates to invent an ad hoc about selling it to the Mormons. So don’t blame me for a problem you created.

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.

As I keep saying, I didn’t invent ad hoc fallacy. Historians talk about it all the time.

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

It’s ridiculous that you even brought up the trick-hat theory to distract and delay consideration of the eyewitness testimony.

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.

No, Marg. As I showed time and again, the initial claim is that a MS was used by Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. The counter-evidence is the eyewitness testimony about the head in a hat. Your counter to that is the trick-hat theory, which is ad hoc—plainly and simply.

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’.

You are repeating yourself, and still not making any sense whatsoever. You are desperately trying to find a quibble-point. You are missing a chance to improve your historical skills. We have gone over the witnesses already and found that you are hypercritical and biased against them due to their beliefs and religious experiences and your own over-commitment to a theory. You sense the weakness in your handling of the witnesses, which is the reason you resorted to the trick-hat theory. You are attempting to dismiss the witnesses categorically when they represent a myriad of situations.

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.

Gibberish. It’s irrational of you to make such a ludicrous statement. The trick hat would have been employed more than a few times for Emma, but for all the witnesses if we dismiss your other ad hoc theory that most of the witnesses were part of the conspiracy. Of course, your trick-hat theory was designed to save S/R theory from the implications of eyewitness testimony. I’m not irrationally using ad hoc fallacy to dismiss the S/R theory—it can’t do that. What it can do is limit the kinds of responses you can make to adverse evidence, or at the very least recognize their weakness, especially as responses in debate.

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.

This kind of conclusion is why it hard to take you seriously. You are saying things that sound dismissive, but in fact have no meaning at all.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Response to your post of May 23:

Ok…let’s take ad hoc fallacy out of the context of science. I don’t think I agree with you that “objective verifiability” isn’t required of ad hoc fallacy even out of the context of science. Here's why, if the argument or just the counter argument is a matter of mere opinion, unless there is an agreed to means beforehand on how to determine superiority of views there is no means to justify which opinion is better without some parameter to do so. Objectively verifiable evidence and reasoning used in science is a means to judge which claim can be relied upon. Predictions which bear out support that this method works.

There are agreed to values (simplicity, scope, fruitfulness, etc.) for good theory building. Counter-evidence is evidence of any kind, not just opinion. If it were unsupported opinion, it can be ignored. An opinion in argument form, is no longer just an opinion, and is subject to refutation. If counter-evidence is weak, it can be easily refuted without resorting to ad hoc speculation. When ad hocs are used, it’s usually because there is no other way to respond. If there is no evidentiary or logical response, you might consider the counter evidence is good. However, if you remain committed to your theory (and there’s nothing particularly wrong with that), you might acknowledge the lower level from which you are arguing and not be so dogmatic in your presentation of imaginative answers.

So taking a look at ad hoc fallacy outside of science..let’s look at the horse/tapir situation.

Mormonism claim: There were according to the Book of Mormon, horses living in America during the period 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Critic Counter claim: There is no scientific evidence horses lived in America during that period.

Mormon apologetic response:..There were tapirs living during that time period and Smith was translating in his mind, but didn’t know the word for Tapir so to him using his knowledge and vocabulary he said “horse”.

Mormon apologists count on the construction of ad hoc responses that can’t be tested but have a degree of plausibility. They know this theory of translation will never be tested. They employ the fallacy of proof by analogy by referencing what happens in translation generally, then they appeal to the fallacy of possible proof, which (according to David Hackett Fischer) “consists in an attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity” (Historian’s Fallacies, p. 53).

So what is happening here is it’s an irrational response(lacking evidence and reasoning) meant solely to maintain and justify the original claim. There is no objective evidence that Smith was translating anything or had any such ability. Those trying to maintain the original claim of horses in America during the time period in question are changing the background assumptions, 'that words Smith expressed meant what he said'. If meanings of words can simply be changed, then the counter argument against the original claim is done away with and can not be maintained and rationally supported. There is no rational argument using objective reasoning and evidence against the original claim when an irrational argument is presenting changing the background assumption that Smith meant what he said. So future rational discourse is not possible.

It’s more complicated than this. It’s not the critic’s job to disprove Book of Mormon historicity by referencing possible historical anachronism (the Book of Mormon’s mention of horse among others); it’s the Mormon apologist’s burden to prove the horse existed in pre-Columbian America. Disconfirmation is tricky because something could always be discovered that will remove the criticism. Apologists sometimes say—the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. In this instance, however, the likelihood that the horse will be found, especially in Mesoamerica, is so remote that the apologists themselves have given up hope and moved to the next argument—which places it forever in the realm of the untestable. Calling this move “irrational” doesn’t exactly fit, because it is quite rational and plausible—but plausible is easy to achieve with enough ingenuity and imagination. But is it probable, especially when this apologetic device is used for steel, elephant, wheat, and a host of flora and fauna. To mention that there is no “objective evidence” that Joseph Smith was translating an ancient record is begging the question. If there was such evidence, there would be no need to make these lower level arguments. In fact, if there were such evidence for Joseph Smith’s translation of gold plates and the Book of Mormon’s historicity were not doubted, then the historical anachronisms could be explained by arguments from translation. Until then, the apologists are using ad hoc reasoning built on the assumption the Book of Mormon is a translation to explain away counter-evidence. This move short-circuits the testing process—that is, assuming historicity to see if it fits and what anachronisms might appear. Apologists use this assumption to find parallels to antiquity, but ignore anachronisms, which they try to explain away by using the same assumption. The Book of Mormon must be true, so there must be some explanation for the anachronism. In absence of direct evidence to ancient America, disconfirming evidence is crucial; but apologists nullify the test by explaining the evidence away with their ad hocs.

This is an example of ad hoc fallacy. This discussion is not simply a matter of one opinion versus another …the counter argument successfully argued using evidence and reasoning against the original claim of horses existing. It employs a justified means to judge a claim using objective verifiable evidence. The counter Mormon apologetic response has no warrants for justification, it's an irrational response meant only to maintain original claim against the rational critical counter.

The critics’ use of negative evidence can’t be described as “objective verifiable evidence”—yet it does have some force and legitimacy that motivated apologists to change their wait-and-see stance. The argument from translation is plausible, but still ad hoc because it is a speculation that is unverifiable or untestable that was called into existence for the sole purpose of escaping adverse evidence.

Now let’s look at what you call ad hoc fallacy involving the S/R theory.

S/R theory: MF existed and Hurlbut might have sold it.

Dan: There is no evidence of MF. Evidence against MF’s existence is Book of Mormon witness statements that Smith did not use any other material during translation process.

S/R response: There are warrants to justify MF existed. Hurlbut stopping in Palmyra to inform and have them print he obtained what he wanted and that Rigdon was the person who added religious matter to Book of Mormon. Conneaut witnesses, printer and Amity witnesses all testify to a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style not consistent with MSCC.

Dan’s response: that’s ad hoc fallacy..because it's meant to maintain original claim, and solely for that claim and the response is not objectively verifiable.

This is just as messed up as the other examples you have tried to create. There is no clear thread of thought.

S/R theory: MF existed and Hurlbut might have sold it.

This needs to be expressed in argument form. As written, it’s has the appearance of mere opinion, which can be ignored.

Dan: There is no evidence of MF. Evidence against MF’s existence is Book of Mormon witness statements that Smith did not use any other material during translation process.

As should be clear, I would not make such a problematic and simplistic argument. This perhaps is evidence that you are not following the discussion or that you are attempting to employ a strawman argument. The absence of the MS is a problem you created for yourself when you speculated that Hurlbut recovered two MSS from the trunk, which lead you to assert the ad hoc that he possibly sold it to the Mormons. If the assertion is that MF was used in the production of the Book of Mormon, then eyewitness testimony is a problem for the Conneaut witnesses. That’s not ad hoc, but is evidence that can be argued against—but not on the grounds that it is ad hoc and untestable.

S/R response: There are warrants to justify MF existed. Hurlbut stopping in Palmyra to inform and have them print he obtained what he wanted and that Rigdon was the person who added religious matter to Book of Mormon. Conneaut witnesses, printer and Amity witnesses all testify to a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style not consistent with MSCC.

As I said in my previous response, this group of claims should occupy the first place above. To which response can be given, before it can be determined if they are ad hoc or evidentiary.

Dan’s response: that’s ad hoc fallacy..because it's meant to maintain original claim, and solely for that claim and the response is not objectively verifiable.

This conclusion makes no sense. I have not called any of the above ad hoc, nor would I. It’s based on testimony and evidence. They are primary claims, not responses to adverse evidence. This is evidence that you don’t know what ad hocs are. You are just throwing anything out that you think is a quibble point that will help you avoid this very simple concept.

Notice Dan the difference between the first situation ..in which the critic response is science which has been objectively verified and accepted. The Mormon apologetic response is not denying that horses didn’t live in America, their response though changes the background assumptions that words expressed through Smith's translation have to mean what they say.

In your ad hoc fallacy accusation against S/R theory…your evidence of Book of Mormon witness claims is highly unreliable evidence. It’s essentially their say so.and they have a vested interest, and not objectively independent. What they claim is not at all verifiable. It is only your opinion that they are reliable.

I can’t answer most of this statement because it—along with your examples above—is unintelligible and misinformed. My use of the witnesses isn’t opinion—it’s evidence. You have tried to overturn their testimony in several contradictory ways, using your own bias, invented ad hoc nonsense, conspiracy theory, but you failed. I’ll repeat what I gave Roger:

Historians don’t evaluate testimony like a polemicist does. There are no disinterested witnesses where Mormonism is concerned. Spalding witnesses aren’t objective either. Historians don’t just throw out interested testimony, but they are skeptical and proceed with caution. So, how can we test these witnesses?

Multiple witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Michael Morse (non-Mormon), Isaac Hale (non-Mormon), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Knight Sr.

Consistent story. Variety in minor details, but consistent in the main elements.

Independent testimony. Witnesses gave their testimonies in a variety of settings without collusion with one another.

Consistent over time. Essential elements remained the same from 1829 to 1880s.

Uncontroverted testimony. Any one of the named witnesses could have changed their testimony during their lifetimes, but they didn’t. Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were excommunicated in 1838. Other witnesses to the translation who never gave a statement could have come forward at any time to contradict published accounts, but that never happened either.

Incidental witnesses. Cowdery, Harris, and Emma were scribes, but the others were incidental witnesses who happened to be present on various occasions.

Supported by physical evidence (MS consistent with dictation).

Supported by incidental event (losing 116-pages MS).

Note that the testimony about the head in hat goes back before Spalding claims were made.

The S/R response to you Dan is not ad hoc fallacy. The response to you is a response to your opinion , not a response to accepted objective verifiable evidence. The response is an explanation why S/R advocates are justified in assuming a MF existed. They have strong warrants to do so.

Some of the responses S/R advocates have given are ad hoc—the ones I have mentioned. The evidence and arguments I have given as counter-evidence is not opinion. However, this assertion is based on the sloppy reasoning given above as a supposed model of what has been discussed, but that’s not what it is. So your accusations here are based on fiction and make no sense.

So to sum up I do think a component necessary for ad hoc fallacy to be justified is a means to rationally determine whether a counter claim (Dan's counter claim) is objectively verifiable. If the counter claim is essentially a matter of opinion then there is no justified reason why that opinion should be superior to the original claim.

Did you make this rule up? Let’s see some quote or reference—anything to bring your discussion into the real world. If the counter claim is mere opinion, as you say, how does that make your response any less ad hoc? Rubbish! I have given historical evidence and logical arguments for counter-evidence, not opinion. Your definition of opinion is way off. You are apparently trying to move this discussion into a false dichotomy of “opinion” vs. “objective verifiable evidence”. You were willing to call the apologists’ appeal to translation as ad hoc, and presumably the critics’ negative evidence as “objective verifiable evidence”—yet the evidence and arguments I have given suddenly become subjective opinion. Your definitions are self-serving.

The faulty reasoning is not occurring at the point of the response to you Dan. The faulty reasoning can just as easily be occuring at the point of the counter claim..(or the point you come in to critique S/R theory) because your critique or argument has no means by which to deem it superior to the S/R claim, as long as the S/R claim has justified warrants.

We haven’t discussed some of the warrants you listed. I showed how your example was backwards. You are attempting to deflect by throwing the whole theory at me. Specifically, I have said the following are ad hoc responses to my (Ben’s, Glenn’s, and others’) evidence or arguments—

Unfounded conspiracy theories to neutralize eyewitness testimony
Trick-hat theory to explain away more difficult testimony
“lost tribes” really means one tribe
Book of Mormon about lost ten tribes because Lehi from tribe of Joseph
References in the Book of Mormon to lost tribes being in the north were added
Sidney Rigdon faked his conversion
Parley P. Pratt pretended to take Mormonism to Sidney Rigdon
Hurlbut sold the MS to the Mormons
Lost 116-page MS supplied by Rigdon

And the list goes on and on …

[_marg]

Background assumptions

I want to focus on the first issue in your post and resolve it before moving on. I want to come to some sort of agreement on “background assumptions” and how it is irrational changes to them that result in ad hoc fallacy.

Dan-May 25, 6:20 pm

Post reference: link

Marg,

Responding to your post of 21 May on ad hoc hypotheses.
Quote:
Quote:
Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs


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.


I don’t see “ad hoc” in this quote, 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. This is why Copi says:
Quote:
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.).


My focus is less theoretical and more on the construction of the argument in the avoidance of adverse evidence, which is why the quote of me above continues:
Quote:
… but let’s focus on a legitimate ad hoc and the wrong kind

Dan you didn’t see “ad hoc” in the quote from the book because I used those quotes as support for my further elaboration, which you didn't quote. But since this concept isn't obvious to you, please see below further quotes from the book that do mention "ad hocs" and put into context as well as support the quotes I used which didn't specifically mention "ad hoc".

What I explained is that modifying the background assumptions to save an hypothesis or claim against recalcitrant evidence is how ad hoc occurs.

In science as copi points out the negative ad hocsor what you are calling illegitimate don’t really ever occur. That is ad hocs which are completely irrational..by irrational I mean there is absolutely no basis in reasoning and evidence for their justification ..those ad hocs don’t occur in science.

But in this discussion Dan we are transferring the logical concept of ad hocs into areas not considered pure science, but used in argumentation. If any scientist were to argue for something so irrational as gremlins, or forces unwarranted, or words used don’t mean what they say, for the purpose of maintaining or rescuing their hypothesis against adverse evidence, it simply wouldn’t be considered science.

The whole idea of ad hoc fallacy in argumentation Dan is it's an attempt to rescue a claim against adverse evidence, by using the irrational, and it’s done by changing the background assumption. By irrational Dan, I mean a response unwarranted with reasoning and evidence.

So we can look to the scientific method to appreciate ad hoc fallacy..but scientists don’t resort to the irrational the way it is resorted to outside of science. In the book that you are using “How to think about weird things”…they discuss the concept of ad hoc within the context of science. But they also say p. 181 "In general, any procedure that serves systematically to eliminate reasonable grounds for doubt can be considered scientific. You don’t have to be a scientist to use the scientific method. In fact, many of us use it every day, as biologist Thomas H Huxley realized, “science is simply common sense at its best–that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”

So I wrote right after those quotes you complain didn’t contain the words “ad hoc” that:

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
Copi P 512 wrote:
“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 since you appear not satisfied with the quote and my explanation, then I’ll quote further for you to put it into context.

From“How to Think About Weird Things (my page #’s are different than yours I believe)

p. 182. No scientific hypothesis can be conclusively confirmed because the possibility of someday finding evidence to the contrary can’t be ruled out. Scientific hypothesis always go beyond the information given. They not only explain what has been discovered, they also predict what will be discovered. Since there is no guarantee that these predictions will come true, we can never be absolutely sure that a scientific hypothesis is true.

Just as we can never conclusively confirm a scientific hypothesis, we can never conclusively comfute one either. There is widespread belief that negative results proved a hypothesis false. This belief would be true it predictions followed from individual hypothesis alone, but they don’t. Predictions can be derived from a hypothesis only in conjunction with a background theory. This background theory provides information about the object under study as well as the apparatus used to study them. If prediction turns out to be false we can always say the hypothesis by modifying the background theory.

Page 183. In general, any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse evidence if we are willing to make alterations in our background beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be conclusively confuted.

Page 184. 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 that a hypotheses 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.

Page 186. When a scientific theory starts relying on ad hoc hypothesis to be saved from adverse data it becomes unreasonable to maintain belief in that theory.

Dan please appreciate you can’t simply take one sentence out of context and think you are describing ad hoc fallacy and this is something you’ve done. You can’t simply take out the sentence “What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain.” Ad hoc fallacy involves more than that, the response must also be to recalcitrant evidence.

With regards to your comment:

…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.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So I’ll be interested to see if we can resolve this one issue or not.

I have a question -- and after it is answered I'll bow out of the
discussion (since I really have nothing to add to its content).

Scenario:

A Mormon and a Gentile are arguing over Joseph Smith, Jr.'s
1837 trial in the case of the alleged murder plot against Mr.
Grandison Newell.

The Mormon theorizes: "President Smith was falsely accused."

The Gentile theorizes: "The case against Smith was solid, and
he was wrongfully acquitted."

After considerable discussion, in which the Mormon attempts
to refute the anti-Smith historical evidence point-by-point,
the Gentile responds with new assertions:

"The case against Smith was solid, and it was dropped by the
prosecution for wrongful reasons."

In making this adjustment, the Gentile introduces court records,
showing that there was no formal acquittal issued by the court,
and that the prosecuting attorney had merely dropped charges
after his star witness did not appear for testimony. The Gentile
also cites a letter written by that same prosecutor, documenting
the fact that he had received what amounted to a bribe, in
exchange for his not conducting a search for the missing witness.

The Mormon responds -- "You cannot introduce ad hoc arguments.
There was nothing in your original theory about charges having
been dropped -- and nothing about any prosecutor's confession."

Is the Mormon's response and characterization valid?

Uncle Dale

[Guest]

We need to define our terms-- this is what I am fuzzy on. Is an argument ad hoc when it is a counter founded on evidence? Or is an argument ad hoc only when it is a counter assertion which is either offered without evidence, or, by its nature, cannot be substantiated?

In the case which you describe, Dale, that is not an ad hoc. It is a clarification of the situation. The counter-Mormon reviewed the circumstances, and found even stronger ground for his argument. That does sometimes happen.

[_Uncle Dale]

We need to define our terms-- this is what I am fuzzy on. Is an argument ad hoc when it is a counter founded on evidence? Or is an argument ad hoc only when it is a counter assertion which is either offered without evidence, or, by its nature, cannot be substantiated?

My understanding was, that unless such new "evidence" amounts
to clear "proof," then the new arguments can still be "ad hoc."

If irrefutable "proof" is offered, then the theory (or some portion
of it) has been verified by common consensus, and all arguments
on that particular point are ended.

If some critics do not accept such proffered evidence as
"proof," then they may have the justified right to claim any revision
of a theory (based upon such evidence) as "ad hoc" and therefore
inadmissible in proper debate or discussion.

UD

[_MCB]

If some critics do not accept such proffered evidence as
"proof," then they may have the justified right to claim any revision
of a theory (based upon such evidence) as "ad hoc" and therefore
inadmissible in proper debate.

UD

No, all have a justified right to adjust their theories in response to debate. That is what debate and dialogue are about. It is when there have been so many adjustments to theories that the adjustments appear to be a scruffy, unshaven beard that one begins to question the original theory.

Then, again, there are those who say that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. They refuse to offer any responses to the counter-argument that Joseph Smith did not have the level of literacy required to write the Book of Mormon, and continue to attack all other arguments. I really question such a non-defense.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
all have a justified right to adjust their theories in response to debate.
...

I think you are speaking of open-minded participants who actually
want to hear what their opponents have to say -- and to possibly
learn some new facts, Mary.

If I enter into a debate with a North Korean official on the merits
of the teachings of Kim Il Sung, he will not wish to learn anything
from me. He has one goal, and one goal only -- to promote and
defend the stated professions of his party and comrades, come hell
or high water.

Or so it has been my experience, in these sorts of discussions.

UD