The Evidence Thread

[_Res Ipsa]

In another thread, a discussion broke out over what does and does not constitute evidence. I thought there were some interesting points worth exploring, and so created this thread.

I'd like the discussion to occur in the context of a specific question, namely, "Is the Book of Mormon an actual record of and by inhabitants of the Americas ." (I'm not wedded to that wording at all, but I suspect you get the basic idea)

I'm going to suggest two different ways we could think about evidence in this context:

1. For any proposed fact, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, using some definition or test, we determine whether that fact constitutes evidence at all. If it doesn't, we don't consider it at all. If it does, we try and determine how much weight to put on that evidence (i.e., figure out how relatively strong or weak it is).

2. Skip the part about deciding whether the fact is evidence and talk only about the weight.

Finally, i'm going to propose borrowing from legal concepts to define evidence. This is from the Federal Rules of Evidence 401:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

The rules distinguish between "relevant evidence" and "irrelevant evidence," which I think is functionally the same as the distinction I raise between "evidence" and "not evidence" I'd be happy to use either terminology.

So my initial question: option 1, option 2 or something else. And why?

[_The CCC]

It is axiomatic that the LDS believe that the Lehites were actual people living somewhere in what is now the America's.

Evidence is just evidence. Whatever weight we put to that evidence is more of a personal decision than what say a scientist would give to the same evidence. For me the evidence for the Book of Mormon alone is not convincing, but is growing year after year as opposed to other religious or fictional texts. Bountiful in the old world is a good example. "Everyone" in America of Joseph Smith day knew that the Saudi Arabian Peninsula was a sand pit. It was much later pointed out by LDS researchers that there are widely scattered lush areas along the coasts, and that one of them meets all the criteria established in the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

Evidence is just evidence.

Huh? You are not really saying anything here.

Whatever weight we put to that evidence is more of a personal decision than what say a scientist would give to the same evidence.

Sure people put different weight for certain facts/evidence, and it can be heavily influenced by bias. But how do we determine if something is evidence for a certain proposition? Is a tree good evidence for an intelligent creator? Are some of the features on the moon evidence the moon is made of cheese?

Bountiful in the old world is a good example. "Everyone" in America of Joseph Smith day knew that the Saudi Arabian Peninsula was a sand pit. It was much later pointed out by LDS researchers that there are widely scattered lush areas along the coasts, and that one of them meets all the criteria established in the Book of Mormon.

So your proposition is Joseph could not have known the geography of the area and that he thought the area was all just a big sand pit? Keep in mind the proposition is not evidence. What evidence do you have that Joseph, or someone he knew, did not know anything about the area and that everyone in his area thought it was just a big sand pit. First we have to have some kind of historical information to support the proposition. This would establish some evidence, then we can try to assign how good the evidence is. We would also need to look at any evidence that contradicts the proposition.

[_Res Ipsa]

It is axiomatic that the LDS believe that the Lehites were actual people living somewhere in what is now the America's.

Evidence is just evidence. Whatever weight we put to that evidence is more of a personal decision than what say a scientist would give to the same evidence. For me the evidence for the Book of Mormon alone is not convincing, but is growing year after year as opposed to other religious or fictional texts. Bountiful in the old world is a good example. "Everyone" in America of Joseph Smith day knew that the Saudi Arabian Peninsula was a sand pit. It was much later pointed out by LDS researchers that there are widely scattered lush areas along the coasts, and that one of them meets all the criteria established in the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for responding, CCC.

Is it axiomatic? Aren't there any folks out there who are LDS and yet believe that the Book of Mormon is not literally historical?

"Evidence is just evidence" doesn't tell me much. It sounds to me as if you may be saying that everything can be evidence depending on what the individual believes. But I really can't tell. If that is what you are saying, I'm thinking that "evidence" itself is a useless concept.

Your example is a good one, but I'm going to have to go back to the definition of relevant evidence I presented up thread. What is it about these discoveries that causes you to say that the fact that they exist makes it more probable that the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical record? It seems to me there are at least three possibilities that this fact supports:

1. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is increased because Smith didn't know that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

2. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith was aware that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

3. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith made a lucky guess.

Only if the first is true would we consider the existence of these fertile areas to be evidence supporting the Book of Mormon as an actual history. So, on what basis do you select 1 but reject 2 and 3?

I suspect part of the answer is your assertion that everyone at the time knew Saudi Arabia was a sand pit. But that is an assertion that itself would require actual evidence. Is there anything you are relying on as evidence for that assertion? Even if there were such evidence, it wouldn't rule out number 3. So, on what basis do you reject number 3?

[Guest]

OK, for starters:
How about ancient records preserved on plates, which are deposited in stone boxes?
That portion of Joseph's account was laughed to scorn until such things as Darius' silver&gold plates in a stone box (roughly contemporary with Lehi) were discovered in 1938.


http://jared-hansen.tumblr.com/post/323 ... -stone-box

[Guest]

It is axiomatic that the LDS believe that the Lehites were actual people...

Thanks for responding, CCC.
Is it axiomatic?

No, it's not axiomatic. You're right that there are people in the LDS church [and outside the LDS church] who don't find sufficient cause to accept the Nephite record as historical.
But for that matter, what evidence or mountain of evidence is completely axiomatic (self-evident, or unquestionable)?
Anyone still has the agency to ignore any sliver or mountain of evidence.
People still smoke, for example.
(That doesn't mean they're wise to do so, or that they're free from the grave consequences of dismissing such evidence.)

1. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is increased because Smith didn't know that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

2. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith was aware that there were fertile areas on the coast of Saudi Arabia.

3. The probability that the Book of Mormon is genuine is not increased because Smith made a lucky guess.

Arguments about what Joseph supposedly knew or didn't know are attempts at mind reading.

So, on what basis do you reject evidence based on an unproven assertion in number 3?

Things like #3 appear to be more of the same, and appear to be setting up the justification to dismiss valid evidence by waving one's hands, saying abracadabra, and dispelling the thought that Joseph ever revealed any truth with the blanket assertion that he made a lucky guess.
Are you really comfortable attempting to launch a fair, logical discussion with such a gap in logic/fairness so wide you could drive a truck through?

Why not simply consider evidence, and stop trying to read his mind as to (i) what he supposedly knew, or (ii) what he was supposedly flailing about with a lucky-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey guess?

Unless you have *actual* evidence that Joseph knew something that might lessen the weight of the evidence, what is the fair/logical basis for inserting that unsupported assertion into the evaluation of the evidence? How fair/logical is that?
Unless you have *actual* evidence that he was guessing (mind reading once again), what is the fair/logical basis for inserting *that* into the discussion?

[_The CCC]

Evidence is just evidence.

Huh? You are not really saying anything here.

Whatever weight we put to that evidence is more of a personal decision than what say a scientist would give to the same evidence.

Sure people put different weight for certain facts/evidence, and it can be heavily influenced by bias. But how do we determine if something is evidence for a certain proposition? Is a tree good evidence for an intelligent creator? Are some of the features on the moon evidence the moon is made of cheese?

Bountiful in the old world is a good example. "Everyone" in America of Joseph Smith day knew that the Saudi Arabian Peninsula was a sand pit. It was much later pointed out by LDS researchers that there are widely scattered lush areas along the coasts, and that one of them meets all the criteria established in the Book of Mormon.

So your proposition is Joseph could not have known the geography of the area and that he thought the area was all just a big sand pit? Keep in mind the proposition is not evidence. What evidence do you have that Joseph, or someone he knew, did not know anything about the area and that everyone in his area thought it was just a big sand pit. First we have to have some kind of historical information to support the proposition. This would establish some evidence, then we can try to assign how good the evidence is. We would also need to look at any evidence that contradicts the proposition.

It's a bit more complex than that. A geocentric universe was the standard model for millennia. Even today we say we watch the sun rise and sun set. But most of us know that the sun does neither. It is the earth that rotates. So it is evidence. We just have more/better evidence for a heliocentric solar system.

We all have biases. That is nothing new. The good thing about science is that one persons bias probably isn't the exact same bias as someone else, and visa versa. Science is what you or I can demonstrate to a neutral third party to peer review.

It is unlikely that Joseph had access to the knowledge in his local Palmyra Reading Lending Library while writing the Book of Mormon. The proposition is that Bountiful in the Old World existed.
for which there was no contemporaneous knowledge of available to Joseph. How he came by that knowledge is subject to bias in both directions. But doesn't eliminate that existence.

There are a few maps from that era but nothing on those maps is useful in locating Bountiful or the route the Lehites used to get there from Jerusalem. That would come many years later by the George Potter and Richard Wellington.
SEE Lehi in the Wilderness.

As I see it the evidence against is tepid at best. The Dead Quarter of Saudi Arabia. General lack of knowledge of the spurs on the Frankincense Trail. Lack of knowledge of NHM. Plausible route due east from NHM to Bountiful. Lack of knowledge of continuously flowing streams out of Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea.

Of course science can't posit any God or Godlike force. But scientists and non-scientists alike do claim belief in such.

[_hagoth7]

Bountiful in the old world....

1) That's one.
2) Then, there are ancient records inscribed on precious metal plates, deposited in stone.

Brad, for starters, is there any reason not to admit those two items as evidence?

[_hagoth7]

I'm going to suggest two different ways we could think about evidence in this context:

1. For any proposed fact, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, using some definition or test, we determine whether that fact constitutes evidence at all. If it doesn't, we don't consider it at all. If it does, we try and determine how much weight to put on that evidence (i.e., figure out how relatively strong or weak it is).

2. Skip the part about deciding whether the fact is evidence and talk only about the weight.

Finally, i'm going to propose borrowing from legal concepts to define evidence. This is from the Federal Rules of Evidence 401:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

I'm fine with Approach #1, Approach #2, or both.
Due to time constraints of everyone involved, I prefer #2, but I'm certainly willing to roll up my sleeves and also engage at a #1 level if needed.
I also prefer Approach #2 because Approach #1 involves much more subjective interpretation at every step, and we could engage in entire pages discussing how much weight a single item of evidence should get, and perhaps never arrive at agreement on something even that small.

[_Res Ipsa]

Okay, I'm a bit of a plodder in these types of discussions, so let me go a couple of steps back.

First, let's pick one example: it can be stone box, it can be Bountiful, it can be NHM. If we are going to talk about the concept of evidence, let's start with one fact and discuss how the concept of evidence applies. Then we can look at multiple pieces of evidence and discuss how to evaluate them.

Second, it seems to me that the examples you've referenced fall into a general category of "something in the Book of Mormon matches something in the real world." Without examining any other evidence, my claim is that there are at least three possible states of the real world consistent with that piece of evidence in isolation:

1. The "match" exists because the Book of Mormon is a bona fide historical record;

2. The "match" exists because of Smith's knowledge about the real world; or

3. The match is coincidental, i.e., the Book of Mormon is not a bona fide historical record and is not a product about Smith's knowledge of the real world.

Is there any disagreement that the fact of a "match" is consistent with all three of these possible states of the real world absent the consideration of other evidence? Are there any other possibilities that we should consider?