Peterson tries, and fails, to bolster the idea of eye witness testimony

[sock puppet]

As a lawyer, I cringe to see legal evidence analogies applied to situations like this. It is true that studies demonstrate the unreliability of "eye" witness testimony. It is also true that the notion of allowing the 'best evidence' available gives courts the ability to bend evidence rules to an extent to let less reliable evidence be presented in court. For example, hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the out of court statement. It is less reliable than having the one who uttered the statement come into court and testify--and most importantly, be cross-examined to test the speaker's perception, memory and credibility. The hearsay objection basically is, in speaking objection fashion, 'judge, let's hear it from the horse's mouth.' Yet there are numerous exceptions that allow for another to testify as to what the out of court speaker uttered. Various circumstances where the out of court speaker is unavailable, the courts look to see if there is yet pretty reliable testimony from others as to what the speaker had said. Excited utterances have a badge of reliability that other out of court statements do not have, for example, and although technically hearsay, can be used to contradict testimony given otherwise in court.

But unlike the situation with the so-called "witnesses" to the gold plates, courts of law are forced to make decisions, in an effort to resolve disputes and keep the disputants from "taking matters into their own hand." To keep the peace and enable the disputants to get beyond the dispute and go on with their lives, courts accept the 'best evidence' available when better, more reliable evidence is unavailable, so that the court can resolve the dispute rather than let the dispute languish.

Unlike disputes between people, there is nothing to force the issue about the gold plates to be decided now or in the near future by a person. Sure, Mormons trifle their time on it frequently. Perhaps because they have aligned with or been born into Mormonism, it is a part of their lives and they have doubts about what is a far-fetched story. So apologists like DCP try to analogize the claims made to legal-proceeding evidence since the doubters have seen Perry Mason, LA Law and Law and Order on their TV sets. Maybe the panic of one on his deathbed and fearing the unknown of what might happen upon death puts the issue front and center (thankfully, we have mortmain statutes to keep their estates from ending up in the hands of religions). However, for the rest of mankind--those not Mormon and not on their deathbeds--the question is rather just academic, not screaming for a resolution to be made. We will only address the question if and when reliable evidence might surface. For the truly desperate, there normal skepticism might be overcome by testimony from those that simply saw a cloth over a 3D rectangular object that, by weight, was according to one hefty or another who admits he only saw the plates with his "spiritual eyes" (which no one can explain). For the rest of us, the less adequate "best evidence" will just not suffice on a question not pressing up on us for immediate resolution. We expect evidence on which we can rely, such as testimony from a witness that has been subject to cross-examination.

But the 21st Century pied piper a.k.a. DCP will lead his ever dwindling following this way or that with spurious notions about best evidence: testimony drafted by the promoting conman and signed by his family and friends, without being tested by cross-examination for its reliability. Carry on our wayward Dan!

[huckelberry]

To my understanding any eyewitness has a possibility of error. I find myself thinking that all human knowledge is based on eye witness observation. The observation is increasingly reliable the more it fits an extensive network of observation with understanding.

For a network of observations there is a real Book of Mormon. There are Joseph's explanations. If one like Mr Peterson wishes to believe this evidence helps.

For others this net of collaboration looks flimsy doubtful even unreliable.

[Physics Guy]

As a student of natural law who notices a few lawyers on this and related boards, I'd like to mention that I find human law very interesting. As sock puppet says, human law is not entirely about establishing truth, but also about keeping the peace. So human law is forced to decide upon issues that would just be left undecided by science, and forced to render default verdicts in cases where the probable answer is clear, but not quite clear enough. Some of the thinking is exactly like science, and some of it is completely different. The differences seem to make to sense, though. They come from the need to keep peace. That's a good reason.

When my fourth postdoctoral contract was winding down and I hadn't yet gotten a faculty job offer, like a lot of academics in that kind of situation I thought about going to law school. How easy it would have been to switch into law late like that, I don't really know, but at the time it was a cheerful thought that there was something else interesting I could do.

[Marcus]

DCP's final paragraph was quite interesting:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense. Plainly, they arise elsewhere. They reflect resistance to the possibility that Joseph Smith and the witnesses might have been telling the truth. After all, if accepted, that possibility imposes an obligation on the person who accepts it.

Taking that sentence by sentence:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense...

A blanket dismissal would be to say 'no witness testimony is ever useful.'

Has anyone done that? Not here, and particularly not 'Isaac.'

Plainly, they arise elsewhere.

Does DCP mean that, in various circumstances, eyewitness accounts 'arise'? What does that mean? Does he think 'arising' should imply credibility?

They reflect resistance to the possibility that Joseph Smith and the witnesses might have been telling the truth.

This one is particularly telling. DCP defines discussion of witness testimony as a 'blanket dismissal,' and then throws in a value judgment: 'resistance to possibility.' And this is the guy who argues his journal is peer-reviewed.

After all, if accepted, that possibility imposes an obligation on the person who accepts it.

And the Afore rounds out his faulty analysis with a threat.

There have been no comments on his article yet, and it's pretty clear why. (Although, I guarantee if DCP reads this, he will round up commenters to fix that.)

[drumdude]

This is why I don’t believe Dan has it within him to author any of the books he is planning.

He has spent too long blogging. He cannot write seriously.

[sock puppet]

DCP's final paragraph was quite interesting:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense. Plainly, they arise elsewhere. They reflect resistance to the possibility that Joseph Smith and the witnesses might have been telling the truth. After all, if accepted, that possibility imposes an obligation on the person who accepts it.

Taking that sentence by sentence:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense...

Ha ha ha. Yea. Common sense cannot be used to dismiss a book, claimed to have been translated from gold plates (take our word for it; you can't see them or know where they are), that is the 1,000 year history of a people for which there is no archaeological evidence. The dismissal is not common sense, but the proposition is? Give me a break. Has DCP no idea of logic?

And how is it that modern psychological science undermines blanket dismissals? Modern psychology would suggest that at best Joseph Smith was a pious fraud having hallucinations and self-deception at play, if not just a typical fraudster.

Plainly, they arise elsewhere.

From where then DCP do the blanket dismissals arise? Where is this "elsewhere" of which you speak? Could it be...Satan?

They reflect resistance to the possibility that Joseph Smith and the witnesses might have been telling the truth.

The possibility that the Book of Mormon is just a fantasy, one that Joseph Smith concocted with a little help from his friends? Dan, why do you resist yet believing in the tooth fairy? Resisting the possibility that your parents might have been telling you the truth?

After all, if accepted, that possibility imposes an obligation on the person who accepts it.

If accepted, my obligation would be to seek psychiatric help at once.

[I Have Questions]

DCP's final paragraph was quite interesting:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense. Plainly, they arise elsewhere. They reflect resistance to the possibility that Joseph Smith and the witnesses might have been telling the truth. After all, if accepted, that possibility imposes an obligation on the person who accepts it.

Taking that sentence by sentence:

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense...

A blanket dismissal would be to say 'no witness testimony is ever useful.'

Has anyone done that? Not here, and particularly not 'Isaac.'

It’s definitely not a blanket dismissal. But Peterson needs to portray it as such because he knows he’s got nothing else. Let’s go back to one of his silly little inappropriate attempts at a parallel.

Jones reports to the police that Brown has torched his car. In support of his claim he provides the officer with a sworn affidavit from 11 of Jones’ family and close friends. The officer would not, at that point, dismiss Jones out of hand. Only when there is no evidence of a burnt out car, or the evidence turns out to be a burnt out barbecue, and some of the people on the affidavit start saying they saw the car with spiritual eyes, and when Jones starts explaining that an angel took the evidence away…at that point the officer would reasonably conclude that Jones was making things up.

It’s the same with the Book of Mormon witnesses. I’m not saying dismiss them out of hand. I’m saying that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable (a position which modern psychological science and common sense strongly support) because they are. Peterson is saying that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is the 11 witnesses*, and I agree with him. So the conclusion is inescapable - unless you are prepared to lie to your readers about what modern psychological science and common sense tells us about eye witnesses.

Add to that, groups of eye witnesses coordinated by a single authoritative figure, all of whom are biased towards the version of events that authoritative figure wants to portray happened. Well that kind of eye witnesses is not just notoriously unreliable, they are guaranteed to be unreliable.

Peterson would not buy a car on the same basis that he believes in gold plates. Unfortunately some of his readers would, which is why there’s such an affinity fraud problem within Mormons. Peterson’s comments are actually dangerous in that he is unwittingly grooming people to fall victim to affinity fraudsters.

His article is lazy.

*I find it interesting that Paterson holds the witnesses as the best evidence for the Book of Mormon rather than the Book of Mormon itself. Why doesn’t he hold the proceeds of the gold plates as the best evidence for there being gold plates?