Are there still liberal Mormons?

[Moksha]

The problem with the A.I. responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

Couldn't BYU program the Hannah answering system to say that the Book of Mormon is genuine and that the Interpreter is the truest electronic newsletter? It could bypass any logical ideas and simply provide MG with cut-and-pasteable paragraphs.

[I Have Questions]

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

If the first premise were “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable,” there would be no fallacy.

Noted, and amended.

[huckelberry]

to propose all eye witness testimony to be unreliable strikes me as absurd I see stuff all the time that I reliably evaluate.
Perhaps there are particulars about Book of Mormon witness which fits them into the class of less reliable eye witness.

[huckelberry]

Syllogism: A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.

Wouldn’t begging the question or circular reasoning fall under this definition of a syllogism?

You are saying that two different LLM’s are ‘up in the night’?

I mean, I know you’re smart gadianton, but really…?

Regards,
MG

Where in the world did you find that totally incorrect definition of syllogism?

The problem with the A.I. responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

I’d also note that there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony. If I recall correctly, most of the identified wrongful convictions have been based on faulty eye witness testimony.

Res Ipsa, would it not be fair to consider the wrongful conviction rate to be primarily concerning somebody matching a suspect with a person the witness saw committing a crime. There are a lot of factors creating the possibilities of errors in that arrangement.

If I go fishing and meet a bear along the path I can be a reliable witness to the proposal that there is a bear in that area. Now if in fact what I saw was just something brown rustling around in the bush and decided it must be a bear my witness is much less reliable. If someone asks me, showing me a picture, is this the bear you saw? A yes or no answer would not be very reliable

[Res Ipsa]

Where in the world did you find that totally incorrect definition of syllogism?

The problem with the A.I. responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

I’d also note that there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony. If I recall correctly, most of the identified wrongful convictions have been based on faulty eye witness testimony.

Res Ipsa, would it not be fair to consider the wrongful conviction rate to be primarily concerning somebody matching a suspect with a person the witness saw committing a crime. There are a lot of factors creating the possibilities of errors in that arrangement.

If I go fishing and meet a bear along the path I can be a reliable witness to the proposal that there is a bear in that area. Now if in fact what I saw was just something brown rustling around in the bush and decided it must be a bear my witness is much less reliable. If someone asks me, showing me a picture, is this the bear you saw? A yes or no answer would not be very reliable

Yes, I think your description is accurate. But the evidence of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony isn't limited to identification. Eyewitness identification is just the most obvious (and tragic) example. However, we may be able to identify conditions under which eyewitness testimony is more reliable. That's the concern I expressed with the fallacy of division.

[Marcus]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

If the first premise were “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable,” there would be no fallacy.

Noted, and amended.

I wouldn't change it to that because while correcting the form, it introduces a false assumption. “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable” is not true, because a single correct and therefore reliable eye-witness testimony renders the "all" a false statement.

[I Have Questions]

Noted, and amended.

I wouldn't change it to that because while correcting the form, it introduces a false assumption. “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable” is not true, because a single correct and therefore reliable eye-witness testimony renders the "all" a false statement.

Thanks Marcus. I’m going to leave it as I had it originally. I’m happy with that.

[Marcus]

I wouldn't change it to that because while correcting the form, it introduces a false assumption. “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable” is not true, because a single correct and therefore reliable eye-witness testimony renders the "all" a false statement.

Thanks Marcus

You're welcome. A suggestion for 3, maybe?

"3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon comes from a category of evidence that is notoriously unreliable."

[Res Ipsa]

Noted, and amended.

I wouldn't change it to that because while correcting the form, it introduces a false assumption. “all eye-witness testimony is unreliable” is not true, because a single correct and therefore reliable eye-witness testimony renders the "all" a false statement.

That's the dilemma. As originally phrased, the first premise is supported by evidence. But moving from something like "eyewitness evidence is generally unreliable" to "this specific piece of eyewitness evidence is unreliable" runs afoul of the fallacy of division. Avoiding the fallacy by rewording the premise renders it unsupported by evidence. The logic issues could be fixed by softening the conclusion rather than strengthening the first premise, but that wouldn't make for a punchy siggy.

I think there's enough wiggle room in the word "unreliable" to make the original phrasing just fine for a siggy.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks Marcus

You're welcome. A suggestion for 3, maybe?

"3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon comes from a category of evidence that is notoriously unreliable."

Yeah, like that.