Are there still liberal Mormons?

[MG 2.0]

My last post is in response to this post...

You responded to yourself. By the way the answer is no.

However, there has been quite a discussion about your definitions of fallacies and syllogisms as they relate to ihq's signature line. Do you have a response to those?

This will suffice:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159072&start=720

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses they all went to their graves with the testimony of the Book of Mormon on their lips.

...For critics the 3 witnesses offer up a conundrum. Seeing as, you say, witness testimony is not reliable we…in this special case…have to explain how and why they stuck to their story. Yes, I know there are ‘work arounds’ that critics are wont to use, but in my estimation they are rather flimsy.

They held to their testimony.

I suppose each person has to honestly look at the witness testimony and decide whether or not these were good and decent men that held to their position even when, in some cases, they were under a certain degree of duress...

So you think not changing one's story is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that? In what way does changing or not changing a story after it was first told relate to the reliability of the original eyewitness account?

You also seem to think being a good person is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that character and eyewitness reliability are related? In what way?

Marcus, we can go round and round on this. Much ink has been spilled on the topic of whether or not the Book of Mormon witnesses are to be trusted. Links and books are extensive. At the end of the day, you will make…as will I…our own determinations.

I would imagine you could find a ‘blast from the past’ thread from this board that covers the bases.

This thread has already wandered off course.

You might find this useful:

https://youtu.be/QkMv4tDsCzw

I would suggest letting others get back on topic.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You responded to yourself. By the way the answer is no.

However, there has been quite a discussion about your definitions of fallacies and syllogisms as they relate to ihq's signature line. Do you have a response to those?

This will suffice:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159072&start=720

Regards,
MG

Your link goes to this:

[writing to mentalgymnast:] Not to worry, my friend. I realize that much of what’s written here flies miles above your head...

Truer words were never spoken.

[Marcus]

So you think not changing one's story is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that? In what way does changing or not changing a story after it was first told relate to the reliability of the original eyewitness account?

You also seem to think being a good person is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that character and eyewitness reliability are related? In what way?

Marcus, we can go round and round on this. Much ink has been spilled on the topic of whether or not the Book of Mormon witnesses are to be trusted. Links and books are extensive. At the end of the day, you will make…as will I…our own determinations...

No, I asked you some very specific questions about your assertion:

...They held to their testimony.

I suppose each person has to honestly look at the witness testimony and decide whether or not these were good and decent men that held to their position even when, in some cases, they were under a certain degree of duress...

So you think not changing one's story is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that? In what way does changing or not changing a story after it was first told relate to the reliability of the original eyewitness account?

You also seem to think being a good person is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that character and eyewitness reliability are related? In what way?

[malkie]

Would it be fair to say that eyewitness evidence is inherently unreliable, and can generally be regarded as reliable only if corroborated by other evidence

No, as the inherent attribute could be interpreted as applying to all eyewitness evidence, given its common meaning:

existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

Which would be too close to saying "all," and open up the argument to the same criticisms.

IHQ's definition of it as "notoriously unreliable" captures the idea quite well, in my opinion. It doesn't rule out a possibility of reliability for a piece of evidence, while clearly capturing the idea that much is unreliable, and therefore any piece of evidence has to be looked at carefully and individually.

In my opinion, that's the main issue with the mopologist argument. Objection to eyewitness evidence is met typically by an overall argument of its use in court, especially by the Afore, which means not only is its overall "notorious unreliability" sidestepped, but the individual possibility of unreliability is left unaddressed, or at best under-addressed.

Thanks, Marcus - I appreciate the clear explanation. Nice (but not necessary!) that Res agrees.

What I was attempting to do was to indicate that the reliability of eyewitness testimony cannot be determined from the testimony itself, absent further information that is independent of the testimony. Hence my choice of "inherently".

My concern about "notorious" (generally known and talked of) is that notoriety is an indication of what people generally think about something, and not necessarily related to reality. (I know I'm not explaining this very well, but I'm feeling a little bit of brain fog right now.) It's argumentum ad populum, is it not?

[MG 2.0]

This will suffice:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159072&start=720

Regards,
MG

Your link goes to this:

[writing to mentalgymnast:] Not to worry, my friend. I realize that much of what’s written here flies miles above your head...

Truer words were never spoken.

I admit that there are people here that are much more intelligent than I am.

You are one of them, Marcus. Morley is another, although he was apparently (?) attempting to make himself out to be less so. He failed on that count.

As I said earlier, if you’ve had an education that is above and beyond what another might have had it is more than likely that it will show.

And it does show here.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

No, as the inherent attribute could be interpreted as applying to all eyewitness evidence, given its common meaning:

Which would be too close to saying "all," and open up the argument to the same criticisms.

IHQ's definition of it as "notoriously unreliable" captures the idea quite well, in my opinion. It doesn't rule out a possibility of reliability for a piece of evidence, while clearly capturing the idea that much is unreliable, and therefore any piece of evidence has to be looked at carefully and individually.

In my opinion, that's the main issue with the mopologist argument. Objection to eyewitness evidence is met typically by an overall argument of its use in court, especially by the Afore, which means not only is its overall "notorious unreliability" sidestepped, but the individual possibility of unreliability is left unaddressed, or at best under-addressed.

Thanks, Marcus - I appreciate the clear explanation. Nice (but not necessary!) that Res agrees.

What I was attempting to do was to indicate that the reliability of eyewitness testimony cannot be determined from the testimony itself, absent further information that is independent of the testimony. Hence my choice of "inherently".

My concern about "notorious" (generally known and talked of) is that notoriety is an indication of what people generally think about something, and not necessarily related to reality. (I know I'm not explaining this very well, but I'm feeling a little bit of brain fog right now.) It's argumentum ad populum, is it not?

The reason I didn’t answer Marcus’s questions was because the reliability of the witnesses has been discussed ad nauseam. But even more than that, it’s a simple thing. It wasn’t just one witness that carried their testimony with them throughout their life even during and after having been disassociated from the church.

It was multiple witnesses that did the same thing.

The likelihood that multiple witnesses would get it wrong and then stick by their testimony through thick and thin is highly unlikely.

It makes their initial testimony/witness much more palatable.

There seems to be a tendency among the critics to almost toss the testimonies off almost at face value. Maybe with one. Maybe. But with multiple witnesses?

The likelihood shrinks dramatically. Unless they’re in cahoots. I haven’t seen any evidence to support that.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No, as the inherent attribute could be interpreted as applying to all eyewitness evidence, given its common meaning:

Which would be too close to saying "all," and open up the argument to the same criticisms.

IHQ's definition of it as "notoriously unreliable" captures the idea quite well, in my opinion. It doesn't rule out a possibility of reliability for a piece of evidence, while clearly capturing the idea that much is unreliable, and therefore any piece of evidence has to be looked at carefully and individually.

In my opinion, that's the main issue with the mopologist argument. Objection to eyewitness evidence is met typically by an overall argument of its use in court, especially by the Afore, which means not only is its overall "notorious unreliability" sidestepped, but the individual possibility of unreliability is left unaddressed, or at best under-addressed.

Thanks, Marcus - I appreciate the clear explanation. Nice (but not necessary!) that Res agrees.

What I was attempting to do was to indicate that the reliability of eyewitness testimony cannot be determined from the testimony itself, absent further information that is independent of the testimony. Hence my choice of "inherently".

My concern about "notorious" (generally known and talked of) is that notoriety is an indication of what people generally think about something, and not necessarily related to reality. (I know I'm not explaining this very well, but I'm feeling a little bit of brain fog right now.) It's argumentum ad populum, is it not?

That's a pretty good response for someone feeling brainfog--I think you're doing ok!!

Seriously, though, that's a good point about word choice -- as a statistician if see the words "notoriously unreliable" in reference to data, I am most likely assuming the probability is not only less than 50% reliable, but probably far less than that. To me, the adjective is strictly assigned to the behavior of the data, which is just a factual observation.

However, while I don't agree that it is necessarily, in all cases "argumentum ad populum", you are absolutely correct that to someone hearing the phrase, words may be seen as indicating a human opinion about evidence. But, this is a signature line, so while I could write a (very dry, lengthy) substitution for "notoriously unreliable,* I probably wouldn't add it in. At best, I might add an asterisk, and put something in a footnote explaining what the data indicates.

[malkie]

If anyone cares to respond to MG's reply to my comment, please feel free to do so - don't wait for me, because it ain't gonna happen

[Marcus]

Your link goes to this:

Truer words were never spoken.

I admit that there are people here that are much more intelligent than I am.

You are one of them, Marcus. Morley is another, although he was apparently (?) attempting to make himself out to be less so. He failed on that count.

As I said earlier, if you’ve had an education that is above and beyond what another might have had it is more than likely that it will show.

And it does show here.

Regards,
MG

Thank you. And yes, I absolutely agree that Morley is another.