maklelan wrote:I think it's definitely an example of that. But I think if you're trying to show that LDS scholars resort to these kinds of tactics in their scholarship or even in their debating on the internet I don't think this post does a thing to support it. This is a non-scholar sharing a testimony. I will grant that that kind of statement runs rampant, but I don't see it in our scholarship.
No, I'm not trying to say LDS scholars do this in the scholarly portion of their work. OTOH, it isn't unnusual for LDS writers to include a bit of testimony at the beginning or end of an article. What about that? Is it okay for them to go "freestyle" when they bear testimony? Heh, is it even possible to bear testimony without committing some kind of logical fallacy? Offhand, I would say "no" but I could be wrong.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The Dude wrote:No, I'm not trying to say LDS scholars do this in the scholarly portion of their work. OTOH, it isn't unnusual for LDS writers to include a bit of testimony at the beginning or end of an article. What about that? Is it okay for them to go "freestyle" when they bear testimony? Heh, is it even possible to bear testimony without committing some kind of logical fallacy? Offhand, I would say "no" but I could be wrong.
Maybe in the FARMS review. I saw it once in a Harvard Theological Review article written by an LDS scholar, but outside of literature exclusively for LDS audiences I don't see it (except for that one, but it was an article about why he had a testimony).
cdowis wrote:There were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, which is merely the first step in a chain of evidence. Like horses, barley and elephants, the final step remains to discover that they were there during the Book of Mormon time period.
The antimormon argument was "blown away" in that we have demonstrated that it was *possible* that horses, barley, elephants and chickens could have existed in America during that time period. These were not necessarily brought to America by Europeans.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
cdowis wrote:There were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, which is merely the first step in a chain of evidence. Like horses, barley and elephants, the final step remains to discover that they were there during the Book of Mormon time period.
The antimormon argument was "blown away" in that we have demonstrated that it was *possible* that horses, barley, elephants and chickens could have existed in America during that time period. These were not necessarily brought to America by Europeans.
I like reading Charles's stuff. He's been at it about as long as I have. Good example.
cdowis wrote:There were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, which is merely the first step in a chain of evidence. Like horses, barley and elephants, the final step remains to discover that they were there during the Book of Mormon time period.
The antimormon argument was "blown away" in that we have demonstrated that it was *possible* that horses, barley, elephants and chickens could have existed in America during that time period. These were not necessarily brought to America by Europeans.
Yes, appealing to a "chain of evidence" that doesn't actually connect to the time/place in question is definitely a fallacy of possible proof (or future evidence... whatever).
The second paragraph, OTOH, is different. It's a strawman. Critics don't say it's *impossible* for those things to have existed at the right time/place. They say there's no evidence for this Book of Mormon claim. When chicken bones are found in Chile dating to 1400AD, there's still no evidence for the Book of Mormon claim. The bones may as well be in antarctica for all it has to do with the critics' actual arguments.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
cdowis wrote:There were chickens in the Americas before Columbus, which is merely the first step in a chain of evidence. Like horses, barley and elephants, the final step remains to discover that they were there during the Book of Mormon time period.
The antimormon argument was "blown away" in that we have demonstrated that it was *possible* that horses, barley, elephants and chickens could have existed in America during that time period. These were not necessarily brought to America by Europeans.
Yes, appealing to a "chain of evidence" that doesn't actually connect to the time/place in question is definitely a fallacy of possible proof (or future evidence... whatever).
The second paragraph, OTOH, is different. It's a strawman. Critics don't say it's *impossible* for those things to have existed at the right time/place. They say there's no evidence for this Book of Mormon claim. When chicken bones are found in Chile dating to 1400AD, there's still no evidence for the Book of Mormon claim. The bones may as well be in antarctica for all it has to do with the critics' actual arguments.
While I agree that the chicken bone means absolutely nothing to Book of Mormon considerations, the dating of it does not in any way, shape, or form put a terminus a quo on chickens in America. What it does is say that the preconceived notions concerning the introduction of chickens is false. How far back the introduction needs to be moved is completely unknown.