Interpreter tries to fix one of their sharpshooter fallacies

[Gadianton]

I was hoping drumdude would be able to “pick ‘em.”

You were responding to my post. You were addressing me.

[drumdude]

we don't want to come across like that

You gave a nice explanation but didn't provide 5 articles, you only provided one. Sledge is the type of guy who mainly cares about technicalities, as it's his most likely way to feel right about something. But then if you go through the effort to get the 5, he'll ignore all of them saying, "I said don't help".

Good to know, I didn’t put two and two together but flemming does post exactly like sledge.

[honorentheos]

Abstract: For decades, several Latter-day Saint scholars have maintained that there is a convergence between the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon and the Nihm region of Yemen. To establish whether there really is such a convergence, I set out to reexamine where the narrative details of 1 Nephi 16:33–17:1 best fit within the Arabian Peninsula, independent of where the Nihm region or tribe is located. I then review the historical geography of the Nihm tribe, identifying its earliest known borders and academic interpretations of their location in antiquity.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... more-71517

On one hand, it’s refreshing to see Interpreter trying to acknowledge and attempt to fix one of myriad examples of the sharpshooter fallacy: Starting with the thing you want to prove and working backwards, ignoring any data that doesn’t fit.

On the other hand, it’s Interpreter and their mission to “fight enemies of the church” would never allow them to examine anything in an unbiased and truly independent way. It literally goes against their core mission statement.

Hey drumdude,

I only skimmed the article in an attempt to determine what it did to advance the discussion around NHM and it didn't jump out at me. At best it seemed the author proposed coming at the question of where Ishmael was buried with fresh eyes. I presume to arrive with a "surprise" back at Yemen.

If you read the article could you expand on the content? Apologies but nothing caught my eye in skimming it to make me think it was worth a read as it didn't seem to move the discussion one direction or the other. Am I missing something critical here?

[honorentheos]

The Greatest Guesser was the final anime form of this fallacy.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... t-guesser/

I said “no one help him!”

I wanted to see if percussion man could follow up with anything substantial.

He couldn’t.

True, you said that initially. But you then opened it up. I took you up on the offer. That article is nothing but drawing bullseye's around apologetic beliefs about the Book of Mormon being history that took place in Mesoamerica.

[Flemming]

I was hoping drumdude would be able to “pick ‘em.”

You were responding to my post. You were addressing me.

It’s a discussion board, I was trying to get a discussion going. I guess drumdude can’t do that without help.

So yes, I was addressing you counting on the fact that you’re too much of a celebrity to respond to me, but it backfired.

So do we have our five, or do we only have two thus far? Drumdude said there are “many,” let’s see ‘em!

[Flemming]

I said “no one help him!”

I wanted to see if percussion man could follow up with anything substantial.

He couldn’t.

True, you said that initially. But you then opened it up. I took you up on the offer. That article is nothing but drawing bullseye's around apologetic beliefs about the Book of Mormon being history that took place in Mesoamerica.

You’re right, my mistake. So we have 2 now. Drumdude said there are “many.”

[Marcus]

True, you said that initially. But you then opened it up. I took you up on the offer. That article is nothing but drawing bullseye's around apologetic beliefs about the Book of Mormon being history that took place in Mesoamerica.

You’re right, my mistake. So we have 2 now. Drumdude said there are “many.”

No, pg said Carmack's "entire body of work." That's at least 15. Plus 1=16. That qualifies as "many," and significantly more than 5.

[Rivendale]

Abstract: For decades, several Latter-day Saint scholars have maintained that there is a convergence between the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon and the Nihm region of Yemen. To establish whether there really is such a convergence, I set out to reexamine where the narrative details of 1 Nephi 16:33–17:1 best fit within the Arabian Peninsula, independent of where the Nihm region or tribe is located. I then review the historical geography of the Nihm tribe, identifying its earliest known borders and academic interpretations of their location in antiquity.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... more-71517

On one hand, it’s refreshing to see Interpreter trying to acknowledge and attempt to fix one of myriad examples of the sharpshooter fallacy: Starting with the thing you want to prove and working backwards, ignoring any data that doesn’t fit.

On the other hand, it’s Interpreter and their mission to “fight enemies of the church” would never allow them to examine anything in an unbiased and truly independent way. It literally goes against their core mission statement.

Bokovoy had an interesting viewpoint on Nahom:

So, no. This is not a significant discovery for the Book of Mormon, and honestly, even if the marker said, “Ishmael from Jerusalem: This marker was carved by Nephi the son Lehi,” this would still not change the fact that the Book of Mormon anachronistically relies upon biblical texts known to Joseph Smith, but which did not exist at the time the Book of Mormon uses them, nor would it change the fact that the Book of Mormon anachronistically presents a view of Christianity that historically evolved much later in history, and that the entire Book of Mormon narrative reflects a 19th century racist view of indigenous origins. So even if that actual Nephite marker existed, the text itself would still not be historically reliable as an ancient account.

This reddit thread is one of the best deconstructions of Nahom. And it is done by a non professional non-academic. It was all started by a video on Book of Mormon Central. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... mon_nahom/

[drumdude]

You were responding to my post. You were addressing me.

It’s a discussion board, I was trying to get a discussion going. I guess drumdude can’t do that without help.

So yes, I was addressing you counting on the fact that you’re too much of a celebrity to respond to me, but it backfired.

So do we have our five, or do we only have two thus far? Drumdude said there are “many,” let’s see ‘em!

And it would have worked if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

[honorentheos]

True, you said that initially. But you then opened it up. I took you up on the offer. That article is nothing but drawing bullseye's around apologetic beliefs about the Book of Mormon being history that took place in Mesoamerica.

You’re right, my mistake. So we have 2 now. Drumdude said there are “many.”

As Marcus reminded, physics guy had already brought up the rather ridiculous Early Modern English theory articles. So you miscount.

Regardless, let's propose a hypothesis of our own. Given the critical belief the Book of Mormon is fiction, the Book of Abraham is not authentic to ancient Egypt or the content of the scrolls used in its production, etc., it seems any article in Interpreter on these subjects of an apologetic nature should exhibit some degree of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (hereafter TSSF) if its findings support placing LDS scripture in an ancient American or Egyptian context.

A quick perusal of the current issue includes an article on ancient names in the Book of Mormon, an article on the children of Ham presented in the Book of Abraham, in addition to the one noted in the OP here. I haven't read either of these others and only skimmed the Nahom article. But according to the hypothesis they should include examples of the TSSF. Want to place bets beforehand on if the hypothesis holds after a reading of them?