John Sorenson on Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East

[_NorthboundZax]

The fundamental value of a scholarly work is intrinsic to it, and does not depend even slightly on the size of its audience or its degree of acceptance. Gregor Mendel's pioneer article on genetics was no more sound when it was noticed by other scientists than it had been during its decades of obscurity. Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was just as true when he first began to advocate it publicly in 1912 as it was in the 1950s when it finally began to gain general acceptance. (Unfortunately, Wegener died in 1930 during an expedition to Antarctica, when his theory was still generally rejected.)

The "just because no one else believes it, does't mean it's not true" argument always gets a lot of play by those endorsing fringe science. As the argument itself presents no reason to actually put any stock in it other than new ideas warrant investigation, a useful ratio to look at in these cases is the amount of energy expended in that argument relative to the energy spent on expounding on the evidence for the alternative view. Not a terribly good one so far.

The two examples above (Mendel and Wegener) are also quite poor in justifying the "just because no one believes it, doesn't it's not true" argument. Mendel was not discounted - his obscurity came from publishing in obscure places that people that would have been in a position to recognize its worth were unlikely to see (and didn't for quite some time). His work was readily acknowledged when it surfaced in scientific circles. Diffusional models of Maya-Near East communication definitely does not suffer from Medellian like obscurity in that no one has encountered it.

In contrast, Wegener's Continental Drift was discounted on very strong grounds - the mechanism of continents plowing through oceanic crust like icebergs through the sea is entirely unfeasible. But given the evidence he marshaled for the continents once being together, it was not long after plate tectonics was proposed that plate tectonic theory (not Continental Drift) became widely accepted. In the diffusional model case, Sorenson is ultimately hoping to provide an implicit mechanism (Book of Mormon voyages) to explain a model with a continually shrinking number of adherents as more evidence for the workings of Mayan culture amassed - not a promising situation for his "results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished."

ETA: Wegener died in Greenland, not Antarctica. And it is unfortunate that he did not live long enough to see the advent of plate tectonics. I suspect he would have been quite thrilled with it, even if it wasn't exactly what he was proposing.

[_truth dancer]

The fundamental value of a scholarly work is intrinsic to it, and does not depend even slightly on the size of its audience or its degree of acceptance.

This is true.

Think how long it took for people to realize the Earth is not flat?

How long did it take for germ theory to be accepted by the world?

It took a while for folk to believe we are on a planet flying around the sun, no?

There are people living who think slavery is a good idea.

And, still today there are folk who do not believe in evolution.

It seems it takes a while for some people to let go of certain myths and outdated ideas.

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

The "just because no one else believes it, does't mean it's not true" argument always gets a lot of play by those endorsing fringe science.

Quite so. And substantial new scientific ideas typically begin their lives as fringe science.

That's just the way things are.

Though that isn't precisely the argument I was making.

The two examples above (Mendel and Wegener) are also quite poor in justifying the "just because no one believes it, doesn't it's not true" argument. Mendel was not discounted - his obscurity came from publishing in obscure places that people that would have been in a position to recognize its worth were unlikely to see (and didn't for quite some time).

Exactly.

Wegener's Continental Drift was discounted on very strong grounds

Precisely. And yet he was right.

Wegener died in Greenland, not Antarctica.

Correct. I even knew that.

Thanks for a serious post. It was refreshing.

[_Joey]

The "just because no one else believes it, does't mean it's not true" argument always gets a lot of play by those endorsing fringe science. As the argument itself presents no reason to actually put any stock in it other than new ideas warrant investigation,

This is very true. But with the particular "scholarship" of Profs Clark and Sorenson, attempting to support and demonstrate the historicity claim of the Book of Mormon, it hasn't even generated interest or investigation from their professional peer group (with the exception of Michael Coe) or the academic instituions. As Mr. Peterson himself had admitted over six years ago, this "scholarship" has been ignored by the secular academic world. In the world of internet access and the speed of search engines, this becomes even more telling as to the nature of such "scholarship". And the one reputable archaeologist, who has taken the time to review such "scholarship"(Coe), flatly dismissed the merits of it!

[_NorthboundZax]

Though that isn't precisely the argument I was making.

Please elaborate. The only argument I see is precisely that.

Wegener's Continental Drift was discounted on very strong grounds

Precisely. And yet he was right.

No, he wasn't. Wegener is often hailed as a tragic hero as one whose ideas were unjustly ridiculed before becoming vindicated after his time, but that narrative ignores what Continental Drift Theory really entailed - namely the idea that continents plow through ocean floor as they separate. This is wrong and was recognized as such and the reason it was discounted. In other words, CD was not discounted because the scientific community was unresponsive to new ideas, but because it required a physically untenable mechanism. They were and are receptive to new ideas that can stand on their own merit. Plate tectonics does that, while CD couldn't. CD was an inevitable stepping stone towards plate tectonic theory and Wegener deserves credit for providing a path to our current better understanding, but the theory was not in itself correct.

Wegener died in Greenland, not Antarctica.

Correct. I even knew that.

I'm sure you did, but I couldn't let the mistake go uncorrected.

Thanks for a serious post. It was refreshing.

You are certainly welcome. I appreciate the kind words.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please elaborate. The only argument I see is precisely that.

No, I think I won't.

I came back here only to announce a few things from time to time. Not to get dragged back into extended conversations. Not even with civil and intelligent people such as yourself.

That said, it's with some shame that I admit that I was responding to Joey. I was being sucked into the vortex again. But I've gotten my bearings again. My head is clear. I've stood up, brushed off my knees, and I'm again moving resolutely forward.

Precisely. And yet he was right.

No, he wasn't.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

[_NorthboundZax]

Please elaborate. The only argument I see is precisely that.

No, I think I won't.

That's too bad. I am genuinely interested in whatever your stealth argument is.

I was also interested in this:

John L. Sorenson. "A Reconsideration of Early Metal in Mesoamerica." Katunob 9 (March 1976): 1—18.

as it seemed the most likely of all your posted Sorenson citations to be required to meet more rigorous scholarly standards. But also curious is that your list doesn't have any obvious journal articles subsequent to 1976 that build on this work - an often good indicator of its value. So, I did some minor poking around on Google Scholar and came up with surprisingly little. Is the journal now defunct? It also looked like the only citations this paper ever garnered were from FARMS/MI and one from Dialogue. Is Google scholar missing the larger fraction of the paper's citations (not impossible) or are Mormon circles pretty much the only place this paper is viewed of value?

Thanks for the exchange as it was, anyway.

[_Joey]

NBZax points out good points in the discussion w Peterson. Points that have, in a different color have been raised, asked and demonstrated w Peterson on numerous occasions over the years w respect to the works of LDS scholars Sorenson and Clark in their papers at FARMS(MI) about the Book of Mormon historicity. Neither Peterson's arguments nor the acceptance of such "scholarship" of Sorenson or Clark has changed much. And neither has it found acceptance or credibility in the circle of academic acceptance. Peterson knows this which is why he avoids such conversations in an open forum where he cannot terminate posting privileges of those who call him to defend his position. He supports his employer so long as he can do so in an arena where he does not have to deal with the difficult questions. It is much like the papers he refers to at Farms (MI), they sit there in isolation and protection, only to be cited by other articles on that site!! But never gaining respectful attention from the peer group or academic society that the authors operate from within!!

[_floatingboy]

Limited scholarly acceptance aside, my perusal (I don't have time to read them in depth) of the two Sorensen articles on the sino-platonic site left me wanting. I am the first to admit that I'm no scholar. I only have a master's degree, and my exposure to scholarly literature is definitely limited. So take that into consideration while reading my impressions of the articles. My main reaction to both is that they lack focus. His scope is entirely too far-reaching. He should have broken each one down into many smaller articles that can do justice to each point he is trying to make. And he needs an editor! Each article is a rambling grab-bag of information thrown at the reader haphazardly. It really had the feel of a first pass compilation of his field notes that he never got around to editing down. Maybe these sorts of things contribute as much or more to his lack of peer-reviewed publication than his supposedly controversial or unpopular viewpoint. I feel like you can come from an unpopular school of thought, but as long as your scholarship is sound, you stand a good chance of being published. I do, however, understand that politics play a role in any circle.

I did find the presence of corn in south asia and oceania to be quite interesting. Seeing as how corn is not a naturally-occurring species, it seems highly unlikely that its cultivation in such distant places was coincidental.

Finally, a question: from what I could tell, the connections he finds between meso american and near eastern mythologies suggest that a polytheistic tradition was shared between the two cultures. I know he is motivated to find a cultural connection between the two geographical areas, but am I wrong in thinking that this is one connection he would not want to make? I'm sure that this has crossed his mind, so is his thinking that if he can just establish the possibility of trans-oceanic contact between the new and old worlds, he then at least leaves open the possibility that one of these contacts was a small group of Jews that brought over their unique brand of Christian Judaism, and that specific evidence for that particular group is still just waiting to be found?

[_MCB]

So take that into consideration while reading my impressions of the articles. My main reaction to both is that they lack focus. His scope is entirely too far-reaching. He should have broken each one down into many smaller articles that can do justice to each point he is trying to make. And he needs an editor! Each article is a rambling grab-bag of information thrown at the reader haphazardly. It really had the feel of a first pass compilation of his field notes that he never got around to editing down. Maybe these sorts of things contribute as much or more to his lack of peer-reviewed publication than his supposedly controversial or unpopular viewpoint. I feel like you can come from an unpopular school of thought, but as long as your scholarship is sound, you stand a good chance of being published. I do, however, understand that politics play a role in any circle.

LOL The same can be said of my writing. I'm going to take a break.