Post reference:
linkDan wrote:You still misunderstand both Occam’s Razor and ad hoc hypotheses. You are just playing the same game you played with the memory studies. The fact is the wild speculations and special pleadings thrown out by you are ad hoc hypotheses designed to save your theory. As I said, what happens in this situation is that the theory isn’t disproved decisively, but resort to these kinds of explanations weakens the theory and it finds less and less defenders. There will always be die-hards.
Dan it was you who used Occams Razor as a decision tool to justify Smith-Alone theory over S/R theory. No matter how you slice it, Occam’s Razor has nothing to do with deciding between 2 different theories with different conclusions. And in addition, the S/R theory is not simply a theory in which ad hocs are continually used to save it.
The reason I brought up your use of Occam’s Razor is because you had on many not just a few times, used ad hominem against myself and Roger by saying we aren’t logical. You had designated yourself as an expert on logic. A logical person wouldn’t be using Occam’s Razor the way you have. And even when I’ve been explaining to you why it’s not applicable you still are in a state of denial. You also appear to have no clue about the stages in reasoning of the scientific method telling me when telling me I’m using the wrong word “conclusion” instead of “phenomenon”.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:Well in science Dan..when a theory is falsified that can be determined via testing and verification. So that's a different situation that a history issue such as this of who actually wrote the Book of Mormon and how. If someone presents a theory in science and then it's falsified the originator of the theory can't resort to absurd untestable explanations to save the theory..such as the supernatural. So sure Occam's Razor applies. But even science doesn't need occam's razor...all science has to say is adding God or anything for which there is no evidence doesn't add any explanatory power, it only explains away evidence.
Didn’t you read the examples I gave. You can find others on the internet. Ad hoc hypotheses are just about the supernatural—it’s about the untestable.
I got your point Dan that you think in our discussion you falsified the S/R theory by the “lost tribes” mention of the S/R witnesses. And that you think my reasoning in response was ad hoc. And then you take it further and suggest that’s the problem with the S/R theory, it’s got so many ad hocs that it should be discarded.
So you’ve gone from my discussion with you in which you’ve accused me of using ad hoc to then applying that to the whole S/R theory and all critics who argue for it, that they use ad hocs too frequently ..and hence the theory should be discarded. Time and again what I’m noting about your argumentation Dan is you are looking for easy quick wins. Not that you are successful but you declare yourself successful.
That’s why you were using Occam’s Razor ..it appears to you to be an easy quick win. You wanted the reasoning to be based on simplest theory. And with the ad hoc, again you are trying to find a quick easy fix. You take a line from wiki which says frequent ad hocs is a sign of a problem with a theory. Yes Dan that’s when ad hocs have no basis in fact whatsoever, and when they are used solely to maintain a theory which had been falsified or a theory never established in the first place. But sorry, Dan the “lost tribes” issue is not the issue you make it out to be and not the Achilles heal of the S/R theory. And my arguments were not solely without basis.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:In this history situation... the S/R theory is not ad hoc additions to the Smith alone theory. It's not the same situation to what wiki was referring to.
That’s not at all what I said. Didn’t you read the examples I gave? The S/R theory resorts to ad hoc hypotheses in response to counter-evidence.
Dan there are no ad hocs with the data that the witnesses stated they clearly remember a Spalding manuscript in biblical style, a repeated phrase"and it came to pass, certain names, certain passage. No ad hocs with R. Patterson the printer saying the Spalding manuscript brought in was in biblical style. No ad hocs with Hurlbut going to the Palmyra newspaper and asking them to print he has what he set out for and learned from the widow Rigdon was involved. You haven’t falsified any of that Dan. So you are out to lunch that the theory resorts to ad hoc hypotheses.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:I sort of understand what you are saying...to you Smith alone is plausible and so adding further additional people is ad hoc. But that's not the case. If you take the data available and critically evaluate it, the most likely or best fit theory is the S/R theory. With the approach you take, it seems as if you started in your life believing in the Divine theory, you eliminated the divine and that left you with the Smith alone. From that point you may not have ever really considered seriously or even looked into evidence for the S/R theory. So to you, it seems that Smith alone rationally enjoys presumption. And to you, all the conspiracy data complicates things and you figure it's just added on so why not razor it off and what's left is Smith alone.
The conspiracy theory was added as a response to adverse evidence—to explain away witnesses. It’s ad hoc because it has no explanatory power outside its use to deflect evidence.
Huh? You’ve lost me, S/R theory was added as a response to what adverse evidence? To explain away which witnesses? It’s ad hoc because it has no explanatory power?
It has enormous explanatory power Dan. Doesn’t the church argue with support by evidence and reasoning that the Book of Mormon appears to have multiple different authors…what would explain that if Smith was the sole author? What would explain Smith having no interest in writing, nor noted writing of complex novel's ability?
Dan wrote:marg wrote:But frankly the reason Smith alone has had support and little challenge is not because it's the most rational explanation but rather because few people even care about Mormonism other than Mormons..the investigations right from the beginning were poorly handled, the church from the beginning has been highly motivated to promote a Smith alone theory and suppress a conspiracy and it's just much easier to convince disinterested people with a simple theory as opposed to a very complex one. So by convention one might say Smith alone enjoys presumption but it hasn't been rationally warranted.
Spaldingites always seem to be people who never were Mormons, because they don’t know the Mormon sources very well.
Generally I’ve found S/R theorists are Christians or exmormons..they are the 2 groups motivated to have an interest.
One can have all the data in the world but if one is unable to critically evaluate it well, the amount of knowledge doesn't necessarily help.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:No we are talking about different conclusions..it's not the wrong word. Smith alone is a conclusion ..it's about a one man show. S/R theory is a conclusion...it is Smith with co conspirators..along with Spalding and perhaps other outside source material. What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions..warranted by the evidence and reasoning supporting those conclusions.
You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion. S/R and Smith-alone are different theories attempting to explain the Book of Mormon. When you say “What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions,” you are merely repeating yourself--“What differentiates the THEORIES are the different THEORIES,” or “What differentiates the CONCLUSIONS are the different CONCLUSIONS,” as to who wrote the Book of Mormon. And the razor IS designed to assess different theories/conclusions that explain the same phenomenon—the Book of Mormon.
No Dan I’m not confusing anything. Here from wiki are the steps in reasoning employed in the scientific method:
The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[citation needed] It consists of these steps:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment.
The word theory is not simply the same as conclusion. See the last step there Dan. One couldn’t simply say “Creating a theory with data gathered in the experiment.”
We simply differentiate the theories with different names..Smith alone ..versus S/R. The theory consist of the conclusion supported or warranted by the evidence and reasoning of the phenomenon observed ..the Book of Mormon. The theory entails all of that, the conclusion is a subset of the theory.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:That's what discussing is about. People make a claim or argue against a claim, and the other person responds either agreeing or countering or simply exploring different ideas. You are the one arguing in a ludicrous manner. You assume the Smith alone doesn't need to be warranted with evidence and reasoning. You assume the S/R theory is simply ad hocs of additional people added on to Smith alone. You declare you've falsified the S/R theory with your "lost tribe" argument and then if I don't accept you assumptions and reasoning and provide different assumptions and reasoning you accuse of ad hoc'ing in order to stop you falsifying. That's not what the wiki was referring to.
I don’t believe Smith-alone doesn’t need defending, but I usually have that discussion with those who think the Book of Mormon is inspired translation and Smith couldn’t do it. So the focus in rightly on Spalding advocates, for the moment, for the simple reason that if it could be shown that Smith couldn’t have done it alone it still wouldn’t establish your theory. The only thing the “lost tribes” discussion (you keep leaving out the plural, by the way) shows is that the witnesses are confused on a major element of the testimony. It’s an element that leads to possible explanation, but in and of itself is not a refutation of the Spalding theory. However, your response was ad hoc and desperate to say the least. Perhaps you need to read some more on this topic. You were making things up in an effort to resist. You didn’t resort to logic, reason, or evidence—you offered a one-time explanation of what “lost tribes” could have meant to the witnesses and ignored what it meant in the context of cultural discussion at the time they were speaking.
This game of “you can’t pin me down” can go on forever—but reasonable people know what’s going on.
It’s quite possible that there will never be resolution of ‘who done it’. And in that case, the church with it’s support of Smith alone…will likely have greater influence in having that theory maintained. But with the internet now a days who knows. I’m personally satisfied Smith didn’t do it alone. As far as you think I didn’t "resort to logic reason or evidence" on the "lost tribes"…well it took a while for me to understand what the issue was. I knew from the start that your explanation of “confusion” with the witnesses was highly improbable an explanation for all of them. So it was a matter of gathering information, trying to understand your perspective and that of the S/R witnessses.
It’s interesting that you go through the S/R witnesses statement with a fine tooth comb eager to dismiss them..but you don’t apply criteria that same stringent criteria to the Book of Mormon witnesses. For example it’s known Emma lied about polygamy, that was a major lie which indicates she’s quite willing and capable of lying for personal benefit or the benefit of the church. And yet you say her Book of Mormon translation statement is reliable and credible. Yet I'm fairly certain that if you found any one of the S/R witnesses to have lied blatantly as emma did ..you’d use that against them to dismiss their entire statement and probably rightfully so, And yet for Emma…whose statement is in support of an extraordinary claims and requires a greater degree of skepticism you apply less skepticam and accept her statement as reliable and true.
Dan wrote:marg wrote:Dan I've never agreed that you have falsified the S/R theory and that I used ad hoc justification to maintain it. And even in this thread you have talked about simplicity as being a decision tool which should be used in deciding between Smith alone and S/R.
All I want you to appreciate is that simplicity ..whether you call it Occam's Razor, parsimony or simply 'simplicity'..is not a logical decision tool which should be employed to determine in this case which theory is most likely true..Smith on his own or with co-conspirators.
Good. I’ve never claimed any such thing. Instead, you agreed here and elsewhere that the Spalding theory is more complicated and cumbersome than Smith-alone. The first time you agreed, ad hoc hadn’t been brought up—but I hope now that you become more aware of your style of argumentation is weak and has a weakening effect on the theory as a whole.
From page 12 you write: "I would paraphrase David Hume’s statement on miracles: pick the lesser miracle. Given the repeated and multiple eyewitness testimony maintained over decades, it would require a greater conspiracy to maintain a lesser speculated conspiracy. So which is easier to believe: the witnesses were telling the truth, or that they were involved in a massive conspiracy? What would Occum’s Razor have you choose? How many assumptions are needed to maintain the Spalding theory? Why replace a simple straightforward theory, for one so convoluted and ad hoc?"
That's just one example, more recently in the posts you have been saying the same thing that Occam's Razor is logical to apply in deciding between the theories. No it should not be applied to the 2 theories, it has no business being used as a decision factor in deciding between these 2 theories. Even though the S/R theory is more complicated in that it requires more data..that is not a reason to dismiss it. The data exists and to ignore the data, in order to maintain the Smith alone theory is intellectually dishonest.
You wrote in a recent previous post:
“Your insistence that differences between theories prevent Occam’s Razor being used in this case is just another stalling tactic, similar to what you did for false memory theory.'
Let me explain; Occam’s Razor is a decision tool that makes sense only in theories with the same explanatory power..and I can’t see how that can be unless the conclusions are the same. But certainly with different conclusions in competing theories in which they are contradictory ..both theories are not interchangeable, both can not exist as the same time…and occam’s razor can not apply. When it comes to seeking truth of events of what actually happened, Occam’s Razor is not an effective decision tool.
The reason I’m telling you to not us Occam’s Razor is because it’s inappropriate and I began the discussion on this to show you, you aren't the logic guru you think you are. I've had enough of your excessive ad hominems, telling me and Roger we are illogical.
Dan wrote:As far as the rest of your post on ad hoc..I'm not going to bother with that now. You probably missed or ignored the point I made that you did not falsify the S/R theory What you call my ad hoc justifications to stop you falsifying the S/R theory is not what occurred. You never destroyed or falsified the theory in the first place. If that's what you do in discussion Dan..claim victory and anyone who disagrees with you, is ad hoc'ing...that's pretty sad.
Ad hominem isn’t going to help you. I certainly don’t believe all arguments against my position are ad hoc fallacies, or that all defenses against my presentation of counter-evidence are ad hoc. Nor do I necessarily believe resort to ad hoc defenses disproves a theory—it’s the repeated tendency that weighs a theory down.
Right and a discussion with me Dan is not a discussion with all critics. One discussion on “lost tribes” with me is not an indication of a repeated tendency to use ad hocs in order to stop the S/R theory from being falsified.
Dan wrote:Most certainly Dan, the S/R theory is not simply a pile of ad hocs onto the Smith alone theory. The church appreciates how weak the Smith alone theory is, it's obvious it's a weak theory. If it was so easy for Smith and he was so capable of being the writer ...the divine explanation would have a much weaker believability factor in order to sell. If someone already believes in a God, it's only a small step to be sold that Smith couldn't have possibly written this therefore ..God did it.
I don’t make arguments based on what the Church thinks.
My point was perhaps not clear. I was pointing out that the Church has a strong argument against the Smith alone theory. In effect their argument overturns it, hence a good reason why you then are obliged to defend it, and not simply think that by poking holes or criticizing the S/R theory ..that the Smith alone has been rationally well warranted.
Again, that’s it for today. For health reasons I need to stretch and exercise as opposed to sitting at the computer…so 2 hours a day max at least for a few weeks is all I'm planning to spend on the computer.