Dan wrote:marg wrote:Do you see the explanation that God helped or guided Smith to translate ancient plates, as an ad hoc explanation to how the Book of Mormon was written?
No. It’s the initial claim, not a defense against adverse evidence. Statements like that make me doubt you know what an ad hoc is.
What's the initial claim...God inspired/helped Smith? Think about it Dan why should it have to be an initial claim? In a discussion or debate, one side starts off ..with presumption and the burden to overturn goes to the other side, but once that is done the burden to counter shifts back. Arguments are a back and forth processes and they evolve into new arguments.
So looking at wiki it says;
A case in point: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g."And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations cannot be ruled out - but by using Occam's Razor;
So in the case of the Book of Mormon the simplest explanation, (for argument sake not taking into account the evidence and reasoning which supports the S/R theory)..but looking at the production of the Book of Mormon in which Smith and Co took the manuscript to the printers and it was claimed only Smith dictated to scribes…the simplest explanation is Smith absent God, because there is no evidence for the God which Smith & Co. claimed and claiming God adds further complexity with no greater explanatory power. God needs an explanation and to be established, but as well God explains away the evidence of Smith simply being able to dictate to the scribes the Book of Mormon.
So the theory which stands and enjoys presumption (albeit without evidence for S/R theory in consideration) is Smith alone, unless the Divine theory can overturn that, by showing for example that more than one person wrote the Book of Mormon. So when the church or a believer argues God was involved, that Smith with high probability was unlikely to have written on his own without outside help , as he didn’t have the education, knowledge, capability, there was no preplanning, reviewing and correcting, and no manuscript or material was used… the hypothesis that God helped or inspired Smith ..is an ad hoc justification to maintain the Smith Divine theory.
By the way labeling fallacies is not end all and be all in reasoning. The reason I’m addressing ad hocs is because it’s where you took the discussion. I’m quite aware that there are problems with fallacy theory and fallacies are not always fallacies. In addition the problem with using fallacy labels as opposed to explaining with reasoning is that people may have a different understanding of a particular fallacy. There are other approaches to identify poor reasoning.
[http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd.html]
Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (1995).
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies
Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst
Thanks to Hamblin's book Fallacies (1970), it is now common knowledge that the Standard Treatment of fallacies suffers from serious theoretical and practical defects. Many generally recognized fallacies clearly fall outside the scope of the standard definition of a fallacy as an argument that seems valid but is not valid: in some cases because there is not the slightest question of there being an argument (many questions, ad baculum); in other cases because, logically speaking, the argument in question is not invalid at all (circular reasoning); in still other cases (ad verecundiam, ad populum) because it would be missing the point completely to identify the error as one of invalidity.1
In our own efforts to offer an alternative to the Standard Treatment we started from the consideration that there is no reason to assume from the outset that all the fallacies are essentially logical errors. We were convinced that the single-minded preoccupation with the logical aspects of arguments should be rigorously abandoned. For the informal fallacies it had, after all, only led to largely unsatisfactory and unsystematic ad hoc analyses. In our opinion, the fallacies could be better understood if they were treated as faux pas of communication -- as wrong moves in argumentative discourse. Viewed from this perspective, a fallacy is a hindrance or impediment to the resolution of a disagreement, and the specific nature of each of the fallacies depends on the exact manner in which it interferes with the resolution process. This was our starting point in setting about to develop a general and comprehensive approach to argumentation that covers the whole domain of the fallacies.
[/quote]Dan wrote:The Limited Geography Theory is an ad hoc hypothesis against problems in the text of rapid population growth and unrealistic distances travel. This has other ad hocs to support it. Tilting the map 45 degrees, so that orientation is more north and south, rather than east and west, as required by the Book of Mormon. The Isthmus of Tehauntepec is not narrow enough, so that those passing through it are aware of the sea on the east and west. This is resolved by explaining that the “narrow pass” is a feature of the “neck of land”, a ridge at the north end of Tehuantepec that floods in the rainy season on both sides.
Those who explain the lack of DNA evidence linking Amerindians to Israel by saying when God changed their skin color it changed their DNA.
Those who explain “horse” in the Book of Mormon is really a deer or tapir.
From these examples, I hope you learn what an ad hoc hypothesis is. It’s not every reference to God.
Ad hoc hypothesis. An auxiliary hypothesis that lacks independent support which is adopted to save a theory from refutation. Such hypotheses are bad because any theory can be rescued from refutation in this way. Auxiliary hypotheses should be justified by independent evidence.
When you look at your above examples the explanations do not fit with other explanations within the overall big picture. The explanations don’t have explanatory power that fit within a larger well warranted theory, they are only explanations independent of the overall larger theory and used to explain anomalies.
Let’s look at your examples of ad hoc fallacious reasoning applied to S/R theory.
Dan Vogel wrote:
Counter Evidence: MS Hurlbut recovered not same as Book of Mormon
Ad Hoc Hypothesis: Hurlbut recovered two MSS and sold one to Mormons
There is evidence and reasoning which supports a S/R theory. This is one hypothesis that fits within the rest of the evidence and reasoning for the S/R theory. It’s not simply an explanation explaining away one anomaly. When witnesses were shown MSCC they didn’t say ‘well then Spalding must have written another manuscript’ , they said it wasn’t the manuscript they referenced in their earlier statement, that Spalding had written another going back further in time’. They weren’t presenting an explanation to counter an anomoly, they were witnesses telling what they remembered. Some of the witnesses (including Aron Wright)even though they weren’t asked the question specifically mentioned in their statements to Hurlbut that Spalding had other manuscripts. And based upon other supporting evidence from the printer R. Patterson, Spalding’s wife and daughter, amity witnesses, their statements are consistent with there being another manuscript than MSCC. What Hurlbut did with the second manuscript MF is speculative.
There is the evidence in which Hurlbut stops in Palmyra to request the editor to print that he was successful in getting what he set out for. And that the widow of the author of the manuscript identified Rigdon as being the one to add the religioius material to Spalding’s manuscript. Why would Hurlbut mention Rigdon, if all he had was MSCC.
So evidence and reasoning is gathered and that which fits within other evidence and hypothesis is what builds a case. These separate bits of data gathered are not explanations to explain away anomalies they are bits and pieces which are gathered which may or may not fit within an overall probability conclusion.
If you note your ad hoc examples above ..those explanations do not fit within a big overall probability conclusion.
CE: How did Joseph Smith get Spalding MS?
AHH: Sidney Rigdon stole Spalding’s MS, rewrote it, and passed it to Joseph Smith
Well since there is good evidence of another Spalding manuscript existing other than MSCC and which had aspects the same as the Book of Mormon, then that leads to requiring an explanation to account for the Spalding manuscript. There are warrants to justify Rigdons’ involvements. Once again Dan, this isn’t ad hoc fallacy. When there are good warrants to justify a hypothesis and it fits within the larger picture of evidence and reasoning for a probability conclusion. All hypothesis are ad hocs because they are devised to explain evidence..after the fact.
What is happening with the S/R theory that you are attacking is that it is only what one would expect that it would take time to acquire data. It's unlikely whether a conspiracy was involved or not, that whoever created the Book of Mormon would be open to revealing how it was done. But when the data is examined and considered in relation to other data a picture begins to emerge with pieces fitting into the big picture. Some pieces fit well, others may not but then may be useful and fit in, with additional information and reasoning. Some pieces are better warranted than others. But the well warranted evidence helps to support the less warranted evidence that fits into the big picture.
Why would anyone assume that all the data would be available right at the beginning as the picture of what happened is emerging? If a conspiracy occurred, data would be kept hidden, suppressed and it would take time to discover information…and some of it, may never be possible to discover. Using fallacies irresponsibly for the sole purpose to dismiss evidence and reasoning in order to achieve a quick win is fallacious reasoning.
CE: SR didn’t hear of the Book of Mormon until Nov. 1830
AHH: SR’s post-Book of Mormon conversion was a sham
Dan, come on...that’s being ridiculous. Of course if its a conspiracy and SR is involved, he of all people would do his best to not let it be known. In addition in those early stages, people are not aware or noting anything going on, because it's not even on their radar screen what is being planned.
Of course SR’s sudden conversion is suspicious ..for good reason. His sudden conversion fits in with other evidence of the S/R theory. One would predict that if he was the key mastermind behind the Book of Mormon and new start up religion, he would convert suddenly, under suspicious conditions.
CE: How did he know P P Pratt would lead missionaries to his home?
AHH: Parley P. Pratt was in on the SR conversion sham
And your point? Some evidence and reasoning is more speculative than other. But there is good reason to be suspicious that P. Pratt would go out of his way and end up at Rigdon’s home.
CE: SR and Joseph Smith said they didn’t meet until Dec. 1830
AHH: That was a lie
Ya, they'd never lie. (sarcasm)
CE: Multiple witnesses say there was no MS used in translation
AHH: They are either gullible or liars
Again, ya, they'd never lie. (sarcasm) I haven't yet looked at your response to my quick Alec Fisher applied critical evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses. But again that's not fallacious reasoning. There is good reason to not trust the reliability of those who make extraordinary claims and have a vested interest in the enterprise they involve themselves in, and as well all pretty much related to one another.
CE: Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with head in hat
AHH: The hat had a false top and Joseph Smith read MS in lap
Well something happened. My suggestion is not worse than yours in which you think despite his lack of education, despite no preplanning, no reviewing and correcting and despite only enlisting an inner circle of close people that he stuck his head in a hat and dictated to them the whole time. In addition you see no problem that no witness mentioned any Bible was used, yet they specified he had nothing else with him.
CE: Spalding witnesses said MS about Indians being lost tribes
AHH: They didn’t really mean lost tribes as understood by their contemporaries, but to one tribe with blood line same as one of the tribes that got lost
Well what I said was the witnesses had discussions with him about what his story was about and his story evolved so each witness especially in Conneaut wouldn’t have seen a completed story. It appears he went back in time at some points..so sure I speculate that lost tribes can mean exiled lost tribes, as opposed to the myth lost tribes specified in Esdras..especially since Spalding was a biblical skeptic and wouldn't have believed in the myth but would have believed as true …exiled lost tribes of 720 B.C.
I don't think it’s highly unlikely for Spalding to have discussed with the witnesses his story being about Am. Indians descended from those dispersed lost tribe ancestors. The Am. Indians got to American some how..so why not just a few descendants from a lost tribe dispersed ancestry. And as his story evolved he may have changed it and taken it further back to give more details of the actual larger group of exiled lost tribes in 720 B.C.
I don’t see your suggestion that they were confusing their memory of MSCC with Ethan Smiths's book or confusing Book of Mormon with Ethan Smith's book highly probable. It doesn’t fit in with what they say they clearly remember. The Book of Mormon which they say they looked at, starts off with a small family from Jerusalem,so if according to you there is only one mythical lost tribe theory which they would have appreciated and since the Book of Mormon doesn't start out that way, there's no reason for them to be confused. While they may have been confused with a hazy memory on some things in their statements, that so many mention "lost tribes" and that it was also part of discussions they had with spalding…in my opinion lost tribes is a true memory on their part..however which way Spalding explained it to them.
My goal is to figure out what makes the most sense that fits within the big picture of all the data. I welcome good reasoning to show me how my suggestion couldn’t possibly have occurred. But time and again Dan, I’m seeing very poor reasoning on your part. So I’m not going to accept that when one used the words “lost tribes” it entailed the Esdras myth. As I pointed out to Glenn I have a history book which mentioned the Assyrian invasion in 720 B.C. , the exiled Israelites, that they assimilated into the populations of where they went and the book said that subsequently they have been referred to as lost tribes. So if my history book can mention lost tribes assimilating without mentioning the Esdras myth, then so could Spalding, and so could I view it that way. And if this was something Spalding discussed with the witnesses then their understanding would be a function of how he presented it.
CE: The Book of Mormon isn't about the ten tribes, it rejects it
AHH: Those passages were added
Well if Spalding's book was about a lost tribe blood line to
Am. Indians and let's say Rigdon believed in the Esdras myth, then he could have taken Spalding's manuscript..and to account for the lost tribes as he understood it via the myth, and to make it consistent...added to the story that the lost tribes lived elsewhere.
That's my suggestion.