Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

...
How one goes about separating fact from fiction in their testimonies is anyone's guess.
...

I suggest that we begin with Mormon witness testimony which overlaps
the contemporary non-Mormon accounts -- such as the Abner Cole
comments I've been quoting here. As we make comparisons, perhaps
we can gain some insight into how it would be possible to separate
"fact from fiction."

It would be helpful at this point, if we could consult with an expert
historian of early 19th century American society and religion --
one who had little professional contact with the LDS Church.

We might ask him/her, just how seriously we should take Oliver
Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, when they profess to have met Jesus
face-to-face. How reliable Cowdery's accounts of angels, John
the Baptist, and Peter, James & John really are.

If we need not believe Cowdery and other early Mormons in those
spectacular professions -- then perhaps we can disbelieve them
in more mundane testimony.

Lucy Mack Smith is singled out by Orsamas Turner and Dr. John
Stafford, as having played a role in the composition of the Book
of Mormon -- or, of at least knowing the facts behind the fraud.
Are we to believe her descriptions of Nephite magic spectacles
and other fantastic professions?

Could a mother have so little comprehension of her son's motives
and abilities as to be totally conned by his "ancient" book? And
especially so, when we stop to see that the Smith family was
promoting this same magic book long before they made any claims
for a religious reformation? Lucy was a published authoress herself;
could she really have believed in Nephites? or that Abraham had
written books on papyrus by his own hand -- books that she was
offering glimpses of at Nauvoo at two-bits a pop?

If somebody can convince me that Lucy, Oliver and Sidney were
honest, sincere Christians, totally duped and deluded by Joe Smith;
then I suppose they could convince me to join the Mormons as well.

UD

[_Roger]

UD wrote:

A number of other statements could be quoted here -- all giving
the impression that Smith family money-digging evolved into a
scheme to promote a book (or inscribed ancient plates) in that
family's possession. Although there was a magical context for
both the money-digging and the alleged plates discovery, the
element of restored Christian religion had not yet entered into
the scheme, as late as 1827 (and perhaps even 1828).

I do not think that this collection of non-Mormon accounts can be
easily reconciled with the LDS teaching -- that Joe Smith was
persecuted for his religious professions from 1820 onward -- nor
can it be easily reconciled with Lucy Mack Smith's portrayal of her
son's Gold Bible promotion as a purely religious effort.

Excellent points. Some of the earliest testimonies seem to indicate the religious aspects came later and if that is correct, it raises the question of how serious Joe Smith would have been about religion in the months leading up to Book of Mormon dictation?

If the Cole quote you posted is to be accepted, how much would Joseph have cared about the doctrinal implications of King James' use of italics in 1828-29?

We have been credibly informed that the mother of the prophet
had connected herself with several religious societies before her
present illumination; this also was the case with other branches
of the family, but how far the father of the prophet, ever advanced
in these particulars, we are not precisely informed, it however
appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any
serious pretentions to religion until his late pretended revelation.

Would someone who "never made any serious pretentions to religion" have produced all the content in the Book of Mormon?

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Below are quotes showing the evolution of our discussion on Occam’s Razor. (I'm blue, you are reddish brown)

Not once did you address my reasoning why in historical cases in which one is attempting to determine what actually happened, and there are competing theories with different conclusions which can not possibly co-exist, and the theories could not possibly explain the data equally well, in such cases … Occam’s Razor isn’t applicable, not even as a rule of thumb. Instead you told me my wording is confusing and that I’m “confusing “phenomenon” with “conclusion”” and you said that “Different “conclusions” is the wrong word. We’re talking about different explanations of the same phenomenon.”

I was using Occam’s Razor in the way that it is commonly used, not in the way that Occam originally formulated it as a way of identifying weaker and stronger theories of the same phenomenon. Simplicity is one of the values of science by which theories are assessed. None of these values are “objective”—they are preferences based on experience, although there are exceptions. Note also I did not prefer Smith-alone theory because it was simpler than S/R theory, but I rejected S/R theory because its complexity was due to its unfounded reliance on conspiracy and its response to adverse evidence is mostly ad hoc. Wiki mentions that simplicity and complexity are not objective criteria. That’s why I focused on a certain type of complexity—the kind that gets added in response to adverse evidence.

Note, too, we are translating a scientific model to a debate about history to make our discussions more rigorous and to prevent or at least highlight wild speculation and anything-goes responses to adverse evidence. The fit to history isn’t going to be perfect, which is what I warned you about when you were assessing the witnesses using current journalistic standards.

So I respond that we are talking about different conclusions..and you tell me “You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion.”

Yes. You were talking about the seven steps of the scientific method. The list you quoted ended with “conclusion”. Normally it ends with “theory”. In this instance, “conclusion” and “theory” are the same—a theory is a conclusion, but theory is the better word. So we are discussing two theories and two conclusions—S/R and Smith-alone, which claim to explain the Book of Mormon’s existence in different ways. The narrowest use of Occam’s Razor, which you seem to advocate, would say that among the various possible formulations of the S/R theory, the simplest is the likely the correct one. But this doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t account for competing theories. How would you assess and explain preference for evolution over creationism or intelligent design theory? Isn’t creationism assessed by comparison with evolution? Wouldn’t you assess the God-thesis as unnecessary and multiplying entities?

My response to you Dan is, I am not confusing the word "theory" with "conclusion". The Smith alone theory and the Spalding Rigdon theory have different conclusions. They both are theories to explain the same phenomenon, but with different conclusions. That means they do not have equal explanatory power. Only one scenario is possible, not both. It is only possible that Smith was the sole writer or that Smith had others help him.

The seven steps of scientific method that you quoted replaced “theory” with “conclusion”. Creationism, intelligent design, and evolution are competing theories of the same phenomenon—it goes without saying that they reach different conclusions. Creation is the simplest, but its simplicity is only superficial, because it postulates God as the manipulator of the complexity. That entity causes all kinds of hidden complexity and is untestable.

Please note this as well from wiki:

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[14]

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice."

Right. Complexity and simplicity by themselves aren’t objective criteria. It’s the kind of complexity—the “context of application”. S/R theory involves multiplying entities or assumptions to account for adverse evidence. The conspiracy widens to include Cowdery, Rigdon, Pratt, Whitmer—not as an integral part of the theory but as an explanation of adverse evidence. I never said that Smith-alone is the correct theory merely because it was the simplest. I said that Occam’s Razor favors the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and ad hoc theories, that when a theory increasingly relies on these things that it will eventually fall out of favor. I never said that S/R theory should be summarily dismissed because it’s more complex than Smith-alone. These are ways of assessing the strengths and weaknesses in competing theories. You don’t get a free pass for inventing any response to counter-evidence that you pull out of the air. Your trick-hat theory is ad hoc because it’s your attempt to escape testimony that conflicts with your main theory and has no evidence or logical force. This kind of untestable move weighs down your main theory and will eventually sink it. It’s less about the narrow definition of Occam’s Razor than it is about the values by which science assesses theories. In historiography, conspiracy theories are greeted with skepticism.

During our discussion not once did you address the reasoning I gave but shifted focus off the reasoning and instead went on a tangent accusing me of misusing words... which I had not done. Given this, what is the likelihood that if I explain to you why your use of ad hoc fallacy is incorrect..that rather than address the reasoning you will instead will go off on a tangent and shift focus with an attempt to discredit me, despite you having no justified warrants to do so?

You did use confusing terms, as I explained above, again.Your questions assume you are right and attempt to place me in a false dichotomy where if I don’t agree with you I’m unreasonable. Really, do you have to be so narcissistic?

Essentially Dan for similar reasons to why Occam’s razor wasn’t applicable as a decision tool in choosing between the Smith alone and S/R theory, so too, “ad hoc fallacy” is not applicable in your attempts to discredit the S/R theory. I’ll have to explain later..but I doubt you’ll have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the reasoning I’ll give..instead you’ll likely ignore it and focus on attempts to discredit me..dishonestly.

How exactly is this not ad hominal? You should never accuse people of dishonesty, when the only evidence you have is in your own mind. Instead, you should always assume they are sincere, because regardless of the reason you have to respond to arguments the same way. It only diminishes your credibility.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Would someone who "never made any serious pretentions to religion" have produced all the content in the Book of Mormon?

It might be argued that Smith's interest in religion came at a late
period -- not long before he began dictating his book to Harris. In
that scenario, the literary creation of the book itself might have led
Smith gradually to a deeper interest in baptism, institutional religious
restorationism, etc. etc.

All of which would mean that Smith either created the narrative
on-the-fly, or was composing its main features in his head, shortly
before the dictation began.

As for myself, I do not believe that there was time enough for
Smith to have accomplished such a feat -- unless the "religious"
parts of the Book of Mormon were largely pre-determined before
1828-29.

If the religious nature of the book was already a solid fact in
1826-27, then why do early secular reports appear to say just
the opposite?

One possible answer to that question is that the religious nature
of the book pre-dated Smith's involvement in shaping the text.

Another possible answer would be that Smith held back profession
of the religious nature of his upcoming creation, giving the general
impression that he was merely a money-digger who had found a
trove of golden objects, and not a dedicated religious innovator.

This latter conclusion would fall in line with the modern LDS
deductions that Smith kept the details of his "first vision" and
higher priesthood restoration "a secret" for many years -- so
that not even his closest associates knew all of those "facts."

Somehow Occam's razor is supposed to favor that convoluted
depiction of Smithite history, rather than the probability that the
man was a lying fraud and secret manipulator.

We need to raise Occam from the dead and solicit his august
decision in this never-ending controversy.

UD

[_marg]

Ad hoc Fallacy explanation for Dan

Post reference: Dan’s post of Tue May 10


So Dan you quoted from Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age [Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1999], 156-58)..and I was able to download that book off the internet. So let’s examine what you quoted.

In general any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be conclusively confuted. This does not mean however, that every hypothesis is as good as every other. Although no amount of evidence logically compels us to reject a hypothesis, maintaining a hypothesis in the face of adverse evidence can be manifestly unreasonable. So even if we cannot conclusively say that a hypothesis is false, we can conclusively say that it’s unreasonable. …

[A] popular method for shielding hypotheses from adverse evidence: constructing ad hoc hypotheses. A hypothesis threatened by recalcitrant data can often be saved by postulating entities or properties that account for the data. Such a move is legitimate if there’s an independent means of verifying their existence. If there is no such means, the hypothesis is ad hoc.

Ad hoc literally means “for this case only.” But it’s not simply that a hypothesis is designed to account for a particular phenomenon that makes it ad hoc (if that were the cace, all hypotheses would be ad hoc). What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that if can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain. …

When a scientific theory starts relying on ad hoc hypotheses to be saved from adverse data, it becomes unreasonable to maintain belief in that theory. … (Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age [Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1999], 156-58).

What you have quoted was taken from the Chapter 7..titled “Science and its pretenders”. Based on my edition it indicates you have either misquoted them or misrepresented their words.

It says p 183---

"In general, any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse evidence if we’re willing to make enough alterations in our background beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be conclusively confuted.

It is not true, however, that every hypothesis is as good as every other. Although no amount of evidence logically compels us to reject a hypothesis, maintaining a hypothesis in the face of adverse evidence can be manifestly unreasonable. So even if we cannot conclusively say that a hypothesis is false, we can often conclusively say that it’s unreasonable."

Note Dan the difference between what it says in that first sentence and what you say they said. You switched the word “evidence” and replaced it with “beliefs”. “Evidence” and “beliefs” are very different words. Beliefs do not require evidence. One can hold a belief absent evidence, even contrary to evidence. You also omitted a critical part of their argument. Where’s the part that they say “if we’re willing to make enough alterations in our background beliefs”?

So what you quoted them as saying is not what they said and makes a world of difference as far as understanding the whole context and meaning of their argument.

What they are arguing is that when evidence contrary to one’s belief/hypothesis is presented, one can maintain that belief/hypothesis by changing the assumptions that are being used as background information. In other words if one adds assumptions which are impossible to refute, then no matter how much or how strong that evidence is which is presented to refute, those additional assumptions which can’t be falsified are then used to do away with that recalcitrant evidence, for the purpose of maintaining that belief/hypothesis.

Evidence is a key word, they are discussing this within the context of the chapter which is about “science and its pretenders”. And within that chapter the scientific hypothesis which they are discussing ..require evidence..as part of the scientific method. And that evidence which science accepts requires that it be objectively verifiable. That is a key component of their argument. They are NOT talking about the sort of evidence we have been discussing which is NOT open to objective verification. We can’t verify what exactly went on when Smith dictated to scribes..it’s not open to objective verification..so within the context of how they are using the word “evidence” it is not the sort of evidence we are using such as 'what the Book of Mormon witnesses claim'. What the Book of Mormon witnesses claim is not open to objective verification.

You quote the authors : “What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain."

Let me explain when the ad hoc fallacy is applicable: A claim or hypothesis is made which is falsifiable. Then a counter which offers objective verifiable evidence is presented which falsifie/refutess the claim or hypothesis. Then the claimant responds by changing the assumptions, ie. they add magic to the background assumption used, or the supernatural into the assumptions, or any assumptions which then makes the original claim unfalsifiable with objective verifiable evidence. It is at that point that one can rationally respond that an ad hoc fallacy is being committed..because there is no rational means to counter the irrational.

This is not what has been happening when you have been accusing S/ R proponents of “ad hoc fallacy”. You have not countered with objective verifiable evidence. And the sorts of claims being made either by both theories, the Smith alone or the S/R theory..are not the sorts of hypothesis/claims which science makes. The claims science makes are not about what “truly happened” ..that there is only one true account which actually occurred. In science theories are explanations which work because they explain observable phenomenon, it's not about one "truth" . Those explanations are adjustable, they are temporary truths, can change with new information. There can be numerous explanations which work. And these science explanations/theories are verifiable with future observations and testing.

But the evidence used in the Smith alone and Spalding/Rigdon theory can not be duplicated in order to test and objectively verify. Much of the evidence involved in these theories is open to subjective interpretations of past events. So Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn explanation of ad hoc fallacy which is applicable to science or any claim open to objective verification..IS NOT applicable to our discussion involving the Smith alone and Spalding Rigdon theory.

Scientific theories and any claim open to objective falsification are a different animal than theories of historical accounts. Historical accounts are not objectively testable and verifable. This is why Dan your application of Occam’s Razor and ad hoc fallacy against Spalding Rigdon theory have been misused and incorrectly applied. It is not an ad hoc fallacy Dan to offer explanations in a complex theory. Ad hoc fallacy is only applicable when objective verifiable evidence has countered a claim/hypothesis and in response the claimant adds new background assumptions which are implausible and unfalsifiable.


by the way...I'm going to also repost this from wiki:

As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[14]
The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.

[/quote]

(again that's it for today on the computer - I'll have to look at your post which you posted today Dan ..tomorrow.)

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

Note, too, we are translating a scientific model to a debate about history to make our discussions more rigorous and to prevent or at least highlight wild speculation and anything-goes responses to adverse evidence.

How is concluding that a Bible was the only possible external source used to produce the Book of Mormon not an anything goes response to adverse evidence? The adverse evidence comes in the form of text that is nearly identical to KJV Isaiah which makes it borderline absurd to come to the conclusion that a Bible was not used. And when we consider that the 1830 Book of Mormon text repeats KJV grammatical mistakes, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Book of Mormon text relies on the KJV. But no Book of Mormon witness that you otherwise rely on ever acknowledges that a Bible was used. Nevertheless, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you acknowledge that a Bible was used. But you draw the line at the Bible.

If a Bible was used but never acknowledged, what ground is there to conclude that nothing else was used but never acknowledged? Unless I missed something in our earlier discussion, the only basis you have for coming to that conclusion is the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses. Correct?

[_marg]

You should never accuse people of dishonesty, when the only evidence you have is in your own mind.

There is a pattern I'm noting of you Dan. I present reasons why Occam's Razor is not an applicable tool, to use in choosing between competing theories with different conclusion..such as the Smith alone theory with Smith as sole author as the conclusion and the Spalding/Rigdon theory with Smith and multiple contributors. You ignore my reasoning, don't continue to discuss or counter why Occam's Razor is valid between competing theories with different conclusion ..but instead shift focus essentially to an attack me and my comprehension of the words phenomonem, conclusion and theory. You continue to insist I'm misusing the words when I am not..so I suppose I'll have to spend time and continue to address this. But the real focus you are attempting to do, is shift away from providing reasoning which counters my point that Occam's Razor is inappropriate in circumstances involving historical accounts. (Please see the wiki quote which also explains this)

Then I find you misrepresent the reasoning I've given why the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable witnesses.

Then I also find out you have misrepresented and it looks like a blatant misquoting of the book How to think about weird things.

So what am I to make of this Dan. These are not minor mistakes in this discussion and the mistakes are self serving for you.

How should I interpret these misrepresentations and misquoting as well as avoidance of the real issue in the discussion which is whether or not you have been using Occam's Razor and ad hoc fallacy correctly in your dismissal of the S/R theory?

[Guest]

I was using Occam’s Razor in the way that it is commonly used, not in the way that Occam originally formulated it as a way of identifying weaker and stronger theories of the same phenomenon.

Dan Occam's Razor does not apply...if you are using it as a decision tool against S/R theory you are wrong in doing so.

Again from wiki:

As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[14]

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.

What they mean by "competing explanations" is competing theories with different conclusions..which is what Smith alone and S/R theory are. In addition it says "Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology". In otherwords Dan you can't find the truth objectively using Occam's Razor. Objective truth is what history seeks, science is not concerned about objective truth, it's interested in explanations about observations of the world.

When on earth are you going to acknowledge Occam's Razor is not applicable by any means in any decision making with regards to Smith alone versus S/R theory?

Simplicity is one of the values of science by which theories are assessed.

Dan that's only when theories have equivalent explanatory power. As I've said to you a number of times ..in science it is the explanatory power that is important not a particular truth. So all things being equal, in science if there are 2 competing theories explaining the same data ..in essence they are pretty much interchangeable except one may include more data and more theorizing..in those case generally it's acknowledge that it's better to use the simpler theory. This is not the case in choosing between historical accounts trying to theorize what truly happened.

None of these values are “objective”—they are preferences based on experience, although there are exceptions.

Generally Dan in science with 2 competing equal explanatory theories, it's found it is best to use the simplest one. But science doesn't use occam's razor as a decision tool anyhow.

Note also I did not prefer Smith-alone theory because it was simpler than S/R theory, but I rejected S/R theory because its complexity was due to its unfounded reliance on conspiracy and its response to adverse evidence is mostly ad hoc.

And again the problem is you don't understand ad hoc fallacy. I've explained it in another post, which I'm sure we'll end up having to discuss. So please read that.

Wiki mentions that simplicity and complexity are not objective criteria. That’s why I focused on a certain type of complexity—the kind that gets added in response to adverse evidence.

Well Dan, Occam's razor doesn't apply to theories searching for the truth of what happened. And ad hoc fallacy only applies in situations in which a claim is made which is falsifiable..that is via observation or testing or confirming whether or not the theories predictions bear out. And when a counter to the claim is presented and then the response is to add another assumption which disallows the refutation...then ad hoc fallacy is applicable. But Dan it's not applicable in historical accounts for which it's impossible to objectively test and verify. So you should not have been using ad hoc fallacy against S/R theory.

Of course in real life Dan, conspiracies do occur and when they do they will be much more complex than some simple theory eliminating the conspiracy. But you can't just willy nilly decide a theory is too complex for you and on that basis should be dismissed. That's utterly absurd.

Note, too, we are translating a scientific model to a debate about history to make our discussions more rigorous and to prevent or at least highlight wild speculation and anything-goes responses to adverse evidence.

Well you may think you are making it more rigorous but you aren't. You're just misapplying the logic.

If you are attempting to use logic but are using it wrong..you are not using logic.

The fit to history isn’t going to be perfect, which is what I warned you about when you were assessing the witnesses using current journalistic standards.

Dan it's not just that the fit to history isn't perfect, it's that the fit of Occam's Razor and ad hoc fallacy doesn't fit at all.
You have been misusing and misapplying it all in an effort to protect your theory Smith alone and dismiss the S/R theory.

So I respond that we are talking about different conclusions..and you tell me “You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion.”

Yes. You were talking about the seven steps of the scientific method. The list you quoted ended with “conclusion”. Normally it ends with “theory”. In this instance, “conclusion” and “theory” are the same—a theory is a conclusion, but theory is the better word. So we are discussing two theories and two conclusions—S/R and Smith-alone, which claim to explain the Book of Mormon’s existence in different ways.

I have not used the words incorrectly. We are talking about 2 competing theories, evaluating the same data (or at least they should..apparently you just pick and choose whatever suits you). with 2 different conclusions to explain the Book of Mormon..that's what I've said all along and you without any warrants keep saying I'm using the wrong words. This is all beside the point really..because the real issue here is you've been accusing me of using wrong words in order to divert away from addressing my reasoning on Occams' Razor. In the scheme of things even if I had used words incorrectly (which I haven't) that doesn't change the important issue here..and that is your use of Occam's Razor and ad hoc fallacy ...incorrectly for purposes of dismissing the S/R theory.

The narrowest use of Occam’s Razor, which you seem to advocate, would say that among the various possible formulations of the S/R theory, the simplest is the likely the correct one. But this doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t account for competing theories.

See above or some of my past posts what I've been advocating Dan. History and science are different animals, different purposes, different goals.

How would you assess and explain preference for evolution over creationism or intelligent design theory?

Dan these are not theories with equal explanatory power...Occam's Razor doesn't apply. Intelligent design and creationism are not science..they are not open to objective testing and verification. The supernatural in those theories doesn't add explanatory power.

Isn’t creationism assessed by comparison with evolution? Wouldn’t you assess the God-thesis as unnecessary and multiplying entities?

God doesn't add explanatory power. Who is god, how do we test for god, just how to we objectively verify god. Does God help explain the phenomenon of the different species that have existed. No creationism is not assessed by comparison to evolution.

The seven steps of scientific method that you quoted replaced “theory” with “conclusion”. Creationism, intelligent design, and evolution are competing theories of the same phenomenon—it goes without saying that they reach different conclusions. Creation is the simplest, but its simplicity is only superficial, because it postulates God as the manipulator of the complexity. That entity causes all kinds of hidden complexity and is untestable.

Dan these are not competing theories offering equal explanatory power, nor do they use the same data and evidence. Occam's razor is not applied...has nothing to do with helping decide between the theories which one explains best.

Please note this as well from wiki:

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[14]

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice."

Right. Complexity and simplicity by themselves aren’t objective criteria. It’s the kind of complexity—the “context of application”. S/R theory involves multiplying entities or assumptions to account for adverse evidence. The conspiracy widens to include Cowdery, Rigdon, Pratt, Whitmer—not as an integral part of the theory but as an explanation of adverse evidence. I never said that Smith-alone is the correct theory merely because it was the simplest. I said that Occam’s Razor favors the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and ad hoc theories, that when a theory increasingly relies on these things that it will eventually fall out of favor. I never said that S/R theory should be summarily dismissed because it’s more complex than Smith-alone. These are ways of assessing the strengths and weaknesses in competing theories. You don’t get a free pass for inventing any response to counter-evidence that you pull out of the air. Your trick-hat theory is ad hoc because it’s your attempt to escape testimony that conflicts with your main theory and has no evidence or logical force. This kind of untestable move weighs down your main theory and will eventually sink it. It’s less about the narrow definition of Occam’s Razor than it is about the values by which science assesses theories. In historiography, conspiracy theories are greeted with skepticism.

Dan you need to think about ad hoc fallacy some more and understand the difference between what science seeks versus history and appreciate science is based upon having objective verifiable evidence which can be reproduced or verified by observing what is predicted by that theory. For ad hoc fallacy you need to have claims or theories which are falsifiable with objective observable evidence. Since I've written this after the ad hoc fallacy post explanation. I won't repeat..and give you time to read and think about it.

During our discussion not once did you address the reasoning I gave but shifted focus off the reasoning and instead went on a tangent accusing me of misusing words... which I had not done. Given this, what is the likelihood that if I explain to you why your use of ad hoc fallacy is incorrect..that rather than address the reasoning you will instead will go off on a tangent and shift focus with an attempt to discredit me, despite you having no justified warrants to do so?

You did use confusing terms, as I explained above, again.Your questions assume you are right and attempt to place me in a false dichotomy where if I don’t agree with you I’m unreasonable. Really, do you have to be so narcissistic?

No Dan I didn't use any terms incorrectly. Quote me where I used a term wrong..do a separate post for it.

But this has really been a divergence tactic of yours..and that is to not address my reasoning why Occam's Razor isn't applicable and to shift focus onto something irrelevant.

Narcissism has nothing to do with this discussion Dan. The discussion is about what is the best fit theory for the data to explain how and by whom the Book of Mormon was written. That's it.

The reasoning that you have given so far in this thread to dismiss the S/R theory has been wrong in some cases and just poor reasoning in other cases.

And by the way, you say strange things that a skeptic wouldn't say ...such as 'Cowdery asked to try translating the stone'. What sort of a skeptic thinks that should be taken at face value? What sort of a skeptic actually thinks Cowdery really asked if he could try to translate the stone? That's a believer talking, Dan...not a skeptic. Did it ever occur to you that Cowdery never said anything of the sort..but that it was simply planted propaganda to fool believers and people such as yourself? You aren't an atheist or a skeptic of Mormon claims to Smith's divine connection mright? You are a believing Mormon. No skeptic with any brains would have said what you said. But a believer who wants to play the side of a skeptic (for Mormon apologetic purposes) who truly thinks Smith does have divine connection would when switching their thinking to how they think a secular person might perceive would still maintain the belief in Smith's powers to the divine...but suggest as you did, that intelligent people were fooled by his amazing abilities.

A skeptic Dan would see right through it and appreciate it's not that Smith had amazing abilities at all, but that bit about Cowdery asking to try to translate the stone ..is obvious propaganda Smith and Cowdery used to make their claims seem credible to the gullible.

Here's what you said: "Cowdery asked to try translating with the stone, and Harris tested Joseph Smith by switching the stone. You underestimate Joseph Smith’s ability to convince people of his gift. Some very intelligent people were fooled by him."

[_Uncle Dale]

...
the problem is you don't understand ad hoc fallacy.
...

Your valiant attempts at soliciting reasonable response and useful
dialogue are becoming more and more disheartening, marg.

I've had more productive conversations with the computerized
robot voice, that tells me the number I have dialed is not in service.

Do you really expect to summon forth even the slightest shred of
human decency and rational response? Hell may freeze over first.

Perhaps you'll have better success in obtaining blood from turnips.

Just saying...

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

Do you really expect to summon forth even the slightest shred of
human decency and rational response?

It's been frustrating for you..you've been up against a well orchestrated machine. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan is a part of that machine. If somehow it was discovered that the church has been paying Dan to work as an apologist for them, and he's actually a true believer in Mormonism, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.