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)
Your problem is that you assume you are right. You have latched on to a quibble about a strict definition of a term, when the term has a wider meaning as well. Scientists and historians favor theories/interpretations of the same data that make the fewest ad hocs. In principle, that’s an appeal to simplicity and a preference for the fewest assumptions and least elaboration. That’s the spirit of Occam’s Razer, and that’s how it is used in the literature. It’s not a matter of simple vs. complex, which is not what I have been talking about. Still, Occam’s Razor in the narrow sense can be used to evaluate S/R theory, without reference to any competing theory. But I will explain more on this later. Your posts are long and will take time to deal with them (perhaps tomorrow).
Right now, I’m concerned with you increasing ad hominal attacks. Disagreeing with your use of terms is not an attack on you. Get real! An attack is accusing me of dishonesty. If anyone has displayed a pattern here—it’s you! Despite long and frustrating arguments with you about the 20-year old memories, “lost tribes”, and your hat-trick-joke of a theory, which were vigorously defended by you in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, I never accused you of dishonesty. Now, give me the same respect.
Then I find you misrepresent the reasoning I've given why the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable witnesses.
I don’t believe I did. I don’t think you had a clear position in the first place. I did my best to respond to the vague and simultaneous accusations of dishonesty and gullible.
Then I also find out you have misrepresented and it looks like a blatant misquoting of the book How to think about weird things.
I haven’t read what you wrote on this, but I don’t believe I misrepresented the book. But how do you know that it is intentional? Besides, I think you misrepresent sources all the time. I simply correct you without accusing you of anything intentional.
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?
You are to make nothing of this, but someone who believes there’s something in the Spalding theory can see anything they want. Again, you are assuming you are right, and that you have successfully read my mind. I’m not saying I don’t make mistakes, but I’m sincere in everything I write. In fact, if you read back through this thread you should find I think two instances where I made mistakes and acknowledged them—once to Dale, and another to Roger. I can’t recall anytime you admitted you could be wrong, and now you are turning more ad hominal in your posts and trying to capitalize on what you think is a correct definition of a word—what am I to make of that, Marg?
Then, to cap it all, you tell Dale:
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.
Wow! Astounding! As I have been saying, you have no boundaries to your imagination. Apparently, imaginative and convoluted responses to counterevidence are also used in your approach to real life. Why do you give yourself permission to attack me in such a silly way?