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

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I assume that her kids' computer still has a block
against my sites.
...

This item appeared to be my most offensive offering, in that lady's
judgment:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#010230

Her accusation being: "[you] have no right... to copy from the
Church's scriptures... and I hope that they sue you..."

She didn't say which "church." So perhaps CoC is getting their righteous
"Cease and Desist" court order in readiness to assail me this very moment.

We losers have to suffer through this abuse, I suppose. It is our lot in life.

UD

[_marg]

Hi Dale,

Your red herring rhetoric of "Occan's razor" ignores that it is evidenced by real evidence and not speculation.

What is evidenced by "real" evidence?

Occam's razor and ad hoc fallacy has been used in this discussion by smith alone and Smith divine theory advocates as a logical reasoning application in their rejection of S/R theory.

If finding "objective truth" could be effectively determined by applying Occam's razor to competing theories and taking all the more explanatory complex theories and rejecting them with their add on "ad hoc" explanations...very little investigation or reasoning of any sort would be a rational thing to do.

For every criminal act, it could be argued that the suspected criminals who deny the accusations against them, that their their claims and their denials should be accepted at face value. Why complicate things by critically evaluating whether or not their claims can be reliably accepted. Whatever they say should simply be accepted uncritically ..it is evidence after all.

So using Occam's Razor and ad hoc fallacy it would be so much easier to dismiss those time consuming complex theories and all their ad hoc data and reasoning...let's just accept at face value all the claims by suspected criminals and assume complex theories are faulty/fallacious.

It's a very efficient method and a heck of a lot simpler than adding on and searching for pesky additional data & reasoning.

by the way Mikwut or Glenn is you wish to address the reasoning of what ad hoc fallacy is or to disagree with me ..you can attack or address this post I wrote explaining it. That would be a a much better approach Glenn than you simply asserting what you believe to ad hoc fallacies.

my explanation of ad hoc fallacy

Mikwut, any ad hominal comments from you I won't respond to. They are a diversionary tactic, a tangent and a waste of time to bother with.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Your post amounts to nothing more than cheerleading.

Now this has just gotten ridiculous.

First, Dan marg has called every person she's ever discussed with dishonest, and poor in critical thinking. It has become meaningless, juvenile and silly.

If I cared as much about identifying fallacies as Dan does I could put a label on these. 1. The fallacy that since someone (allegedly) did something in the past means that that is what is happening again 2. the fallacy of exaggeration in order to make a point seem more solid

Second, marg, your ridiculous displays of the very worst critical thinking are off the charts. Ad hoc simply means making stuff up without corresponding evidence to support it. If you can't see that present in the S/R theory and your defense of it, well ridiculous and other adjectives just don't get there.

Marg's point is to make a distinction between ad hoc argumentation and ad hoc fallacious argumentation. Your above comments ignore that in order to make a point. I'm pretty sure there's another fallacy there.

Next, your peurile dismissal of the Book of Mormon witnesses for no evidential reasons other than you believe they are making extraordinary claims and are too interested is obnoxious. It complete ignores the historical facts of each witnesses descriptions. They make no extraordinary claim in describing the translation process. There is nothing extraordinary about simply describing a man sticking his head in a hat and dictating a rather monotonous feigned elizabethean scripture. Particularly when there testimony lines up with the historical facts (116 pages), other independent testimony, and the dictation evidence. The Conn. witnesses do not.

Spoken like a true TBM or Jack-Mormon. Marg is right on the money in terms of legitimate skepticism of the Book of Mormon witnesses. I love how you put it: "your peurile dismissal of the Book of Mormon witnesses for no evidential reasons other than you believe they are making extraordinary claims and are too interested is obnoxious." Translation: I find it obnoxious that you can't just believe what they say!

For "no evidential reasons"? You've got to be kidding. You're simply wrong on all counts. Let's go over them...

"It complete ignores the historical facts of each witnesses descriptions."

Facts are not established by "witness descriptions." That would be allegations. And marg has correctly demonstrated that the allegations are in dispute.

"They make no extraordinary claim in describing the translation process."

Nonsense. The whole thing is one big extraordinary claim supported by a bunch of little ones. Your familiarity with the claims colors your thinking. Sticking one's head in a hat to allegedly read the magic writing that appears there is anything but ordinary.

"There is nothing extraordinary about simply describing a man sticking his head in a hat and dictating a rather monotonous feigned elizabethean scripture."

Again, nonsense. Your familiarity with the story is what makes you think this way. The claim is not that a guy sticks his head in his hat in order to dictate "a rather monotonous feigned elizabethean scripture" although, even if that was what they had claimed it would still not be ordinary. The claim was that he needed the hat to exclude the light so he could read the magic words as they appeared in the rock. You can't re-interpret the claims to fit your new mold. The claims are what they are and there's nothing ordinary about them.

Particularly when there testimony lines up with the historical facts (116 pages), other independent testimony, and the dictation evidence. The Conn. witnesses do not.

First, the 116 page loss does not favor Smith-alone over S/R. But if you think it does, then demonstrate how. Second, no one, including marg, is disputing that Joseph Smith put on a show. Marg and I simply suggest that when accomplices were in the room there was no need for a show.

When does your supposed scientific acceptance get to throw the only science we have out the window because you like the Conn. witnesses better? And then call others dishonest? Absurd.

What science are you referring to?

Since everyone likes science, let's do some... science involves making predictions based on one's theory in order to find support for or falsify one's theory. How would you predict error distribution should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text?

And what is your explanation for why the wherefore/therefore shift occurred?

It has been quite clear to objective parties reading this thread that the logical, reasonable arguments have been clearly won by Dan. This isn't even close.

Like I said, little more than cheerleading using another fallacy I'm sure Dan could identify if he were so inclined.

[Guest]

This item appeared to be my most offensive offering, in that lady's
judgment:

Well you have to admit, it renders you worthy of a long time-out in outer darkness:

“Gold Bible.” -- We inadvertantly neglected in our remarks last week, respecting this wonderful work, to accompany them with the explanations requisite to a correct understanding of it. The appellation of "Gold Bible," is only a can't cognomen that has been given it by the unbelievers -- for be it known that this Book, as well as the sacred volume which is held so valuable by all good christians, is not without its revilers and unbelievers -- by way of derision. The true title of the work, as appears from the copy-right, is "The Book of Mormon" -- comprising a great number of Books, or parts, by different primary authors, all of which are divided into Chapters. The first is the "First Book of Nephi," of which we gave an extract in our last, and is continued in the present number of our paper. The whole purports to be a compilation, in ancient hieroglyphics, on plates said to resemble plates of gold, by one of the chosen of the lost tribes, whose name was Mormon.

After reading 19th century language I realize how inadequate my sarcasm skills are.

Interesting that Cole claims "by one of the chosen of the lost tribes, whose name was Mormon."

Now where do you suppose he got that notion?

[_GlennThigpen]

Well -- there is such a thing as losing battles but still winning
a war. During my lifetime the Brodieites will always win. But
perhaps during my grandkids' lifetimes the multiple authorship
of the Book of Mormon will be demonstrated so convincingly
that all arguments will be over.

What do you predict?

UD

I haven't received an ordination to be a prophet yet. MY own uninspired attempts at prognostication have been woeful.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Interesting that Cole claims "by one of the chosen of the lost tribes, whose name was Mormon."

Now where do you suppose he got that notion?

Cole had not yet read far enough into the text to know Lehi's genealogy --
but he seems to have realized that the narrative was not about the
Jews, or their fore-bearers, the tribe of Judah.

My guess is that Martin Harris was occasionally available, to explain
such hidden mysteries to the benighted Gentiles.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

Somehow I don't think that you actually believe that.

His point is that the numbers demonstrate who has won and lost the debate in the public mindset, not that he actually believes Spalding, Cowdery and Rigdon contributed no content to the Book of Mormon.

Glenn, how would you predict error patterns should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text?

What is your explanation for the wherefore/therefore shift?

[_Uncle Dale]

Well -- there is such a thing as losing battles but still winning
a war. During my lifetime the Brodieites will always win. But
perhaps during my grandkids' lifetimes the multiple authorship
of the Book of Mormon will be demonstrated so convincingly
that all arguments will be over.

What do you predict?

UD

I haven't received an ordination to be a prophet yet. MY own uninspired attempts at prognostication have been woeful.

Glenn

Our periodicals issued back during the Nauvoo era used to contain
a headline saying, "Truth shall prevail!"

If 2+2=4, then eventually folks figure out that fact. If the earth orbits
around the sun, sooner or later the fact becomes apparent to everybody.

Not many people have an interest in where the Nephite record came from,
but I predict that computerized analysis will one day be so exact and
so compelling, that the fact of multiple authorship will be portrayed
BOTH upon the cover of the Ensign AND upon the covers of the
latest offerings from Signature Books and Utah Lighthouse Ministries.

You and I will be long departed to our destinies beyond the veil by
that time, I suppose -- but hell will have not yet frozen over...

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

by the way Mikwut or Glenn is you wish to address the reasoning of what ad hoc fallacy is or to disagree with me ..you can attack or address this post I wrote explaining it. That would be a a much better approach Glenn than you simply asserting what you believe to ad hoc fallacies.

my explanation of ad hoc fallacy

marge, I have nerely been quoting sources such as the one you quoted in your post.
here is one relevant section.

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. …

I asserted that your explanations for the lost tribes story and for Redick McKee's Canaan statement are ad hoc. You have made a hypothesis attempting to explain both of those problems without any means of verification for either. There is really no basis for either hypothesis in the first place. A hypotheisis normally is drawn up in an attempt to explain or guide a person or persons in the attempt to explain some particular phenomenon oe phenomena.
In the case of the lost tribes, the only evidentiary leads and statements are inaaposite of the course you attempted to take in order to save the theory. Your hypothesis goes against the established thoughts of the day and the statements of the witnesses.
The same goes for Redick McKee's statement that Solomon's story was about Canaan before the Israelite invasion. A completely separate people and geographic location. You proposed a theory that Solomon had gone back even further in time and started what is a completely unrelated story and somehow tied it into the story everyone else was telling. But there is absolutely no evidence for that.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Not many people have an interest in where the Nephite record came from,
but I predict that computerized analysis will one day be so exact and
so compelling, that the fact of multiple authorship will be portrayed
BOTH upon the cover of the Ensign AND upon the covers of the
latest offerings from Signature Books and Utah Lighthouse Ministries.

You and I will be long departed to our destinies beyond the veil by
that time, I suppose -- but hell will have not yet frozen over...

UD

The LDS scholars will not be surprised. They already formed the opinion that the Book of Mormon shows evidence of multiple authorship using different analysis tools and techniques. Of course, those tools and techniques so far indicate very little likelihood that any of those authors were among the usual suspects.

Glenn