Marg,
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. …
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. …
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.
Marg, you are a one-trick pony. Apparently, the only critical method you have is to quibble and invent ad hoc scenarios to explain things the way you think things ought to be. Most people would simply point out my typo, but not you. You see malice and conspiracy on the slimmest evidence—no wonder you think Spalding theory makes sense. I didn’t switch any words, but I left out some words because my eye moved down to the next line (called haplography). In my edition it looks like this:
-ture of light. 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. …
For some reason, probably fatigue and lack of proofreading, my eye skipped down a line. That’s all there is to it. The full quote suits my purposes better, because I have repeatedly used the phrase “adverse evidence” seven times in this thread, but never “adverse beliefs.” I’m beginning to worry about you.
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.
What they are arguing from a scientific standpoint fits what you are doing with historical theories. I quoted them for their discussion of how ad hoc hypotheses can be invented endlessly to protect central theories from adverse evidence, that ad hocs are unfalsifiable, and for this reason a theory can’t disproved in absolute terms, but there is a point when a theory becomes unreasonable to maintain. Ad hoc responses have nothing to do with objective verification of the central theory. They are discussing the difference between science and pseudo-science—for us, it would be history and pseudo-history—and their reliance on ad hocs to defend against adverse evidence. You aren’t doing to be able to translate the scientific method to historiography. What does “objectively verifiable” mean in historical analysis? It doesn’t exist. Regardless, their discussion of ad hoc still applies in principle (we’re back talking about modeling and generalizing principles, and you’re quibbling about exact fit). In my last post, I quoted sources from other disciplines other than the natural sciences to show how ad hocs are viewed. Stop being a quibbler and obstructionist and learn about these concepts to improve your critical abilities.
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.
You can’t explain what you don’t understand. How long have you known about ad hoc hypotheses? Why do you think ad hocs are only about magic and the supernatural. They can also be about mind reading, mythmaking, and fiction. One also can’t respond to your ad hocs about trick hats. Why do you think I started discussing ad hocs? It’s in the hope that you will see what you are doing is unproductive.
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.
The Spalding theory isn’t based on “objective verifiable evidence”—there’s no such thing. We deal with critical analysis of sources and arguments. You are having trouble in the translation from science to historiography. I have countered the claim that Joseph Smith used a MS to produce the Book of Mormon (which is based on testimony) with eyewitness testimony that there was no MS in the translation room. That’s commensurate, to use your terminology. The question is which set of witnesses is more are more likely to be right? Which is what I have been arguing all along.
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.
Ad hocs are applicable in any field assessing evidence. Learn what they are and you will see them everywhere. Look at my previous post for examples in other disciplines.
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.
Gibberish. Marg, you are making up rules to defend your made up responses to adverse evidence. Your responses have been ad hoc. If you accepted the fact that your trick-hat explanation is ad hoc, then you would have to allow the testimony of Mormon witnesses, and that would force you to reassess the Spalding witnesses. Schick and Vaughn say some ad hocs are permissible if they can be independently verified or are open to falsification. That’s in science. In history, it’s similar but not exact. Again, see my last post. Your trick-hat theory and the way you arbitrarily dismiss the witnesses are unfalsifiable, because you have an answer either way.
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.
Maybe I should revisit this subject in more detail tomorrow. I haven’t used Occam’s Razor to decided between complex and simple theories, but rather between those that rely on more assumptions and ad hoc explanations and those with fewer. The quote from Wiki is simply stating that Occam’s Razor can’t be used as justification for a simple theory over a complex one, because there is nothing inherently superior about simpler theories. That’s why I have been focusing on complexity caused by ad hoc explanations and unfounded conspiracy theories to ward off adverse evidence. Wiki is not talking about that kind of complexity. Regardless, while others use Occam’s Razor in the same way I have, it’s really not necessary to my discussion. Carl Sagan, for example, said in his discussion of “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection”: “Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data
equally well to choose the simpler” (
The Demon-Haunted World, 211).