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

[_Roger]

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?

I’m having difficulty following your reasoning here. We’ve gone over this before; you should have gotten this by now, Roger. You can’t smuggle a MS into the translation room through an argument from silence. There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of the Bible; Emma’s and Whitmer’s comments against use of a MS were designed to specifically respond to claims about Spalding. You can’t show a purposeful suppression of using a Bible. What they said is far more important than what they didn’t say. Silence is silence—not evidence.

"There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of the Bible" ---except the obvious use of a Bible.

Emma’s and Whitmer’s comments against use of a MS were designed to specifically respond to claims about Spalding

And those comments are exactly what we would expect from either true dupes or devoted followers willing to lie for the Lord. Your witnesses are neither objective, nor disinterested. As marg points out "Your subjective decision to accept the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements as truth...is not objective verifiable evidence" and therefore does nothing to establish anything, regardless of what it was "designed to specifically respond to."

You are using sources for polemical purposes, not trying to reconstruct events.

Nonsense. I am interested in determining what really happened. Are you?

You are arguing, “you accept the Bible and it wasn’t mentioned, so you must accept a S/R MS could have also been used and not mentioned in order to be consistent.” As I explained, that is an ad hominem (circumstantial), or an argument from personal circumstances. It does nothing to positively establish your theory.

The fact is you do accept the Bible was used and not mentioned. So I am asking on what grounds do you accept a Bible and reject anything else? Correct me if I am wrong but the answer seems to consist entirely of: "Because the witnesses say no manuscript was used." Is that correct or not? Do you rule out all other ms's solely on the basis that the Book of Mormon witnesses deny it?

You have no text to compare to the Book of Mormon.

Of course we have a text to compare to the Book of Mormon.

All you have are the very problematic testimonies based on 20-year-old memories given to an individual bent on destroying Mormonism.

Then why do you accept the other testimonies he received?

I don’t believe that kind of evidence can overturn Mormon witnesses (and at least two non-Mormons), some of whom specifically denied Joseph Smith’s use of a MS.

Well you are entitled to believe the Book of Mormon witnesses were fine, upstanding citizens who would never stretch the truth to uphold the cause, and I am entitled to disagree.

Tell me this... how could a witness know for sure whether a ms was being used or not--especially a disbelieving witness? What basis do you have for drawing that conclusion?

They gave their testimonies independently years after Joseph Smith was dead—years after such testimony would have been most needed. The original Book of Mormon MS is consistent with dictation, and the loss of the 116-page MS supports their testimonies.

Whether the entire text is consistent with dictation is debatable, but regardless, the more important point is that dictation is not inconsistent with S/R.

This is not an anything goes (imagination) or ad hoc theory to ward off negative evidence. I’m using sources and incidental supportive evidence. On the other hand, theories about trick hats and special displays of head in hat are ad hoc. Negating testimony of some witnesses (Cowdery, Whitmer, Harris) by including them in the conspiracy is also ad hoc and unfounded.

It is "anything goes" when you concede that a Bible was used but never acknowledged and then irrationally conclude that that is all that was used because the same (unreliable) witnesses who forgot to mention a Bible flatly denied everything else. That is attempting to use silence as an argument. You can't get away from the notion that your entire argument hinges on the trustworthiness of what the Book of Mormon witnesses failed to mention(!) Your argument (from silence) is that IF the Book of Mormon witnesses would have ever been directly asked about Bible use, they would have, of course, acknowledged that a Bible was used. But if that highly unlikely speculation is wrong (as it likely is), your whole thesis comes crashing down because the witnesses are then not as reliable as your theory requires them to be.

I already pointed out that at least one witness--Knight--flatly contradicts that element of your theory and you responded with the notion that he would not have been in a position to know (what you apparently do!) That is indeed an ad hoc response to a testimony that is otherwise adverse to your thesis.

Beyond that, we already know these witnesses are not reliable. There is no question that Emma lied about polygamy in order to protect the image of her late husband. And you yourself write about the inconsistencies in the testimonies of David Whitmer and the others. That you (quite falsely in my view) attribute those inconsistencies to their interviewers is remarkable, but does nothing to establish their credibility in the first place. It is simply an ad hoc response to adverse evidence. You are willing to give these witnesses benefits of the doubt they don't deserve. And apparently you do so because you realize your theory rests on their credibility.

You seem more interested in trapping people than discussing evidence. That worries me. Stop playing games.

You seem to be more worried about getting trapped than determining who produced content for the Book of Mormon.

Present your evidence and arguments. Forget about our assumptions about unseen evidence, make sure yours are right.

This is meaningless. You claim the backing of science and logic. Error distribution patterns are fixed. Data about the frequency of their occurrence is empirical. I already made a prediction based on an S/R perspective. What prediction would S/A make?

And does S/A have a rational explanation for why the wherefore/therefore shift occurred or not?

[_mikwut]

Hello Dale,

Your point may be true, but it provides me with little comfort.

A high-ranking CoC leader once counseled me that it did not matter
that Emma Hale Smith lied about her husband's polygamy --- that the
RLDS Church "HAD" to be established in order to counter Brigham
Young, and that without the early leaders of the Restoration telling
lies about Nauvoo polygamy, we would not have the Church.

Besides which -- the vast majority of members in 2001 were honest,
sincere, good people who should not be made to suffer because of
the fact that William Smith told some RLDS lies about his never having
any plural wives... yadda, yadda, yadda...

Perhaps that CoC official was correct in his argument. It did not lead
me to accept that church as God's one and only true, restored
Church upon the face of the earth, however.

If the average member did not know that the RLDS Church had been
founded upon anti-polygamy lies, that particular leader certainly
knew the facts. He just figured that ends justify means.

Should I have given in to his arguments and supported CoC?

UD

In regards to S/R, I really wish when the evidence and historical record is being discussed in warranting the S/R theory you would stop bringing in your emotional and anecdotal biography of the CoC. I have such biography too Dale, but it doesn't have anything to do with S/R theory.

Personally in response to what you wrote, No you shouldn't have because the answer to your inquiry is again truth, not sincerity or intent. If the CoC was divinely mandated Emma's feigning regarding polygamy is justified, if the CoC is not so grounded then her lies are lies. This was answer to you previously.

regards, mikwut

[_marg]

Dan I will say one thing (that's possibly in your favor) , and I'll write a post on it, but in my opinion the book you have used mishandles explaining simplicity as a criterion for choosing between theories. Someone without understanding how science and what science provides would probably get confused and think..that simplest theories should win between competing theories. I did notice this in the book a few days ago, they really weren't very good in explaining.

For example they say p 203

Evolution is also superior to creationism in terms of simplicity.
Simplicity, remember, is a measure of the number of assumptions a
theory makes. Evolution assumes a lot less than creationism. For one
thing, it doesn't assume the existence of God. For another, it doesn't
assume the existence of unknown forces. That creationism makes
both of these assumptions was made clear by Gish:
We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used,
for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.
This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover
by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes
used by the Creator.47
Creationism, then, assumes the existence of a supernatural being with
supernatural powers. Since evolution makes neither of these assumptions,
it is the simpler theory.

They are not very clear what they mean by simple versus complex. They are talking about background assumptions..which go into the theory before even the hypothesis and the evidence is presented. When it comes to Smith alone and Spalding/Rigdon, the background assumptions are the same..with the Smith/Divine theory the background assumptions are different...the supernatural is accepted. They aren't talking about explanations of the evidence, or the ad hoc as you refer to them. So I can see how someone can misinterpret their words quite easily. And frankly it is their fault.

While they are correct that adding God makes explanations complex..the real problem with adding God to theories, is it doesn't add explanatory power. What they are really trying to say is that going into any hypothesis the background assumptions shouldn't require a lot of exceptional circumstances to make a scientific theory work. They still though are talking about claims open to verification. But when they say simplicity they don't mean the same thing that you are thinking..they are talking pre-hypothesis background assumptions, you are thinking post hypothesis added explanation. Now those background assumptions could come later..that is in science theories are dependent on other theories. So some theories are dependent on a number of other scientific theories which are assumed. So in order to make a scientific theory work since it is accepted all theories are temporary working theories open to change if new data and reasoning comes along to warrant it...therefore in science it's possible to take out initial assumptions or other accepted theories going into the hypothesis. The purpose of taking out background accepted theories ..is to make the theory work with the assumption that one of more of those theories may be wrong.

But this isn't the same situation we are dealing with regards to historical theories such as Smith alone & Spalding/Rigdon which are not open to verification the same way that science is. If one is going to rational take out or juggle the information it is very important that there is a means to determine if it should be done. In science the means is, that ..as long as the theory bears out when predictions are verified...then that theory works.

But you don't get that in historical claims..you can't just eliminate willy nilly whatever you feel like and expect that's going to get you to the truth...which is what history is seeking.

[Bedlamite]

...If the CoC was divinely mandated Emma's feigning regarding polygamy
is justified
...

So I have been told. And, in regard to Joseph Smith, I was told the
same thing about his Book of Abraham.

None of which probably interests you very much -- so I'll abide by your
wishes and spare you the heart-wrenching details.

Which leaves the matter of whether or not Mormonism originated in a
conspiracy, which was knowingly covered over by its leaders for decades
after Smith's death.

If the Church was divinely mandated Joseph's feigning regarding ancient
Nephites is justified. ..... I'm sorry, but I just cannot get past that idea.

If the Church was divinely mandated then the Danites had every right
to murder apostates and Missourians in Caldwell County.

Again --- that notion makes me ill. I'm ready to throw-up.

Perhaps I should quit while I'm ahead. If you're ready to accept a
possible 1% input from a Smith co-conspirator, then all I can hope for
is that some means will one day be available so that the question can
be settled one way or another.

If there were co-conspirators, then a Rigdon or a Spalding input becomes
a more viable possibility. If there were no such conspirators, then I owe
my RLDS priesthood superiors a great deal of repentance.

I guess that about finishes up the topic. Right?

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Why should I answer the following post when you haven’t extended me the courtesy to understand my arguments? We are going in circles because your response hasn’t incorporated my arguments. You have therefore violated the rule of charity, which is that you respond to my arguments in their strongest form. You are wasting everyone’s time.

The FACT of the matter is that you falsified NOTHING in step 2. Your subjective decision to accept the Book of Mormon witnesses Ostatements as truth...is not objective verifiable evidence. In order to falsify you NEED objective VERIFABLE evidence.

You are not listening, Marg. Historiography is not science. There is no such thing as “objective verifiable evidence”—even in science, but that’s another discussion. Unlike you, I haven’t made up my response but have summoned eyewitness testimony. That’s how it’s done. I haven’t accepted their testimony uncritically (“subjective” is the wrong term). I have referred to corroborating non-Mormon testimony, to the lost 166-pages, to the fact that their testimonies were given independently. Rather, it’s you who has dismissed them subjectively and by ad hoc speculation.

Ad hoc fallacy occurs when a claimant is trying to prevent their theory from being falsified. You are using wishful thinking if you think citing the Book of Mormon witnesses statements is objective evidence which can falsify any including one ..which claims a Spalding manuscript was used.

No, Marg. Forget “objective”—it’s naïve. You are quibbling because you are having difficulty translating to historical discussions about evidence. If the Mormon witnesses are right, the Spalding theory is falsified.

YOU HAVE FALSIFIED NOTHING IN STEP 2. And step 2 requires that step 1 or the original claim has been objectively falsified.

No, Marg. Forget “objective”—it’s naïve. You are quibbling because you are having difficulty translating to historical discussions about evidence. If the Mormon witnesses are right, the Spalding theory is falsified.

The fact that you ASSERT your evidence, and claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses's statements ares reliable, credible, accurate, truthful...does not make any of it so.

No, Marg. I didn’t just assert the witnesses were credible. I have offered evidence and arguments why they are credible. You never responded to any of it. Your analysis of them was more ad hoc assertion of conspiracy and stupidity. You gave no evidence for any of those assertions.

When one critically evaluate their claims and appreciates the source of the claims...that the people they come from have a vested interest, that they are motivated to be dishonest to protect their interests, that they are essentially starting up a business with hopes of lucrative sales of a book potentially as sale-able as the Bible. When the objective hostile evidence is scant and yet there is no reason that it should be scant...one can rationally conclude the Book of Mormon witness statements are highly unreliable to the point they should be rejected.

That’s an ad hoc assertion. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I answered this rubbish already and you never responded. I told you your vested interest argument possibly applies to Harris at the time before publication of the Book of Mormon, but you failed to consider the date of their statements—which were given long after Joseph Smith’s death and long after any hope of reward existed. I quoted Whitmer’s fellow townsmen testifying to his integrity, and you had no answer. These witnesses did not have reputations for stupidity or dishonesty, which you have ad hoc and by circular reasoning (i.e., they were believers, therefore they must have been either liars or fools) given them.

It is a joke, you are living in a dream world when you argue their statements falsify S/R claims.

If the testimony was as weak as you say, you wouldn’t need ad hoc responses. That should be a sign that they are stronger than you thought.

And with regards to this sentence of yours "They were discussing pseudo-science, I’m discussing pseudo-history."

Yes when they discussed pseudo science "creationism, intelligent design, they explained how it wasn't science and that was the main reason they suggested why those theories should be rejected. Those theories didn't offer verifiable testable hypothesis.

And that’s what you are doing for Mormon history.

I would advise that you slow down and respond more thoughtfully.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

You make a distinction without a difference - none of them claim to themselves have received the translation or the extraordinary event.

So what? They speak authoritatively. To my knowledge, they never include the disclaimer you want them to: Oh by the way, I'm getting all this information from Joseph because I never actually saw any words appear in any rock. Show me where they state that.

They are only witnesses to method of J.S. putting his head in a hat and giving the words, there is nothing extraordinary about that, it is simply what they saw.

But they are not just objective witnesses telling us what they saw and nothing more. That's what you're either missing or overlooking. You should know that. THEY make the extraordinary claims and THEY tie them inescapably to the rest of their testimony. They speak authoritatively. They do not let themselves off the hook.

Do I need to stick my head in a hat and start telling a story and then have someone recite what they saw me doing to convince you that what the witnesses testified to in itself was not extraordinary. Why are you quibbling with such simple things?

Because you are attempting to diminish the claims in an effort to paint the witnesses as objective and that's just not going to fly.

None of the witnesses claim to have seen the words in the stone, only Joseph was privy to that - do you really dispute this?

None of the witnesses make the distinction you are trying to make. If I am wrong, show me.

Then state what you suggest given the historical evidence. The fact that you and marg don't accept the burden for your theory is also frustrating.

Sheesh mikwut. The fact that you just believe the Book of Mormon witnesses is frustrating. Life can be that way.

State what witness states exactly what that your claim is extraordinary, that they themselves are witnesses to regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. Orally reciting from the posture of a persons head in a hat is nothing extraordinary, a little wierd yes, but not extraordinary - I can do it right now.

But that's NOT what they claim, mikwut. Sheesh. You're not getting them off the hook. They claim words appeared in the stone. Period. They don't tell us how they know that, they just tell us! They tell us the hat was necessary to exclude the light so Joseph could see the magic words that allegedly appeared in the stone. Those ARE extraordinary claims and if you can't see that, then I'm not sure we can have a rational discussion.

Of course it doesn't make sense to someone who has already ruled out the possibility that Smith was adding details to Rigdon's "poured over and reviewed transcript." S/R, on the other hand is under no such silly restrictions.

Right, just like it fits perfectly well with the idea that Atlantians emerged from the ocean and appeared to Joseph in the grove and then later on the hill and implanted a futuristic computer chip in his head that included a google like device for his brain to bring up the text of the Book of Mormon within his consciousness but it required concentrating on a rock or other object to get use to, but it deletes itself as soon as Oliver transcribes it because the brain can't hold it forever, so it was troubling when the 116 pages were lost because it was deleted - your right Roger, this fits with all sorts of speculations and ideas as long as we haven't ruled out the possibility. Or thrown evidential requirements out the door.

This is meaningless. Now I wish I knew my fallacies better because I have no doubt this is a pretty egregious one. I may have to study up on fallacies.

Are you labeling both studies "science"? I would be careful about that. The methods may be more rigorous than others, but neither is drawing empirical conclusions from indisputable data and both deal with probabilities.

Ben Macguire stated way back several chapters ago on this thread that if the real author is in the mix then Jocker's methodology is highly accurate. Do you agree with that assessment? Yes or no?

It rules out the Jocker's proposed authors statistically or probabilistically if you prefer. It is only empircal data worth considering. So your question is meaningless.

My question is not meaningless, but your lack of an answer seems to indicate you don't wish to acknowledge that Ben is correct. Is that why you labelled my question meaningless?

No mikwut. It's doesn't work that way. You claim to have science on your side. Put your money where your mouth is. Make a prediction

.

Lord have mercy, yes it does! You make an assertion, a claim or a prediction state it! You don't make one and then demand I do so. My prediction is the theory to historically accept will comport and explain in the most complete way all the available historical evidence in the clearest and most complete manner without doing abuse and destruction to parts of the evidence and the historical record, without speculating unnecessarily and without guessing and improvising. Smith Alone does. There you go. Your making some vague claim or prediction about errors and that it provides predictive power for the S/R theory. State your methodology and data. I don't think you will have any because the KJV is the only text you can use.

Wow. I will give you credit for the ability to come up with a lot of rhetoric that conveys nothing meaningful.

Let's try again... it's very simple... you claim to have science on your side. Science involves making predictions based on one's theory that can be falsifiable or may provide supporting evidence. I made a prediction based on my theory (S/R) and now I am asking you and Dan and Glenn to do the same. So far none of you have--despite your claims to have science on your side.

So let me ask again.... how would S/A predict that error patterns should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text? It's a simple question. S/R can answer it, why can no one who advocates any of the other theories answer?

Also, S/R would suggest that a contributing factor to the therefore/wherefore shift is not because Joseph got bored with using therefore, but because Spalding never uses the term "wherefore." How do S/A and S/D explain the shift?

Good grief. Arrange the Book of Mormon via Mosiah priority. When you do therefore is exclusive to the first half of the Book of Mormon and wherefore the second. That's where your little diddy above ends. But, historically in timeline the shift is seen at the same time as certain D&C revelations that mirror the Book of Mormon timeline of dictation. This is evidence that author of the one is the author of the other, and that the shift occurred according to the habits of the author of both. It is evidence of single authorship. It is evidence of dictation. I would suppose this would be a good time for the S/R theory to speculate a third manuscript and say that isn't ad hoc either.

my regards, mikwut

This isn't even a good veiled attempt to pretend you didn't understand my question. But since you're acting ignorant, I'll play along... the question is WHY, mikwut.

All the best.

[_marg]

You are not listening, Marg. Historiography is not science.

And yet the book you cite presents ad hoc fallacy in light of scientific hypothesis, not in light of historiography.

There is no such thing as “objective verifiable evidence”—even in science, but that’s another discussion.

In science Dan "epistemological truth" doesn't matter. It's whether or not the theories offer predictive value which bear out. So you can quibble over whether or not there is objective verifiable evidence, but science works, it relies on evidence which is open to objective verification.

Your claims that the Book of Mormon witness statements is acceptable reliable evidence and the sort that the authors were referring to is wrong. Your interpretation of the Book of Mormon witness statements is highly subjective. So what is happening is that you are piciking and choosing what evidence you accept and then when anyone counters that which you don't accept you label it ad hoc fallacy. it's not ad hoc fallacy. Dan has misinterpreted the authors. When they talk about ad hoc fallacy being used to prevent falsification, they mean a falsification that is not simply a subjective interpretation, but rather the objective data which is open to verification falsifies.

Unlike you, I haven’t made up my response but have summoned eyewitness testimony. That’s how it’s done.

That's how Dan does it, it's not how it done. Your belief that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and reliable doesn't hold up with even a cursory examination. Your belief is completely subjective and is not even consistent with reasoning which is inferred by the evidence of their vested interest etc.

I haven’t accepted their testimony uncritically (“subjective” is the wrong term). I have referred to corroborating non-Mormon testimony, to the lost 166-pages, to the fact that their testimonies were given independently. Rather, it’s you who has dismissed them subjectively and by ad hoc speculation.

I went through a criteria put out by a critical thinking book and objective went through each suggested criteria and in all the criteria the witnesses came out as being unreliable. I'm not be overly biased here Dan.

Now I'm not saying that critical thinking book is the end all and be all, however I used a source which encourages an objective critical examination.

You appear to essentially accept their say so. Despite the fact that their description are unusual, Smith's claims and some of the witnesses are also beyond physical law and highly extraordinary. So in such circumstances the "say -so" of the participants is not evidence which commensurates with the sort of claims being made. One should expect extremely good evidence to accept extraordinary claims. You seem to ignore that logical point.

Ad hoc fallacy occurs when a claimant is trying to prevent their theory from being falsified. You are using wishful thinking if you think citing the Book of Mormon witnesses statements is objective evidence which can falsify any including one ..which claims a Spalding manuscript was used.

No, Marg. Forget “objective”—it’s naïve. You are quibbling because you are having difficulty translating to historical discussions about evidence. If the Mormon witnesses are right, the Spalding theory is falsified.

Dan the authors were talking about scientific hypothesis, they weren't talking about pseudo science and that ad hoc fallacy is a determining factor in rejecting pseudo science. Yet you elected to use their reasoning applied to science claims and apply it to historical claims. It doesn't fit. I'm not talking about an "objective" truth Dan. In fact I've been explaining to you that science isn't after objective truths..it's after explanatory power. None the less Dan, science still requires that it's claims are objectively open to verification. Where your claim..that the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable has absolutely no mean to objectively verify it.

You say "If the Mormon witnesses are right, the Spalding theory is falsified" right and if the Spalding witnesses are right then what Dan? Then they falsified the Smith alone. Ok so I assert the Spalding witnessses are right and you assert the Book of Mormon witnesses are right...and then by what objective means are you using here Dan to determine which is most likely right?

The fact that you ASSERT your evidence, and claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses's statements ares reliable, credible, accurate, truthful...does not make any of it so.

No, Marg. I didn’t just assert the witnesses were credible. I have offered evidence and arguments why they are credible. You never responded to any of it. Your analysis of them was more ad hoc assertion of conspiracy and stupidity. You gave no evidence for any of those assertions.

Dan extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No you have not offered evidence to commensurate with claims made nor to override the difficulties these witnesses have with the credibility. You are dreaming.

When one critically evaluate their claims and appreciates the source of the claims...that the people they come from have a vested interest, that they are motivated to be dishonest to protect their interests, that they are essentially starting up a business with hopes of lucrative sales of a book potentially as sale-able as the Bible. When the objective hostile evidence is scant and yet there is no reason that it should be scant...one can rationally conclude the Book of Mormon witness statements are highly unreliable to the point they should be rejected.

That’s an ad hoc assertion. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I answered this rubbish already and you never responded. I told you your vested interest argument possibly applies to Harris at the time before publication of the Book of Mormon, but you failed to consider the date of their statements—which were given long after Joseph Smith’s death and long after any hope of reward existed. I quoted Whitmer’s fellow townsmen testifying to his integrity, and you had no answer. These witnesses did not have reputations for stupidity or dishonesty, which you have ad hoc and by circular reasoning (i.e., they were believers, therefore they must have been either liars or fools) given them.

Testifying long after doesn't help their credibility. A vested interest means they were all tied to the enterprise by family relation..if it was successful they could all benefit. there was the potential sale of the book, there was the potential running of a business and their was potential power and prestige involved. Your restriction to solely Harris having a vested financial investment is naïve.

I don't think the people were stupid. I have to say Dan, dishonesty had to have occurred because the claims by Smith are simply unwarranted. And then the 3 witnesses make claims to the extraordinary in the beginning of the Book of Mormon which defy natural laws. There's a high probability those claims are lies.

If there is one thing I've noticed in my dealing with Mormonism on the net is that those defending the church and in my opinion you are defending the church..are very sensitive to being accused of lying. It's as if that a word not allowed to be considered.

It is a joke, you are living in a dream world when you argue their statements falsify S/R claims.

If the testimony was as weak as you say, you wouldn’t need ad hoc responses. That should be a sign that they are stronger than you thought.

What convoluted logic you have. Of course one needs to apply ad hoc or after the fact reasoning. If a claim isn't open to verification..then how else does one argue against that claim ..other than applied after the fact critical thinking sheesh!

And with regards to this sentence of yours "They were discussing pseudo-science, I’m discussing pseudo-history."

Yes when they discussed pseudo science "creationism, intelligent design, they explained how it wasn't science and that was the main reason they suggested why those theories should be rejected. Those theories didn't offer verifiable testable hypothesis.

And that’s what you are doing for Mormon history.

Your comment is irrational...and I'm not going to try to make sense of it.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Roger,

I forgot to ask. Do you agree with marg that Dan is dishonest and in cohorts with church, or that you wouldn't be surprised if that was the case as she stated? Or does your intellectual credibility allow you to disagree with such irrationality even if that means disagreeing with one of your own?

regards, mikwut

This is a side issue that I shouldn't even respond to, but if I ignore it you'll probably make an issue out of my ignoring it. In my opinion marg made the comment after having many frustrating conversations with Dan in which he sounds just like a TBM. If I had a dollar for every time Glenn and Dan have high-fived each other I'd be rich. Dan says things like "he used the stone to" or whatever and it really comes across as though he's a believer. I had to ask him for clarification more than once because of the way he phrased things.

So in that respect, marg's point was that IF it turned out that Dan was secretly being paid to pretend to be a critic she wouldn't be surprised at that. It wouldn't be surprising given the way he states things, which is all we have to go on.

My own opinion is that Dan must have grown up Mormon. I don't know whether he did or not, but I'm guessing he did. And his familiarity with Mormon lingo makes it sound as though he believes in Nephites, etc. when he probably doesn't. But that being said, he absolutely does put way too much stock in the word of early Mormon witnesses. No critic without a history or family ties to Mormonism would place so much trust in a group who are absolutely not merely objective, disinterested observers.

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

I told you your vested interest argument possibly applies to Harris at the time before publication of the Book of Mormon, but you failed to consider the date of their statements—which were given long after Joseph Smith’s death and long after any hope of reward existed. I quoted Whitmer’s fellow townsmen testifying to his integrity, and you had no answer. These witnesses did not have reputations for stupidity or dishonesty,

So you acknowledge that Harris possibly had a vested interest "at the time before publication of the Book of Mormon" but then apparently had none after publication, so we can just believe Harris?

Is that your point?

You don't think Harris had a vested interest at some point? When and why did he lose his vested interest?

Long after any hopes of reward existed? Are you serious? He in fact was rewarded. He was living like a miser in Kirtland and became a minor celebrity in Utah. And even back in Kirtland he was exploiting his ties to Mormonism by giving tours to the Kirtland Temple. No vested interest?

[_marg]

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

Quote:
"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.

However Glenn that quote which Dan used doesn’t give the entire context which is needed.

You can see that quote within the context of the entire section of the book it came from, in a recent response to Dan.

So what the authors are talking about is a scientific hypothesis..which is an explanation of a phenomenon which is open to verification. If it’s not open to verification the authors say it’s not a scientific hypothesis.

So an hypothesis is presented and then it is countered with evidence and reasoning which falsifies with objective evidence the original claim.

In science the original claim often has other assumed scientific theories which are considered background assumptions. No scientific theory is considered unchangeable and absolute. So it is quite possible that an assumed background theory is wrong. And it’s okay to omit a background scientific theory if it helps a new hypothesis’s explanation and that explanation has predictive power which is verified. However then it is a matter of determining if the theory which is not consistent is wrong. The more ad hoc changes to assumptions of dismissing previously accepted theories the more likely the new hypothesis is wrong.

So that is what the book Dan has been using and wiki have been talking about by ad hoc changes. They are talking about changing the background assumptions.

When we look at this lost tribes business.

Your hypothesis is that the lost tribes refers not just to the exiled Israelites but as well any reference to "lost tribes" must be consistent with the Esdras myth which has them travel after exile to far corners of the world en masse.

There is a lot of subjectivity in this hypothesis…because it’s not necessarily consistent with how everyone must view the concept “lost tribes”.

We are having disagreements but there is nothing that can be tested and verified as in science. And what in wiki as well as the book Dan used were referring to..with ad hoc changes was changing of background assumptions..that is changing the accepted theories that have been objectively verified.

So as I pointed out to you the concept “lost tribes” is open to subjective interpretation. When I disagree with your concept of lost tribes I’m not changing objectively verified "background assumptions"/scientific theories. I explained, that in my history book the concept “lost tribes” was used and it explained they were exiled the northern Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. by the Assyrians who assimilated in the places the Assyrians sent them. The book mentioned no myth that had to be attached to the concept "lost tribes" in order to understand what lost tribes meant.

So I’m not changing a background assumption that must be accepted. What I am doing is presenting an argument with reasoning. I’m not changing an assumption that only suits this purpose and for no other purpose. It is you with your original claim that “lost tribes” must entail the myth..that hasn't been established it's been asserted by you and Dan. I appreciate a myth is commonly associated with "lost tribes" and that tends to be a religious perspective but that the secular perspective and one which doesn't accept the Bible as literally true..can justifiably acknowledge "lost tribes" as the tribes exiled in 720 B.C, End of story. I know you argue/counter that it would be a function of what the witnesses understood of "lost tribes". but again Glenn there is too much subjectivity. You assume they must include the Esdras myth as if that was historically true. Yet is Spalding is the one explaining his book to him, and explaining what he means by lost tribes and given that he was a skeptic of the Bible there is no reason to assume he would have presented "lost tribes" to them as a concept which included the esdras myth as historically true.

So, in science ad hoc fallacy is applicable because theories aren’t about absolute truths they are temporary truths to explain phenomenon and they are open to verification. In science it is unreasonable to reject other objectively accepted theories by ad hoc changing or eliminating them for the sole purpose of maintaining a particular theory without good grounds for doing so. If the ad hoc changes result in increased explanatory power then it's justifiable.

But this ad hoc fallacy notion you and Dan have latched onto just doesn’t work when claims and assumptions are so subjective. You can't determine truth by eliminating explanations you don't like or because a counter argument doesn't agree with something you've asserted.

I’m not saying the concept can never be applied to non scientific claims, but it requires a means to objectively evaluate the evidence for the claims.