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

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

marge, you keep dodging the point. I know and understand quite well that anything in history is subjective and open to various interpretations. In the case of the lost tribes, there have been many theories and still are many theories abounding. Until the subject was brought up, you had no theory at all about the lost tribes because you had not been exposed to the subject matter. I doubt that even now, thjat you have an actual theory, except maybe that it is a myth.

But in order to understand what the witnesses were talking about we must go back to the literature and ideas of the time and the statements of the witnesses themselves in order to gain an understanding of what they were most likely talking about.

My understanding of the lost tribes and beliefs as an LDS are not the same as that which was prevalent during the early 1800's, but I cannot impose my own beliefs and understanding on what they most likely would have meant. The conclusion I came to was was obtained by reading what the witnesses said and from the literature of the times. My initial understanding after reading the statements of the Conneaut witnesses and perusing the literature of the times, such as Boudinet's "Star of the West" and Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" was reinforced by Abner Jackson's explicit statement. That is the evidence that is available.

In that light, you are most certainly changing a background assumption that must be accepted by the evidence. That background assumption is not that the lost tribes actually did migrate to America and become the ancestors of the American Indians. The background assumption is that the witnesses were talking about that idea when they were talking about the lost tribes. That is where the evidence leads.

In order to counteract that evidence, you had to concoct a scenario that is unsupported by any evidence from the witnesses or from any of the literature and ideas of the time and come up with your own version of a lost tribes story. That version was invented solely in response to the evidence that was presented, does not have any evidentiary support and thus is ad hoc.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

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?

Roger, Martin did not have a vested interest in the Book of Mormon until he mortgaged his farm to pay for the initial printing run. He was a skeptical or maybe dubious person for some time. I am going to quote an excerpt from an excerpt from Richard Lloyd Anderson's "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses".

Martin Harris was not surpassed in doubt by Thomas nor in absolute assurance by any apostle. His testimony of the Book of Mormon was ridiculed by unbelievers as superstition, but he did not reach such certainty easily, for no witness required more evidence for his faith. This successful farmer of middle age was a seasoned trader, fully aware of possible deception in a business transaction or religious experience. And his examination of Mormonism proceeded with the methodical care that built his material estate.

When he investigated Joseph Smith's claim of possessing an ancient record, Martin waited until his wife and daughter had made personal inquiries first. Only after he saw that his own family was impressed (according to an 1859 interview) did he visit the Smiths. As mentioned, in that household he "talked with them separately, to see if their stories agreed." After satisfying himself that all of the accounts of the Smiths harmonized with Joseph's, he proceeded to lift the box containing the plates, which he concluded must contain metal as heavy as lead or gold, "and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead."[1]

But this was not enough. How could the untrained farmer know that Joseph's record was ancient? Apparently to satisfy his doubts on this point he took a copy of the characters transcribed from the plates to prominent linguists, including the famous Charles Anthon of Columbia College. The professor's recollection of the interview emphasized that the Book of Mormon witness had come for his opinion "as a last precautionary step"[2] in order to be sure that "there was no risk whatever in the matter"[3] before pledging his money for the printing.

Even after entering into the work of translation in 1828 as Joseph Smith's first secretary, Martin Harris was vigilant. Upon returning to the Church in 1870 Martin reminisced of these days. The summer translation project was tedious, especially to active men accustomed to physical labor, so they broke the tension by recesses at the nearby Susquehanna River, where they exercised by throwing stones into the water. Finding a stone "very much resembling the one used for translating" Martin made a substitution without Joseph Smith's knowledge. The translator became confused and then frustrated, exclaiming, "Martin! What is the matter?" His scribe's guilty expression revealed the situation to the Prophet, who demanded an explanation. Martin's answer shows how constantly the secretary was on guard against deception: "To stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them."

You can find the excerpt at http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/harris2.html

But you may believe what you wish about him.

Glenn

[_mikwut]

Roger,

No time until later today and then I will leave you guys to your vices and speculations from there. I will force you to answer this though because it is the kind of nonsense that your becoming a master at.

I stated,

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.

and then you responded,

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

This kind of ineptitude to avoid the most obvious of evidence staring you in the face is abusive to the evidence. I didn't state rhetoric. I clearly, plainly stated clear evidence for one author. No reasonable person thinks there was a manuscript for the D&C and to think the shift just happened to coincide right in lock step and dance time with the D&C and the Book of Mormon dictation is hardly rhetoric it is direct evidence for crying out loud. Why would respond is such a divergent way?

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.

Your problems are so acute in not understand the differences in empirical sciences and scientific historical investigation it is a fog. Your understanding of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and the weighing of all the evidential data is so poor these are the kind games dialoging with you creates. It is your prediction Roger, provide method and data I have no prediction to make. But don't hide in those curtains from the clear evidential burden I presented.

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?

It isn't necessary unless you provide data and methodology for what your talking about. Your other problem is you start with why and not what the evidence is. Why is interesting but not precedent before the data. This is why you make so many subjective errors. Through my what I gave you your answer. If an error (the shifting of wherefore/therefore) coincides with the same authors writing of other material (the D&C) we can conclude reasonably that that author (given the limited range of possibilities) is the same. Why is subsumed within that direct evidence and you don't get to hide from that. It is like I provide you DNA evidence at the scene of the crime and you ignore it, demanding that I answer why the party who corresponds to the found DNA did it before you accept the direct evidence that he/she did. We can drink and smoke cigars while we discuss 'why' all you want, meanwhile we already determined he or she did.

regard, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

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

As I recall, I addressed this textual oddity earlier in the thread.

The therefore/wherefore shift is one item in a constellation of
"word-shifts" which began gradually in 3rd Nephi, with biblical
quotes explicating the Bountiful Christophany -- and which picked
up greater force in the Ether Christophany. Another of the "shifts"
is the use/non-use of the redundant "that" in numerous clauses.

As the Book of Mormon section between 3rd Nephi and Ether was
being finalized/dictated, a shift in language occurred which is
mirrored in the Book of Comandments chapters contemporary with
the Nephite record dictation.

The shift appears to have been a conscious one, but its implementation
was imperfect. There are seeming anomalies in the overall pattern,
which may be explained as editorial redactions, or as incongruities in
the dictation language for unknown reasons (one of which may be
dependance upon quoting pre-existing sources, such as the Bible).

The shift appears to have been more or less concurrent with a
tightening up of the narrative's grammar, and a standardization of its
faux Elizabethan English.

We should not automatically think that all the book's "errors" are
simply a matter of poor English -- in the mid-section of the book,
from Mosiah to the beginning of 3rd Nephi, an outdated vernacular
was generally used, typical of the Appalachian region, c. 1750-1800.
This dialect retained many grammar oddities from England, which we
today would consider improper English.

The "front" and "back" sections of the book (the "small plates" and
mid-3rd Nephi through Moroni) exhibit a greater direct dependance upon
King James English, and show a more consistent editorial control. The
language is generally more elevated and more "holy" -- as befitting a
text centered upon the two Christophanies I mentioned earlier, and which
includes Lehi's vision of Christ and Nephi's vision of Christ.

I do not think that the language shift is firm evidence of a shift in the
contributing writers to the Nephite record -- but it may indicate that
one particular writer was exercising greater control over standardizing
the phraseology and vocabulary for the book.

Perhaps, with more concentrated study, we can better demarcate the
boundaries of these two major textual divisions of the book, and come
up with a better nomenclature than "beginning," "middle" and "end." If
the narrative is the product of multiple authors, then the "errors" and
other linguistic features may help us identify particular sub-sections
with a certain textual contributor.

I think that nobody would complain if we sub-divided the text into
"Smith," "non-Smith," "Isaiah," "Malachi," and "Matthew." At the very
least we can attempt to grade the text as to how much or how little
it overlaps/resembles the writings of the four authors and the one
unknown remainder.

Maybe the Mormons will object, though.
And the Brodieites will see no use for such new studies, I presume.

UD

[_marg]

marge, you keep dodging the point. I know and understand quite well that anything in history is subjective and open to various interpretations. In the case of the lost tribes, there have been many theories and still are many theories abounding. Until the subject was brought up, you had no theory at all about the lost tribes because you had not been exposed to the subject matter. I doubt that even now, thjat you have an actual theory, except maybe that it is a myth.

I appreciate that you think because I brought up a response to you that I hadn't mentioned previous to you bringing up a claim, that it's ad hoc. Well heck yes, it's ad hoc. But it's not fallacious ad hoc. It's been rather disingenuous of both of you guys to be using the term ad hoc and not making it clear that you are meaning it pejoratively. You really should be specifying in this discussion ad hoc fallacious as opposed to simply ad hoc. There is nothing wrong with presenting reasoning in response to a previous counter. That's what legitimate argumentation entails.

No I didn't understand this "lost tribes" issue before my discussion with you and Dan. It took me a while to understand what your issue was.

But I'll be frank, you guys have lost credibility in presenting information to me objectively. When you guys, argue with me that the evidence is that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and reliable..I know you aren't objective in your position with regards to the evidence. And to add insult to injury Dan actually uses the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses as his justification to discredit the S/R witnesses. He's so incredibly biased and uses faulty reasoning. So yes, examples such as that, leads me to question how objective both of you are, in your presentation of any evidence and reasoning including for "lost tribes".

As I gathered information and read your reasoning I wasn't convinced of your claim that there is only one understanding of "lost tribes" possible and nothing else. I countered your claim. It's ad hoc, not ad hoc fallacious if there are warrants for the reasoning offered in the counter argument. The kind of ad hoc fallacy wiki means and Dan's book meant was not simply plausible warranted counter arguments. They are talking about background assumptions..being changed..such as eliminating previously accepted scientific theories, adding an explanation that's never been observed and for which other than the new scientific theory in question there are no warrants to do so, or adding some magical or supernatural explanation for which there are no objective verification possible. They are not talking about simple after the fact reasoning countered, which is a plausible explanation.

What Dan and you want to do, is assert your subjective position that has not been established objectively and then disallow any disagreements by labeling any other counter reasoning as ad hoc fallacy. Usually you leave out the word "fallacy" so technically you are correct....the fallacy part is implied by the context you present. It's a bit disingenuous not being clear and causes some confusion.

Dan has latched on to the concept in science that numerous ad hocs is a sign of trouble with a theory. But in science the ad hocs they are talking about is changing "background assumptions" which I explained above..is different to what we are talking about.

But in order to understand what the witnesses were talking about we must go back to the literature and ideas of the time and the statements of the witnesses themselves in order to gain an understanding of what they were most likely talking about.

You are making subjective assumptions. You are assuming everyone back then must have believed in the religious Esdras myth. You don't consider that there could be people who acknowledged that historically Northern Israelite tribes existed who were exiled in 720 B.C, and from that point forward nothing else known about them. You ignore that the S/R witnesses had discussions about this with a biblical skeptic, Spalding.

My understanding of the lost tribes and beliefs as an LDS are not the same as that which was prevalent during the early 1800's, but I cannot impose my own beliefs and understanding on what they most likely would have meant. The conclusion I came to was was obtained by reading what the witnesses said and from the literature of the times. My initial understanding after reading the statements of the Conneaut witnesses and perusing the literature of the times, such as Boudinet's "Star of the West" and Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" was reinforced by Abner Jackson's explicit statement. That is the evidence that is available.

You are assuming that people back then must have accepted the Esdras myth. If Spalding didn't and he had discussions with them bringing the concept of "lost tribes" to their attention..that would be their main source..not all these other books you are reading. As I said I can not trust you and Dan's critical evaluation of evidence and presentation of this, when you both deny the obvious..that the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable witnesses and there are strong warrants to be skeptical of their claims. When that is obvious...how objective and fair minded are you guys going to be when it comes to less clear evidence which is open to more subjectivity?

When it is clear as day light that Occam's Razor has no place as a decision tool between competing theories with different explanatory power for the same phenomenon..and Dan refuses to acknowledge that, what are the chances he's going to ever acknowledge ad hoc fallacy which is a more difficult concept to appreciate does not apply to after the fact reasoning responding to his subjective assertions.

Roger used this term "ad hoc on steroids" and it is so applicable to how you both us ad hoc. Every counter argument to your subjective beliefs is an ad hoc fallacy. You don't consider that your initial premises, your initial argument or assumption or claims are the problem..that they may be faulty. If your original premises are faulty you can't derive a reliable argument/conclusion from it. If your original premise and belief that the Book of Mormon witnesses were truthful is faulty all the rest of your reasoning which rests on that premise is unreliable. But what you both are doing is asserting your premises are valid and warranted and any after the fact reasoning is faulty...ad hoc. You aren't as guilty of this as Dan in my opinion. You do try to be objective and try to reason well.

In that light, you are most certainly changing a background assumption that must be accepted by the evidence. That background assumption is not that the lost tribes actually did migrate to America and become the ancestors of the American Indians. The background assumption is that the witnesses were talking about that idea when they were talking about the lost tribes. That is where the evidence leads.

Yes Glenn, good point by the way, I actually do like the way you think, and I think you'd make a good skeptic. But I have warrants to change the background assumption that you assert ..which is that when anyone talked about "lost tribes" they must have meant "lost tribes" per the myth. It is quite plausible that the witnesses main understanding of lost tribes came from Spalding and as well they were explaining his book, his understanding not theirs. In science it's must more clear what is meant by background assumptions. Because the background assumptions are theories accepted and observations...and it's based on objective verification. So to change them there must be a good justification. If by changing the background assumption a theory works then that's a good warrant to do so. It may very well turn out that a background assumption had been wrong. So eventually the better theories win out..by their predictive power.

It's not so easy with our discussion which doesn't allow for objective verification, going back in time and observing and there is very little if any predictive power open to verification.

You keep asserting lost tribes must be understood as per Esdras myth. It is simply an assertion on your part. It's subjective, it's not open to objective verification. The witnesses were talking about Spalding's book and the discussions they had with him. That's what they were explaining. Even if their understanding of "lost tribes" was different. Even if they knew the lost tribes myth..that doesn't mean that when they said "lost tribes" that's the concept they were boxing themselves into. They were talking about Spalding's concept and how he used it..with them. And even his concept could have evolved over time to something different..so it may have varied with different witnesses over time. I'm not saying Spalding wasn't aware of the myth, I'm saying that as a biblical skeptic he didn't box himself into using and accepting that Esdras myth. That to him, the lost tribes were simply the unaccounted for in the Bible ...exiled Israelite tribes in 720 BC.

In order to counteract that evidence, you had to concoct a scenario that is unsupported by any evidence from the witnesses or from any of the literature and ideas of the time and come up with your own version of a lost tribes story. That version was invented solely in response to the evidence that was presented, does not have any evidentiary support and thus is ad hoc.

It's not highly implausible Glenn that today and back then, people perceived the lost tribes..as simply the exiled lost tribes in 720 B.C.
It's you and Dan because it serves your purposes... that is forcing this myth into the equation in order to dismiss the S/R statements. It's quite sad actually ..that Dan is so desperate to make these witnesses out as confused and looks for anything no matter how weak to dismiss them, while he gives carte blanche to the Book of Mormon witnesses and accepts their extraordinary claims at face value...the ones who are highly motivated for self serving benefits.

What is obvious here, is the dis-ingenuousness in how Dan has been evaluating evidence. He has not been objective, has been using "fallacies" incorrectly. You've been influenced by him, however I respect you because I know you are trying to be honest. You aren't looking for devious ways to manipulate the evidence to suit your purposes. You've been influenced by Dan's reasoning. And understandably concepts like ad hoc fallacy are difficult to appreciate fully.

[_Roger]

I have no prediction to make.

And that says it all. The claims of having science in your favor are just silly. None of the S/A advocates or S/D advocates on this thread are willing to hazard a legitimate prediction based on their respective hypotheses. Instead they prefer to lecture me on how disingenuous they think I am. It's all worthless rhetoric.

Well here's my take...

Smith Divine will always have clever ways of getting itself off the hook because the divine element can always be appealed to to save it from whatever oddity may arise. So if the text shows signs of higher frequencies of errors showing up in certain sections vs much lower rates in other sections, S/D can simply argue that the underlying reformed Egyptian is responsible given multiple Nephite authors, or as a last resort, God's playfulness is responsible.

But Smith Alone will face the biggest challenge in how to explain the oddity of varying error rates since, aside from King James, it only has Smith to blame for the content of the Book of Mormon. It can't blame the phenomenon on God and it will have a very difficult time explaining why certain errors occur mainly at the beginning and end of the text, just like it cannot explain why the wherefore/therefore shift follows a similar pattern, it simply acknowledges that it did.

Well the evidence will be forthcoming at some point, but I am not in control of when. I had permission to show a couple examples here on the condition that the S/R critics would make a prediction. But of course, that didn't happen.

It's no real surprise that none of our friendly S/R critics are willing to take a guess at how their theory should predict error distribution patterns. The predictions their theories would make are not going to fall in line with what the evidence will show which will then force them into creative ways of harmonizing the adverse evidence with what their theory postulates. I'm pretty sure there is a name for that fallacy...

[_marg]

The predictions their theories would make are not going to fall in line with what the evidence will show which will then force them into creative ways of harmonizing the adverse evidence with what their theory postulates. I'm pretty sure there is a name for that fallacy...

Yes AD HOC FALLACY lol. I'm so glad Dan has brought this fallacy to my attention.

If objective verifiable evidence is presented to warrant a theory A and it counters another competing theory B ..after which assumptions are changed to theory B for which there is no warrant other than it serves to reject the objectively warranted claim/theory A ..then those added assumptions to theory B are an ad hoc fallacious.

To do away with a claim warranted by objective verifiable evidence by invoking irrational changed assumptions which can not be objectively verified and the sole reason of the changed assumptions is to to dismiss an objectively warranted counter claim claim...then an ad hoc fallacy has been committed.

There is no rational means to continue countering an irrational counter. One which has changed its assumptions without with any reasoning or objective verifiable evidence to warrant doing so, other than the changed assumptions serve only to maintain an irrational theory.

[_GlennThigpen]

In that light, you are most certainly changing a background assumption that must be accepted by the evidence. That background assumption is not that the lost tribes actually did migrate to America and become the ancestors of the American Indians. The background assumption is that the witnesses were talking about that idea when they were talking about the lost tribes. That is where the evidence leads.

Yes Glenn, good point by the way, I actually do like the way you think, and I think you'd make a good skeptic. But I have warrants to change the background assumption that you assert ..which is that when anyone talked about "lost tribes" they must have meant "lost tribes" per the myth. It is quite plausible that the witnesses main understanding of lost tribes came from Spalding and as well they were explaining his book, his understanding not theirs. In science it's must more clear what is meant by background assumptions. Because the background assumptions are theories accepted and observations...and it's based on objective verification. So to change them there must be a good justification. If by changing the background assumption a theory works then that's a good warrant to do so. It may very well turn out that a background assumption had been wrong. So eventually the better theories win out..by their predictive power.

It's not so easy with our discussion which doesn't allow for objective verification, going back in time and observing and there is very little if any predictive power open to verification.

You keep asserting lost tribes must be understood as per Esdras myth. It is simply an assertion on your part. It's subjective, it's not open to objective verification. The witnesses were talking about Spalding's book and the discussions they had with him. That's what they were explaining. Even if their understanding of "lost tribes" was different. Even if they knew the lost tribes myth..that doesn't mean that when they said "lost tribes" that's the concept they were boxing themselves into. They were talking about Spalding's concept and how he used it..with them. And even his concept could have evolved over time to something different..so it may have varied with different witnesses over time. I'm not saying Spalding wasn't aware of the myth, I'm saying that as a biblical skeptic he didn't box himself into using and accepting that Esdras myth. That to him, the lost tribes were simply the unaccounted for in the Bible ...exiled Israelite tribes in 720 BC.

marge, I keep saying that the statements by the witnesses must be understood by what they meant and understood. You have no evidence that Solomon had any idea other than what the prevailing ideas of the time were. The witnesses explained pretty plainly what Solomon was talking about. And that followed pretty much what the prevailing ideas of the time were. You still have not provided evidence. You are only providing "could have" without any corroboration. That could have is not borne out what the witnesses actually said. Please provide some evidence for your last statement.

In order to counteract that evidence, you had to concoct a scenario that is unsupported by any evidence from the witnesses or from any of the literature and ideas of the time and come up with your own version of a lost tribes story. That version was invented solely in response to the evidence that was presented, does not have any evidentiary support and thus is ad hoc.

It's not highly implausible Glenn that today and back then, people perceived the lost tribes..as simply the exiled lost tribes in 720 B.C.
It's you and Dan because it serves your purposes... that is forcing this myth into the equation in order to dismiss the S/R statements. It's quite sad actually ..that Dan is so desperate to make these witnesses out as confused and looks for anything no matter how weak to dismiss them, while he gives carte blanche to the Book of Mormon witnesses and accepts their extraordinary claims at face value...the ones who are highly motivated for self serving benefits.

It may not be implausible. But please provide the evidence. You are the one that really seems to be trying to force what apparently was the prevailing ideas of the time and of Solomon Spalding into a story line that has little resemblance to the generally understood lost tribes story as set forth by witnesses such as Martha Spalding and Abner Jackson.
If you would provide some evidence, something that Solomon said or wrote on the subject, or something that the witnesses said that would indicate that Solomon had other ideas and that he viewed a lost tribes story to be a small group of people from one of the lost tribes, I would entertain your premise with more favor. I just have not seen anything yet that would cause me to deviate from what I have read.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

You and Mikwut seem to be going in circles, and it seems you are in need of more information. Let’s see if I can help, and that will answer some of the questions you keep asking me.

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.

I don’t know why you argue as you do here. It doesn’t make sense to me. It’s obvious they don’t qualify what is being seen in the stone because they believe that is actually what happened. They believe what Joseph Smith told them, so to them it’s a fact. What is your point? They also saw the writing, and therefore it is testimony about the miraculous? Regardless, here is one of the witnesses adding the obvious disclaimer:

Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery:

"Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870--I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith's translating the Book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father's house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place [illegible strikeout] his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him. …”

--William E. McLellin, Letter to "My Dear Friends," February 1870, Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. (EMD 5:260)

The Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph:

By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so at least) interpret these characters (31 Aug. 1831).

Note this report is based on information originating with Harris and dates before Spalding claims were made. Pomeroy Tucker, printer of the Book of Mormon, reported:

The Manuscripts were in the handwriting of one Oliver Cowdery, which had been written down by him, as he and Smith declared, from the translations, word for word, as made by the latter with aid of the mammoth spectacles or Urim and Tummim. (Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, 1867, 36).

This whole line of argument was opened by Marg, who misinterpreted Fisher’s criteria. Fisher advised skepticism about reports of supernatural events like visions and miracles. The part that demands skepticism is Joseph Smith’s claims about what he saw in the stone. What the witnesses report doesn’t because it doesn’t involve special powers or the suspension of the laws of nature.

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.

They may not be objective witnesses, but not for the flimsy reason you’re giving. That part of their description includes information from Joseph Smith isn’t a reason to reject their testimonies in whole. Each element is treated separately. Historians don’t evaluate testimony like a polemicist does. There are no disinterested witnesses where Mormonism is concerned. Spalding witnesses aren’t objective either. Historians don’t just throw out interested testimony, but they are skeptical and proceed with caution. So, how can we test these witnesses?

Multiple witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Michael Morse (non-Mormon), Isaac Hale (non-Mormon), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Knight Sr.

Consistent story. Variety in minor details, but consistent in the main elements.

Independent testimony. Witnesses gave their testimonies in a variety of settings without collusion with one another.

Consistent over time. Essential elements remained the same from 1829 to 1880s.

Uncontroverted testimony. Any one of the named witnesses could have changed their testimony during their lifetimes, but they didn’t. Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were excommunicated in 1838. Other witnesses to the translation who never gave a statement could have come forward at any time to contradict published accounts, but that never happened either.

Incidental witnesses. Cowdery, Harris, and Emma were scribes, but the others were incidental witnesses who happened to be present on various occasions.

Supported by physical evidence (MS consistent with dictation).

Supported by incidental event (losing 116-pages MS).

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.

Your insistence on conflating what Joseph Smith saw and what the witnesses saw is unreasonable. It’s you who are attempting to diminish their testimony in an effort to paint them as unreliable as possible. I hope nobody is buying it.

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

You’ve been shown! It should have been unnecessary. Life’s too short to be distracted by red herrings.

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.

Yes, they are extraordinary claims, and Joseph Smith is responsible for them—not the witnesses. That you can’t figure that out for yourself is puzzling. As I’ve told you before, your reading is polemical, not historical. You are trying to win a debate through technicality. This is hardly the behavior of someone who professes to only be after the truth, and not wanting to be involved in “juvenile debate.” So why are you trying to artificially force this testimony into the category normally reserved for miracles and visions? What you are doing is not rational.

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.

Please do! It’s obvious Mikwut is mocking your and Marge’s tendency to escape adverse evidence through ad hoc speculation. He telling you anyone can make up stuff, and that you guys sound as bizarre to us as his example sounded to you.

I’ll skip some of your discussion with Mikwut.

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?

I don’t claim science is on my side other than I’m a naturalist. Again, you seem bent on trying to trap people—which is a polemical move by someone who is interested in winning a juvenile debate.

I think it’s interesting how you equate your withheld evidence is science. In a previous post to Mikwut you said:

I'll make it easy for you... shouldn't S/D predict that errors should be fairly uniformly distributed across the Book of Mormon text? Isn't that what S/D would expect to find?

Is that your assumption, that a single author would make errors consistently? Have you independently tested that assumption?

I don’t even know what your criteria are. Nor do I know what you are considering errors. Give us a list—describe your working hypothesis, and how you plan to test that hypothesis; if I agree that the experiment is sound, then I might consider giving a prediction. What kind of scientist gives predictions about an undefined phrase like “error rate”?

I’m not hopeful because you have already hinted that it’s not strong evidence, and that it’s open to multiple interpretation or possible rejection. You apparently are attempting to preempt our response and prevent an open and free assessment of your evidence.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

You wrote to Glenn.

I appreciate that you think because I brought up a response to you that I hadn't mentioned previous to you bringing up a claim, that it's ad hoc. Well heck yes, it's ad hoc. But it's not fallacious ad hoc. It's been rather disingenuous of both of you guys to be using the term ad hoc and not making it clear that you are meaning it pejoratively. You really should be specifying in this discussion ad hoc fallacious as opposed to simply ad hoc. There is nothing wrong with presenting reasoning in response to a previous counter. That's what legitimate argumentation entails.

Talk about disingenuous—this sudden admitted use of ad hocs and shameless attempt to reverse the blame on us for not making a distinction that you just invented is the height of narcissistic arrogance, Marg.

Interesting, now you admit you use ad hocs—but yo say they’re the right kind. No, Marg. The kind you have been inventing is the wrong kind. The distinction between legitimate ad hocs and illegitimate ones—that is, in science--is the ability to independently verify their existence. In other words, the response isn’t made up solely to ward off negative evidence and has no reality outside that function. Remember Schick and Vaughn said—“Such a move is legitimate if there’s an independent means of verifying their existence. … What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that it can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain” (p. 157). When you say “There is nothing wrong with presenting reasoning in response to a previous counter”—you exaggerate. You didn’t offer “reasoning”—you gave us imaginative speculations that have no evidentiary basis and no function outside protecting your central theory. Your hat-trick theory was invented to explain away eyewitness testimony. Without evidence you invented conspiracy theory to explain away the testimony of Harris and Whitmer. You explained Emma’s testimony away by saying without evidence that she didn’t want to know the truth or wasn’t inquisitive enough. These aren’t “reasons”—they are ad hoc hypotheses that are based on nothing and are unfalsifiable. Let’s review the definition of ad hoc hypothesis:

A just-so story, also called the ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in academic anthropology, biological sciences, social sciences, and philosophy. It describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Much of scientific understanding relies on the modification of existing hypotheses or theories, but these modifications are distinguished from ad hoc hypotheses in that the anomalies being explained propose a new means of being real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified. This is often at a cost to the theory's predictive power, however.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[2]

Note that an ad hoc hypothesis is not necessarily incorrect; in some cases, a minor change to a theory was all that was necessary. For example, Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe was ad hoc. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder", it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.[3]

Naturally, some gaps in knowledge, and even falsifying observations must be temporarily tolerated while research continues. To temper ad hoc hypothesizing in science, common practice includes Falsificationism (somewhat in the philosophy of Occam's Razor). Falsificationism means scientists become more likely to reject a theory as it becomes increasingly burdened by ignored falsifying observations and ad hoc hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypotheses

Marg, your admitted ad hocs are the wrong kind, because they are “unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation”, and serve no other purpose than to ward off adverse evidence. Conspiracy theory is also ad hoc the way you use it to explain away adverse evidence. Wikipedia on conspiracy theory:

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by many because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis. The former speculates on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals while the latter studies people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events.[1] Scholars argue that conspiracy theory goes beyond the boundaries of rational criticism when it becomes nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which explains away contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it. …

Conspiracy theories are the subject of broad critique by academics, politicians, and the media.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents.

Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

Occam's razor – does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?

Logic – do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?

Methodology – are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?

Whistleblowers – how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators? The more wide-ranging and pervasive the conspiracy is alleged to be, the greater the number of people would have to be involved in perpetrating it – is it credible that nobody involved has brought the affair to light?

Falsifiability – would it be possible to determine whether specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"? …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories

Marg, note that my first two posts to Roger mentioning Occam’s Razor was in the context of conspiracy theories and ad hocs.

I would paraphrase David Hume’s statement on miracles: pick the lesser miracle. Given the repeated and multiple eyewitness testimony maintained over decades, it would require a greater conspiracy to maintain a lesser speculated conspiracy. So which is easier to believe: the witnesses were telling the truth, or that they were involved in a massive conspiracy? What would Occum’s Razor have you choose? How many assumptions are needed to maintain the Spalding theory? Why replace a simple straightforward theory, for one so convoluted and ad hoc? (Feb. 9).

The principal of parsimony favors the theory that answers most of the data with the least elaboration and assumptions. Of course an elaborate theory can explain everything, but most of the elaboration comes about to save the theory from demise, rather than to explain the data. (Feb. 10).

I think your favored theory is in trouble.

No I didn't understand this "lost tribes" issue before my discussion with you and Dan. It took me a while to understand what your issue was.

But I'll be frank, you guys have lost credibility in presenting information to me objectively. When you guys, argue with me that the evidence is that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and reliable..I know you aren't objective in your position with regards to the evidence. And to add insult to injury Dan actually uses the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses as his justification to discredit the S/R witnesses. He's so incredibly biased and uses faulty reasoning. So yes, examples such as that, leads me to question how objective both of you are, in your presentation of any evidence and reasoning including for "lost tribes".

If you were so logical, you wouldn’t be using ad hominem right now. The increasing attacks must be a sign that you are losing confidence in your quibbling ad hoc ways. You are out of line in accusing us of bias, we just know the sources better than you. Your analysis of the Mormon witnesses was sloppy and amateurish.

As I gathered information and read your reasoning I wasn't convinced of your claim that there is only one understanding of "lost tribes" possible and nothing else. I countered your claim.

Your response was to change the definition of “lost tribes” in an unnatural and forced manner. Then you made an ad hoc speculation that Spalding could have had a group move from northern Israel to Jerusalem a generation earlier and then leave to America, without any evidence whatsoever. Then you insisted the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes because Lehi was from the same tribe as one of the lost tribes. Then you speculated that passages locating the ten tribes elsewhere were added by Smith or Rigdon. There was no end to your ad hocs. It was simply appalling.

It's ad hoc, not ad hoc fallacious if there are warrants for the reasoning offered in the counter argument.

The only warrant you had was that you needed to escape adverse evidence. None of it had any evidence, but was argued from the assumption that the Spalding theory is right. This is what warranted you to change and manipulate the facts and insert ad hoc speculation about what should be the case if Spalding theory is right.

The kind of ad hoc fallacy wiki means and Dan's book meant was not simply plausible warranted counter arguments. They are talking about background assumptions..being changed..such as eliminating previously accepted scientific theories, adding an explanation that's never been observed and for which other than the new scientific theory in question there are no warrants to do so, or adding some magical or supernatural explanation for which there are no objective verification possible. They are not talking about simple after the fact reasoning countered, which is a plausible explanation.

Adjusting background assumptions isn’t ad hoc. Schick and Vaughn quoted Philip Kitcher as saying: “We can always save a cherished hypothesis from refutation by rejecting (however implausibly) one of the other members of the bundle [of theories]” (p. 156). Ad hocs are additions to the theory of new entities or hypotheses that don’t have evidentiary support independent of the theory it’s supposed to protect. Some ad hocs are implausible, others are implausible—depending on the ingenuity of the inventor. Conspiracy theories seem plausible to lots of people even though they have not one shred of real evidence. Fiction is plausible, is it not? Plausible isn’t good enough. Spalding advocates postulate the use of a MS in the translation room. I counter with Mormon witnesses. That’s evidentiary—not ad hoc. You respond with a trick hat theory to ward off this evidence—that’s ad hoc because it’s not based on evidence and can’t be falsified.

What Dan and you want to do, is assert your subjective position that has not been established objectively and then disallow any disagreements by labeling any other counter reasoning as ad hoc fallacy. Usually you leave out the word "fallacy" so technically you are correct....the fallacy part is implied by the context you present. It's a bit disingenuous not being clear and causes some confusion.

You weren’t confused because you didn’t know what ad hoc was before this discussion—and to some extent you still don’t. I quoted Wiki and explained what it was. It’s usually called “ad hoc hypotheses”, or “ad hoc explanations”, etc. “Ad hoc fallacy” without the “hypotheses” is just another way of saying the same thing.

Dan has latched on to the concept in science that numerous ad hocs is a sign of trouble with a theory. But in science the ad hocs they are talking about is changing "background assumptions" which I explained above..is different to what we are talking about.

No, Marg. As I mentioned above, changing background assumptions is just one way to ward off negative evidence, ad hoc is another.

You are making subjective assumptions. You are assuming everyone back then must have believed in the religious Esdras myth. You don't consider that there could be people who acknowledged that historically Northern Israelite tribes existed who were exiled in 720 B.C, and from that point forward nothing else known about them. You ignore that the S/R witnesses had discussions about this with a biblical skeptic, Spalding.

It’s not subjective—it’s based on evidence. What warrant do you have for this belief? How about doing some research and finding people who believed what you speculate. Find someone who believed the Indians were from one lost tribe. Being a biblical skeptic is irrelevant, especially since you are arguing he accepted the historical parts about the ten tribes.

You are assuming that people back then must have accepted the Esdras myth. If Spalding didn't and he had discussions with them bringing the concept of "lost tribes" to their attention..that would be their main source..not all these other books you are reading. As I said I can not trust you and Dan's critical evaluation of evidence and presentation of this, when you both deny the obvious..that the Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable witnesses and there are strong warrants to be skeptical of their claims. When that is obvious...how objective and fair minded are you guys going to be when it comes to less clear evidence which is open to more subjectivity?

You tried to discredit the Mormon witnesses, but you failed.

When it is clear as day light that Occam's Razor has no place as a decision tool between competing theories with different explanatory power for the same phenomenon..and Dan refuses to acknowledge that, what are the chances he's going to ever acknowledge ad hoc fallacy which is a more difficult concept to appreciate does not apply to after the fact reasoning responding to his subjective assertions.

I wasn’t using Occam’s Razor to decide based on simplicity vs. complexity; I was using it in the wider meaning of preference for theories with less ad hocs. I’m not the only one who uses it in this way, although I don’t need it to make my point, which you keep dodging with quibbles and invented definitions of ad hoc.

Roger used this term "ad hoc on steroids" and it is so applicable to how you both us ad hoc. Every counter argument to your subjective beliefs is an ad hoc fallacy. You don't consider that your initial premises, your initial argument or assumption or claims are the problem..that they may be faulty. If your original premises are faulty you can't derive a reliable argument/conclusion from it. If your original premise and belief that the Book of Mormon witnesses were truthful is faulty all the rest of your reasoning which rests on that premise is unreliable. But what you both are doing is asserting your premises are valid and warranted and any after the fact reasoning is faulty...ad hoc. You aren't as guilty of this as Dan in my opinion. You do try to be objective and try to reason well.

How exactly does this help you get out of being responsible for using ad hocs? Most of your handling of the witnesses was also ad hoc.

Yes Glenn, good point by the way, I actually do like the way you think, and I think you'd make a good skeptic. But I have warrants to change the background assumption that you assert ..which is that when anyone talked about "lost tribes" they must have meant "lost tribes" per the myth. It is quite plausible that the witnesses main understanding of lost tribes came from Spalding and as well they were explaining his book, his understanding not theirs. In science it's must more clear what is meant by background assumptions. Because the background assumptions are theories accepted and observations...and it's based on objective verification. So to change them there must be a good justification. If by changing the background assumption a theory works then that's a good warrant to do so. It may very well turn out that a background assumption had been wrong. So eventually the better theories win out..by their predictive power.

Gibberish. You are inventing ad hoc explanations to ward off adverse evidence.

It's not so easy with our discussion which doesn't allow for objective verification, going back in time and observing and there is very little if any predictive power open to verification.

You keep asserting lost tribes must be understood as per Esdras myth. It is simply an assertion on your part. It's subjective, it's not open to objective verification. The witnesses were talking about Spalding's book and the discussions they had with him. That's what they were explaining. Even if their understanding of "lost tribes" was different. Even if they knew the lost tribes myth..that doesn't mean that when they said "lost tribes" that's the concept they were boxing themselves into. They were talking about Spalding's concept and how he used it..with them. And even his concept could have evolved over time to something different..so it may have varied with different witnesses over time. I'm not saying Spalding wasn't aware of the myth, I'm saying that as a biblical skeptic he didn't box himself into using and accepting that Esdras myth. That to him, the lost tribes were simply the unaccounted for in the Bible ...exiled Israelite tribes in 720 BC.

After all this time, you still don’t know what ad hoc is. Our understanding of lost tribes and Indian origins comes from an examination of the literature of the time. Your understanding comes from discussions with yourself. You are inventing ad hoc explanations based on what you need to ward off adverse evidence. It’s not based on evidence, nor can it be falsified.