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

[_marg]

Post 2 (cont’d response to Dan)

I haven’t gone on to the rest of your post, this is a continuation of my first response to you, a few post previous.

So why isn’t ad hoc fallacy applicable to claims which are assertions and not objectively verifiable?


Well by what means can we determine one opinion is superior to another if there is no agreed to objective means for that determination? In science it’s not a matter of truth, it’s what works. If a theory explains phenomenon and it bears out with verification and fits in with other accepted theories…it works...it's accepted until new theories, with better data and explanations come along.

Identifying fallacies is meant to identify faulty reasoning. But by what standard should a counter to an opinion be considered faulty reasoning when that initial opinion is only warranted by an assertion without objective verification applied.

So with the lost tribes..these are some of the fact not under dispute

Facts or claims not under dispute:

- Biblical account of exiled Israelites in 720 B.C, (assumed historical fact)
- Afterwards no historical account of those tribes in Bible
- Bibilical stories relating to those tribes are speculated..in Esdras along with Issiah..so the speculations are a fact but the actual speculations are myth
- Ethan Smith popularized a theory founded upon speculation that tribes from 720 B.C., exiled group were ancestors of Am. Indian and they arrived in American via Bering Str.
- There were other similar speculations previous to Ethan Smith in Spalding’s day
- The local mounds around Conneaut with buried bones were an interest to the locals at the time Spalding lived.
- Spalding took an interest in history, was educated in theology
- S/R witnesses claimed he was writing a story intended to give a historical account that Am. Ind descended from “lost tribes”.

At issue is what did witnesses mean by “lost tribes”..must it have included the myth as you say. That’s your hypothesis but is it well warranted? Must the witnesses have referred to the common popular understanding entailing the myth?

Well their understanding of "lost tribes"..included what Spalding informed them of. He was a biblical skeptic, was not telling a story about the “lost tribes" and what may have happened to them but was only using them as a historical reference marker to explain the ancestry and where Am. Indians descended from in time and place that was a historically accepted as fact.

There is no requirement that the concept “lost tribes” necessitated adhering to a myth being as it’s not accepted historical fact. The only necessity for Spalding to serve his purposes and explain ancestry of Am Indian was to tie the Indians to a historical event..accepted as fact.

So the rest of the myth that you refer to, which you say Spalding must necessarily have included it, and that the witnesses could not have referred to the lost tribes without acknowledging the myth is mere opinion.

To counter with a reasonable alternate explanation…is not fallacious reasoning.

It would be absolutely absurd logic..to devise a fallacy to recognize faulty reasoning that entailed that every time someone made a claim which was non verifiable opinion that every time someone else disagreed with that opinion..that person was committing a logic error or faulty reasoning.

This is why ad hoc fallacy works well when there is a means to verify and falsify, which occurs in science but it does not work well if at all in situations subject to opinion.

This is why Dan with the authors you cited they placed ad hoc fallacy in the section on science. This is why if you look at the intro text on logic by copi because I know you used that as well, they place the ad hoc discussion in the context of science.

[_Uncle Dale]

...my search for sources, initially ignoring S/R, has merit.
...

As you study the first chapters of Mosiah, you may wish to also
consult Rafinsque's paraphrasing of earlier publications of Native
American history.

Here is an example from 1824 -- published near where Sidney
Rigdon's brother had graduated from medical school and was
beginning his physician's practice:

Ancient History of North America. --
Biography of the American Solomon.

The Biography of eminent monarchs, heroes, legislators, and philosophers, has always been an important department of history. It would be my wish to rescue from oblivion, all the eminent Americans of ancient times, whose names and deeds are scattered. in the fugitive annals of the American nations, and in whose lives we may find new sources of instruction, admiration and entertainment. As an example of my plan and view, I now select one of the most illustrious individuals of North American history who united in the highest degree II the above mentioned titles; since he was a wise King, a great warrior, an enlightened lawgiver and an eminent philosopher. I shall bestow upon him the title of the AMERICAN SOLOMON, which he really deserves: and give an abridged notice of his life, character and deeds.

NAZAHUAL.
Was the tenth king of Tezcuco, or the Acolhuans, in the region of Anahuac, which we call sometimes Mexico. He was the son of Ixtli, the sixth king of Tezcuco, who had been dethroned and killed by Tezomoc king of the Tepanecas in 1410.

Nazahual was then 20 years old; and, being compelled to take refuge in the mountains, until the death of Tezomoc in 1442; he was taught wisdom by adversity. Tezomoc, a monster of cruelty and ambition, who had become Emperor of all Anahuac by treachery and conquest, was succeeded by his son Tejatzin, who was murdered in 1423 by his brother Maxtlaton, another, tyrant, against whom Nazahual rose in arms, and being joined by the Mexicans, Tlascalans, &c. he succeeded after three years, in destroying him and reconquering his father's' dominions. (1) He was crowned in 1420, and had a long happy reign of 44 years, one of the most glorious and peaceful in Mexican history; he was during that long period in close alliance with the Mexicans, and was merely involved in a short war with Chalco in 1437. He rendered his capital Tezcuco, one of the finest and most flourishing cities in Anahuac. It became the Athens of the Mexican nations, the nursery of arts and the centre of cultivation. The Mexican language was spoken there with the greatest purity. Artists, poets, orators and historians abounded there in his life time and afterwards.

Nazahual was not only a great hero and sage, but an astronomer, naturalist and poet. The progress which he made in the arts and and sciences were such as may be expected of from a great genius, who has but few books to study, or masters to instruct him. Nothing gave him so much delight as the study of nature: he applied himself to the knowledge of the stars, animals and plants; he caused paintings to be made of all those of Anahuac. He established Academies and Colleges of Astronomy, History, Poetry, Music, Painting, &c.

This American Solomon exceeded the Asiatic Solomon in many things: since he was a great reformer and legislator, and completed the civilization of the Acolhuan nation. He established four great tribunals, called the Civil, Criminal, Financial and Military tribunals. He published a code of 80 laws, which are worthy of praise. He went about in disguise to know whether they were properly executed; and he was so strictly just, that he allowed 4 of his sons to be put to death, who had violated the laws and committed crimes. Yet his clemency and benevolence were acknowledged by all.

His enquiries into the causes and effects of natural phenomena, led him to discover the weakness of Idolatry and the Mexican Worship. He became a Deist and acknowledged no other God than the creator of Heaven. He taught this doctrine to his sons and successors, but attempted in vain to inculcate it among his people. He abolished human sacrifices, but was compelled by the priests to permit sometimes the sacrifice of prisoners. He erected a high tower of nine stories for his own worship, which he dedicated to the only God, or the Creator of Heaven.

He excelled in the poetry of his nation; he composed 60 hymns in honor of the Creator of Heaven, besides many odes, &c. His hymns and odes were highly esteemed; they became celebrated even among the Spaniards after the conquest of Mexico, and they have been translated into Spanish.

Tezcuco was embellished by him, with new buildings, palaces, gardens, schools temples, &c. All the arts and sciences flourished there under him and his successors.(2)

He had many wives, but only one Queen, the daughter of the king of Tacuba. He died in 1470 at the age of 80, after having chosen and appointed his son Nazahual-pilli for his successor, who followed the worthy steps of his father, and had a happy reign of 46 years.(3)

Such was the life of the great Nazahual, the best, wisest and most glorious king of the Acolhuans: who although setting on throne, did not disdain to cultivate and improve Religion, Philosophy, the Sciences, Arts and Literature. Who was virtuous and just, generous, pious, enlightened and prudent: happy and worthy model of a truly great kind, and wise legislator.
C. S. RAFINESQUE.
__________
(1) The kingdom of Tezcuco was 200 miles long and 60 broad; it contained nearly two millions of inhabitants. It was also called the kingdom of Acolhuan; but Tezcuco the metropolis gave generally its name to it. Many other large towns were included in that kingdom. It was quite independent of Mexico.

(2) The town of Tezcuco was on the west side of the Lake of Tezcuco or Mexico, and the most splendid, if not the largest town, in Anahuac after Mexico.

(3) Nazahual-pilli or Nazahual II, was thus called to distinguish him from his father, who was also called Nazahual-coyotl, or the Fox; the fox being the emblem of wisdom among the Mexicans.

Cincinnati Literary Gazette, May 29, 1824

UD

[_Roger]

Mikwut:

You know I really don't understand why you feel you have to bring this discussion down to a personal insult level. You and Dan both throw out personal insults and expect those of us who disagree with you to simply take it. Most of the time I try to resist the urge to respond in kind, but sometimes your statements (and Dan's as well) are so inflammatory I give in and respond in kind--although I still don't type half the things I'm thinking. But I don't understand why it has to get so personal? This is what I meant earlier when I said I am not interested in "winning" a juvenile debate. It ends up amounting to nothing more than who comes up with the best one-liner.

You asked me whether I agree with marg's statement and I gave you my honest answer. Not content with that, you jump all over it and start accusing marg and I of "unthinking devotion to an idea and zealotry and irrationality towards the evidence" and that marg's statement represents the "height of arrogance and stupidity" and my own request for clarity from Dan on whether or not he believes words actually appeared in the stone, because the way he phrased it made it sound as if he did--you characterize as "your clarity seeking was misguided" (sheesh!)

And then you have the audacity to claim we don't think before we post. If all you're going to post in what is supposed to be a Celestial discussion is insults why bother posting?

The fact is Glenn sets an example we should all follow. I have never seen Glenn attack anyone on a personal level. I will do my best to follow Glenn's example. I wonder if maybe you and Dan could do so as well?

Can't we just have a discussion about what we disagree on without throwing in stuff about what we think the other person knows or doesn't know, how ignorant or stupid or irrational they are, etc. etc etc.?

[_Dan Vogel]

Mikwut,

Please think more rationally about these things. Dan is hardly a TBM. He and Brent Metcalfe have been the bane of TBM's for quite some time now. They have publicly published their work. The conversations are only frustrating because he has insisted on staying on topic, logically validating your arguments, evidentially supporting your theory, and using proven and accepted historical methods. You and marg make no such insistence, flying by the seat of your pants on every topic from memory studies, theology, empirical statistical data, evidence balancing and priority, a historical record you both still don't know completely etc..

I must be doing something right if I get accused of being too sympathetic towards Joseph Smith and Mormonism while at the same time being a critic of it. Ironic, that Marg calls herself unbiased, when she has nothing to support that self-description but her own words. Still more ironic, I have Marg to thank for the endorsement of my fair and even-handed handling of the sources.

Thanks for making an appearance here. I don’t know how much more I can take of this myself. Who knows, I might do a book on this topic:)

[_GlennThigpen]

Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will never get a cold.
Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold.
Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes.
Yolanda: Well, I’ll bet you bought some bad tablets.

The burden of proof is definitely on Yolanda’s shoulders to prove that Juanita’s vitamin C tablets were probably “bad” — that is, not really vitamin C. If Yolanda can’t do so, her attempt to rescue her hypothesis (that vitamin C prevents colds) is simply a dogmatic refusal to face up to the possibility of being wrong.

So notice in the above example..the claimant is making an explanatory hypothesis which is open to falsification. A counter argument is made with evidence which falsified the original claim...which shifts the burden of proof back to the original claimant, but their response does away with that evidence by rejecting it as being “bad”. So the burden of proof hasn’t been met by the original claimant in overturning the counter evidence.

Theoretically through inductive testing Juanita's claims can be objectively verified.

There is nothing inductive about it. Juanita made a statement that she had taken the pills and still had gotten a cold. Accepting as a fact that she is telling the truth, this statement stands, unless Yolanda can produce proof that Juanita either did not suffer from a cold during the period of time she was taking the tablets, or that the tablets were indeed bad.

In effect, the discussion can’t proceed because how can Juanitia prove the pills she took weren’t bad.

She does not have to. That is what an ad hoc fallacy does. It provides an explanation that cannot be verified independently but tries to shift the burden of proof to the other side. But, at this point, Yolanda's assertion has been refuted by Juanita's experience.
However, if Yolanda had some proof that there had been a batch of Vitamin C tablets that had been found "bad" and she could show that Juanita's tablets belonged to that bad batch, the debate would have been inconclusive. At that point Yolanda's assertion would not have been proven or refuted by Juanita's experience.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

And then you have the audacity to claim we don't think before we post. If all you're going to post in what is supposed to be a Celestial discussion is insults why bother posting?


The fact is Glenn sets an example we should all follow. I have never seen Glenn attack anyone on a personal level. I will do my best to follow Glenn's example. I wonder if maybe you and Dan could do so as well?

Well, Glenn is the only one here who really believes he’s going to the Celestial Kingdom and knows what’s expected. Glenn is a saint—I’m not.

Part of the push-back you are getting results from the aggressiveness we experience from you and Marg. I think you guys might be tone deaf. Lately, I’ve been trying to draw attention to Marg’s use of ad hominem—both in argument and gratuitously. That you act surprised when people jerk your chain shows a lack of self-awareness and ego-centrism. People have a tendency to turn the volume up when they feel they are not being listened to, or they just go away. Roger, what you say and the way you behave are different things. You say you are just after the truth and are trying to find out what happened in the past, and then you act like a polemicist bent on entrapping us in contradiction. If that’s what you want to do, then do it without the pretense of being a truth seeker. I’ve endured a lot from you guys, maybe it will help me get into the Terrestrial Kingdom at least.

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

I must be doing something right if I get accused of being too sympathetic towards Joseph Smith and Mormonism while at the same time being a critic of it.

I guess it could be viewed that way. I asked you for clarification because, at the time, you were using terminology exactly like a TBM would use it. Perhaps that is the result of your familiarity with the language of Mormonism. If I remember right I think you claimed it was "shorthand." But I'm not convinced it is an example of doing something right when it becomes difficult to distinguish between your points and what you're criticizing. I suppose it can be said that when that happens you must really understand the opposing point of view. Possibly so. But it does make other critics wonder how critical you truly are.

If I criticize big government while defending the mechanics of how Obama Care came to be it tends to send a mixed message.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
it does make other critics wonder how critical you truly are.
...

Somebody over on RFM said that the guy had unequivocally
refuted and condemned Mormonism. So, if he has elsewhere
posted on the web his declaration that the Church is false
and its apostles are lying con men, I think such a declaration
must stand for itself.

Such a level of apostasy generally requires temple work, conducted
decades after the reprobate's demise, before restoration to his/her
eternal family can begin -- providing, of course, that the apostate
recants, repents and obeys the restored Gospel, beyond the veil.

UD

[Guest]

Well, Glenn is the only one here who really believes he’s going to the Celestial Kingdom and knows what’s expected. Glenn is a saint—I’m not.

A little correction. I am the only one who believes there is a Celestial Kingdom. I don't know that I have made my "calling and election" sure though. <little smiley here>

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...I am the only one wjo believes there is a Celestial Kingdom.
...

Why do you say that?

There are other God-fearing Latter Day Saints posting to this forum.
I hope you have not forgotten that.

UD