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

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, Roger, Glenn, (and anyone else interested)

If I continue to respond to Dan on this ad hoc fallacy issue it's going to continue to take lots of MB space in this thread.

Do you think anything productive will be accomplished by continuing? If yes do you think this discussion on ad hoc fallacy is taking away from the discussion on the theories S/A & S/R.? Is it okay to continue in this thread or would you prefer this ad hoc fallacy discussion be in a separate thread?

thanks

I suggest that somebody start up a new thread, in which to
discuss the topics of Occam's razor, ad hominem arguments,
and ad hoc definitions.

If these things are to be used, in order to put an end to
productive inquiry into early Mormon history, then we really
ought to understand what the advocates of those things
mean to convince us of, apart from examining such history.

I have not been paying as close of attention as I might have,
I suppose, if I thought that early Mormon history had already
been adequately portrayed and explained. But, I must say,
I'm beginning to tire of these endless distractions away from
the topic of this thread.

The topic of the thread suggests that the S/R authorship
theory has been proved false, by recent application of
computerized textual analysis. That in and of itself is a very
interesting proposition, and I'd like to hear some response
from the Smith-alone crowd, on that general topic.

Has modern research demonstrated that we no longer need
investigate Mormon origins? Is that question settled?

And -- if it has indeed been settled -- then what do the
Smith-alone advocates suggest we do, in order to test their
conclusions?

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...And -- if it has indeed been settled -- then what do the
Smith-alone advocates suggest we do, in order to test their
conclusions?
...

By saying that, I mean to communicate my belief that historical
theories that are truly valid, should also be predictive.

New evidence uncovered after publication of the theory ought
to generally conform to the predictions of the theory itself.

For example -- were we to discover tomorrow, an authentic
old source that documented the secretive activities of one
of the members of the Smith family, in writing out piles of
manuscript pages during the late 1820s, the person thus
identified should reasonably be Joseph Smith, Jr. If the newly
uncovered source instead identified the prolific secretive
writer as Hyrum Smith, then we would be justified in raising
new challenges to the Joseph-Smith-alone authorship theory.

If, on the other hand, the issue of Mormon origins has been
finally settled -- for all time -- then we need not trouble
ourselves in seeking out any new evidence in order to test
that conclusion.

I believe I hear the Smith-alone advocates saying the latter.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Well the loss of the 116 pages had to be replaced, Glenn, so I agree with the S/A proponents on the sequence of "translation" beginning with Mosiah. But from your point of view, which also seems to be Skousen's, what difference does it make? You can see the pattern in the chart Dale posted regardless of whether Mosiah represents the earliest extant portion or not. Why would word use patterns and error patterns fall so dramatically uneven across the entire Book of Mormon text resulting in a clear beginning and ending pattern that are similar to each other but radically different from the middle? How would S/D (or S/A for that matter) explain the data?

If Nephi 1 and 2 were translated first, the pattern is entirely different.

How does any of the theories explain the data without some type of ad hoc explanation?

Well there you go. No we're getting somewhere.

In terms of "ad hoc" in my view, the data as it appears on Dale's chart only fits with the S/R theory in a non ad hoc way--regardless of which came first. In other words, the data in Dale's chart is not adverse to the S/R thesis, rather it is what we would expect from multiple authors. We would expect the text to look different at various places (in terms of error frequency or dialect) given contributions from more than one author and that's exactly what we see. So in this case, the S/R thesis does not have to come up with an ad hoc explanation to accommodate adverse evidence because the evidence already fits the explanation.

Do the others? That's why I'm asking. It would appear to me that they do. As I stated earlier, so long as it is exhaustive, the data is static and empirical. It has to be explained. The S/R thesis best explains it. But I'm open to explanations from the competing theories. What are they?

[_Uncle Dale]

...As I stated earlier, so long as it is exhaustive, the data is static and empirical. It has to be explained. The S/R thesis best explains it. But I'm open to explanations from the competing theories. What are they?

If I understand Sandra Tanner's response to the Jockers study, the
variations in the language used to communicate the Nephite record
came as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr. changing his word-print when
conveying information and ideas that he obtained by reading
various published, pre-1830 sources.

There was a variation on this notion, expressed by David I. Holmes,
whereby the variations in the text are attributable to Joe Smith's
"prophetic voice" (which did not necessarily match his mundane,
usual "voice"). Thus, the more "prophetic" Smith may have waxed,
in composing the Nephite record, the less like his own language
that text (as well as his "revelations") would sound.

I am not convinced that the frequently used non-contextual words
measured in computerized word-printing are a reliable indication of
changes in a writer's "prophetic voice," nor of changes brought on
by mental reference to pre-read published materials.

However -- THAT seems to be the Smith-alone alternative here.

Since it is marginally possible that a single writer could produce
portions of a text that are widely varied in their wordprint patterns,
I would suggest that the differentiated sub-divisions of the Book
of Mormon (thought to have originated with different writers) be
subjected to rigorous literary analysis other than usual wordprinting.

The Smith-alone advocates have yet to publish their own explanation
for variations in Book of Mormon language -- and I doubt very much
that they will even bother to employ any researchers to make that
attempt. They are so convinced of their correctness, that no sort
of evidence is necessary for them to retain their position, and no
sort of evidence will cause them to change it.

Accepting even a small admixture of the multiple authorship theory
is deadly to the Smith-aloners. They cannot be "just a little bit
pregnant" -- it is "all or nothing" for them and their theory.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Response to your post of May 23:

Ok…let’s take ad hoc fallacy out of the context of science. I don’t think I agree with you that “objective verifiability” isn’t required of ad hoc fallacy even out of the context of science. Here's why, if the argument or just the counter argument is a matter of mere opinion, unless there is an agreed to means beforehand on how to determine superiority of views there is no means to justify which opinion is better without some parameter to do so. Objectively verifiable evidence and reasoning used in science is a means to judge which claim can be relied upon. Predictions which bear out support that this method works.

There are agreed to values (simplicity, scope, fruitfulness, etc.) for good theory building. Counter-evidence is evidence of any kind, not just opinion. If it were unsupported opinion, it can be ignored. An opinion in argument form, is no longer just an opinion, and is subject to refutation. If counter-evidence is weak, it can be easily refuted without resorting to ad hoc speculation. When ad hocs are used, it’s usually because there is no other way to respond. If there is no evidentiary or logical response, you might consider the counter evidence is good. However, if you remain committed to your theory (and there’s nothing particularly wrong with that), you might acknowledge the lower level from which you are arguing and not be so dogmatic in your presentation of imaginative answers.

So taking a look at ad hoc fallacy outside of science..let’s look at the horse/tapir situation.

Mormonism claim: There were according to the Book of Mormon, horses living in America during the period 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Critic Counter claim: There is no scientific evidence horses lived in America during that period.

Mormon apologetic response:..There were tapirs living during that time period and Smith was translating in his mind, but didn’t know the word for Tapir so to him using his knowledge and vocabulary he said “horse”.

Mormon apologists count on the construction of ad hoc responses that can’t be tested but have a degree of plausibility. They know this theory of translation will never be tested. They employ the fallacy of proof by analogy by referencing what happens in translation generally, then they appeal to the fallacy of possible proof, which (according to David Hackett Fischer) “consists in an attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity” (Historian’s Fallacies, p. 53).

So what is happening here is it’s an irrational response(lacking evidence and reasoning) meant solely to maintain and justify the original claim. There is no objective evidence that Smith was translating anything or had any such ability. Those trying to maintain the original claim of horses in America during the time period in question are changing the background assumptions, 'that words Smith expressed meant what he said'. If meanings of words can simply be changed, then the counter argument against the original claim is done away with and can not be maintained and rationally supported. There is no rational argument using objective reasoning and evidence against the original claim when an irrational argument is presenting changing the background assumption that Smith meant what he said. So future rational discourse is not possible.

It’s more complicated than this. It’s not the critic’s job to disprove Book of Mormon historicity by referencing possible historical anachronism (the Book of Mormon’s mention of horse among others); it’s the Mormon apologist’s burden to prove the horse existed in pre-Columbian America. Disconfirmation is tricky because something could always be discovered that will remove the criticism. Apologists sometimes say—the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. In this instance, however, the likelihood that the horse will be found, especially in Mesoamerica, is so remote that the apologists themselves have given up hope and moved to the next argument—which places it forever in the realm of the untestable. Calling this move “irrational” doesn’t exactly fit, because it is quite rational and plausible—but plausible is easy to achieve with enough ingenuity and imagination. But is it probable, especially when this apologetic device is used for steel, elephant, wheat, and a host of flora and fauna. To mention that there is no “objective evidence” that Joseph Smith was translating an ancient record is begging the question. If there was such evidence, there would be no need to make these lower level arguments. In fact, if there were such evidence for Joseph Smith’s translation of gold plates and the Book of Mormon’s historicity were not doubted, then the historical anachronisms could be explained by arguments from translation. Until then, the apologists are using ad hoc reasoning built on the assumption the Book of Mormon is a translation to explain away counter-evidence. This move short-circuits the testing process—that is, assuming historicity to see if it fits and what anachronisms might appear. Apologists use this assumption to find parallels to antiquity, but ignore anachronisms, which they try to explain away by using the same assumption. The Book of Mormon must be true, so there must be some explanation for the anachronism. In absence of direct evidence to ancient America, disconfirming evidence is crucial; but apologists nullify the test by explaining the evidence away with their ad hocs.

This is an example of ad hoc fallacy. This discussion is not simply a matter of one opinion versus another …the counter argument successfully argued using evidence and reasoning against the original claim of horses existing. It employs a justified means to judge a claim using objective verifiable evidence. The counter Mormon apologetic response has no warrants for justification, it's an irrational response meant only to maintain original claim against the rational critical counter.

The critics’ use of negative evidence can’t be described as “objective verifiable evidence”—yet it does have some force and legitimacy that motivated apologists to change their wait-and-see stance. The argument from translation is plausible, but still ad hoc because it is a speculation that is unverifiable or untestable that was called into existence for the sole purpose of escaping adverse evidence.

Now let’s look at what you call ad hoc fallacy involving the S/R theory.

S/R theory: MF existed and Hurlbut might have sold it.

Dan: There is no evidence of MF. Evidence against MF’s existence is Book of Mormon witness statements that Smith did not use any other material during translation process.

S/R response: There are warrants to justify MF existed. Hurlbut stopping in Palmyra to inform and have them print he obtained what he wanted and that Rigdon was the person who added religious matter to Book of Mormon. Conneaut witnesses, printer and Amity witnesses all testify to a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style not consistent with MSCC.

Dan’s response: that’s ad hoc fallacy..because it's meant to maintain original claim, and solely for that claim and the response is not objectively verifiable.

This is just as messed up as the other examples you have tried to create. There is no clear thread of thought.

S/R theory: MF existed and Hurlbut might have sold it.

This needs to be expressed in argument form. As written, it’s has the appearance of mere opinion, which can be ignored.

Dan: There is no evidence of MF. Evidence against MF’s existence is Book of Mormon witness statements that Smith did not use any other material during translation process.

As should be clear, I would not make such a problematic and simplistic argument. This perhaps is evidence that you are not following the discussion or that you are attempting to employ a strawman argument. The absence of the MS is a problem you created for yourself when you speculated that Hurlbut recovered two MSS from the trunk, which lead you to assert the ad hoc that he possibly sold it to the Mormons. If the assertion is that MF was used in the production of the Book of Mormon, then eyewitness testimony is a problem for the Conneaut witnesses. That’s not ad hoc, but is evidence that can be argued against—but not on the grounds that it is ad hoc and untestable.

S/R response: There are warrants to justify MF existed. Hurlbut stopping in Palmyra to inform and have them print he obtained what he wanted and that Rigdon was the person who added religious matter to Book of Mormon. Conneaut witnesses, printer and Amity witnesses all testify to a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style not consistent with MSCC.

As I said in my previous response, this group of claims should occupy the first place above. To which response can be given, before it can be determined if they are ad hoc or evidentiary.

Dan’s response: that’s ad hoc fallacy..because it's meant to maintain original claim, and solely for that claim and the response is not objectively verifiable.

This conclusion makes no sense. I have not called any of the above ad hoc, nor would I. It’s based on testimony and evidence. They are primary claims, not responses to adverse evidence. This is evidence that you don’t know what ad hocs are. You are just throwing anything out that you think is a quibble point that will help you avoid this very simple concept.

Notice Dan the difference between the first situation ..in which the critic response is science which has been objectively verified and accepted. The Mormon apologetic response is not denying that horses didn’t live in America, their response though changes the background assumptions that words expressed through Smith's translation have to mean what they say.

In your ad hoc fallacy accusation against S/R theory…your evidence of Book of Mormon witness claims is highly unreliable evidence. It’s essentially their say so.and they have a vested interest, and not objectively independent. What they claim is not at all verifiable. It is only your opinion that they are reliable.

I can’t answer most of this statement because it—along with your examples above—is unintelligible and misinformed. My use of the witnesses isn’t opinion—it’s evidence. You have tried to overturn their testimony in several contradictory ways, using your own bias, invented ad hoc nonsense, conspiracy theory, but you failed. I’ll repeat what I gave Roger:

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).

Note that the testimony about the head in hat goes back before Spalding claims were made.

The S/R response to you Dan is not ad hoc fallacy. The response to you is a response to your opinion , not a response to accepted objective verifiable evidence. The response is an explanation why S/R advocates are justified in assuming a MF existed. They have strong warrants to do so.

Some of the responses S/R advocates have given are ad hoc—the ones I have mentioned. The evidence and arguments I have given as counter-evidence is not opinion. However, this assertion is based on the sloppy reasoning given above as a supposed model of what has been discussed, but that’s not what it is. So your accusations here are based on fiction and make no sense.

So to sum up I do think a component necessary for ad hoc fallacy to be justified is a means to rationally determine whether a counter claim (Dan's counter claim) is objectively verifiable. If the counter claim is essentially a matter of opinion then there is no justified reason why that opinion should be superior to the original claim.

Did you make this rule up? Let’s see some quote or reference—anything to bring your discussion into the real world. If the counter claim is mere opinion, as you say, how does that make your response any less ad hoc? Rubbish! I have given historical evidence and logical arguments for counter-evidence, not opinion. Your definition of opinion is way off. You are apparently trying to move this discussion into a false dichotomy of “opinion” vs. “objective verifiable evidence”. You were willing to call the apologists’ appeal to translation as ad hoc, and presumably the critics’ negative evidence as “objective verifiable evidence”—yet the evidence and arguments I have given suddenly become subjective opinion. Your definitions are self-serving.

The faulty reasoning is not occurring at the point of the response to you Dan. The faulty reasoning can just as easily be occuring at the point of the counter claim..(or the point you come in to critique S/R theory) because your critique or argument has no means by which to deem it superior to the S/R claim, as long as the S/R claim has justified warrants.

We haven’t discussed some of the warrants you listed. I showed how your example was backwards. You are attempting to deflect by throwing the whole theory at me. Specifically, I have said the following are ad hoc responses to my (Ben’s, Glenn’s, and others’) evidence or arguments—

Unfounded conspiracy theories to neutralize eyewitness testimony
Trick-hat theory to explain away more difficult testimony
“lost tribes” really means one tribe
Book of Mormon about lost ten tribes because Lehi from tribe of Joseph
References in the Book of Mormon to lost tribes being in the north were added
Sidney Rigdon faked his conversion
Parley P. Pratt pretended to take Mormonism to Sidney Rigdon
Hurlbut sold the MS to the Mormons
Lost 116-page MS supplied by Rigdon

And the list goes on and on …

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale, Roger, Glenn, (and anyone else interested)

If I continue to respond to Dan on this ad hoc fallacy issue it's going to continue to take lots of MB space in this thread.

Do you think anything productive will be accomplished by continuing? If yes do you think this discussion on ad hoc fallacy is taking away from the discussion on the theories S/A & S/R.? Is it okay to continue in this thread or would you prefer this ad hoc fallacy discussion be in a separate thread?

thanks

I'm just about done on the ad hoc thing--I don't think much more can be said unless you come up with something more substantial to make your points. Notice, however, that I have managed to bring into the discussion important concepts that deal with the issue at hand. I haven't been discussing ad hoc exclusively. If you are worried about space, I suggest you not waste it with responses that are not well thought out.

[_Roger]

marg:

If I continue to respond to Dan on this ad hoc fallacy issue it's going to continue to take lots of MB space in this thread.

Do you think anything productive will be accomplished by continuing? If yes do you think this discussion on ad hoc fallacy is taking away from the discussion on the theories S/A & S/R.? Is it okay to continue in this thread or would you prefer this ad hoc fallacy discussion be in a separate thread?

thanks

Dan's insistence on focusing the discussion on alleged logical fallacies is a distraction in my opinion. You've done an admirable job attempting to accommodate his distraction but in my opinion it's a game to him. I've discussed S/R with a lot of other posters who disagree with me (Chris Smith and Don Bradley are just two who come to mind) but no one as obsessed with refocusing the discussion on logical fallacies as Dan.

In the beginning I accommodated Dan and studied up on the point he was trying to make about my alleged argument from silence. During the course of that investigation it became clear to me that Dan's theory relies more on an argument from silence than does S/R (in terms of Dan's admission that a Bible was used but never acknowledged). When I pointed it out to him, he came up with a nuanced version of the argument from silence that, in his mind, makes his argument from silence acceptable. It was at that point that I began to realize this is all a game to him. No matter what, he's going to figure out a way to claim logic is on his side and he's effectively moved the discussion to one of who best knows how to manipulate the guidelines of logic to his advantage. As I said way back on the early pages of this thread, that is not where my interest lies. I am interested in who produced content for the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

I suggest that somebody start up a new thread, in which to
discuss the topics of Occam's razor, ad hominem arguments,
and ad hoc definitions.

If these things are to be used, in order to put an end to
productive inquiry into early Mormon history, then we really
ought to understand what the advocates of those things
mean to convince us of, apart from examining such history.

I have not been paying as close of attention as I might have,
I suppose, if I thought that early Mormon history had already
been adequately portrayed and explained. But, I must say,
I'm beginning to tire of these endless distractions away from
the topic of this thread.

That's along the lines that I've been thinking. If I respond I'll respond in a new thread ...it's not fair to continue to monopolize this thread on something which should have been settled by now.

thanks

[Guest]

I'm just about done on the ad hoc thing--I don't think much more can be said unless you come up with something more substantial to make your points. Notice, however, that I have managed to bring into the discussion important concepts that deal with the issue at hand. I haven't been discussing ad hoc exclusively. If you are worried about space, I suggest you not waste it with responses that are not well thought out.

It's not just my posts Dan, it's yours as well..and I don't want you to feel any pressure to not respond to anything I should post on this later.

Looking back there are quite a few posts and lots I still haven't addressed. So I don't want to abandon this, because we apparently are still in significant disagreement. So I'll start up a new thread to respond to your posts up to this point...and I'll add the link to that thread ...to this post later.

Because I intend to limit my time on the computer, addressing your posts might be a slow process...just to let you know.

Ok so I set up the thread: Cont'd "ad hoc fallacy/Occam's Razor" from another thread

[_GlennThigpen]

If I understand Sandra Tanner's response to the Jockers study, the
variations in the language used to communicate the Nephite record
came as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr. changing his word-print when
conveying information and ideas that he obtained by reading
various published, pre-1830 sources.

There was a variation on this notion, expressed by David I. Holmes,
whereby the variations in the text are attributable to Joe Smith's
"prophetic voice" (which did not necessarily match his mundane,
usual "voice"). Thus, the more "prophetic" Smith may have waxed,
in composing the Nephite record, the less like his own language
that text (as well as his "revelations") would sound.

The problem with the Holmes "prophetic voice theory" is that it falls into the ad hoc variety of explanations. I am not saying that it is fallacious, yet, because it may be possible, but has not been tested.

I am not convinced that the frequently used non-contextual words
measured in computerized word-printing are a reliable indication of
changes in a writer's "prophetic voice," nor of changes brought on
by mental reference to pre-read published materials.

It must first be established that a writer can alter his or her non-contextual word prints when trying to emulate something or someone else. Remember the Jane Austen affair?

At this time, the various word print studies seem to be the best science that we have on the authorship puzzle.

Glenn