It does look like perhaps this “lost tribes” may be difficult to deal with, however I don’t mind discussing it in this thread, because we aren’t taking away from other people’s interest.
I took this from my copi intro to logic text. 11th edition p 623
Definition of ad hoc:
"A term with several meanings, used to characterize hypotheses. It may mean only that the hypothesis was constructed after the facts it purports to explain; it may mean that the hypothesis is merely descriptive. Most commonly, ad hoc is used pejoratively, describing a hypothesis that serves to explain only the facts it was invented to explain and has no other testable consequences."
When Copi and every other source I’ve read on ad hoc fallacy mention hypotheses, they are talking about explanations which offer not simply a set of descriptive facts but go beyond that and make an inductive reasoning leap or a prediction which is testable or verifiable. I’ve yet to see an example on the Net or in a book which shows ad hoc fallacy involving a situation that is simply about interpreting facts, and which has no objective testable means to verify. Even on the IEP website it’s the same thing…the hypothesis first made is open to testing and falsification.
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.
That’s a different situation that what we have here in which there is no objective means to test, verify or falsify. You are saying the witnesses are confused or lying, but it’s based upon your subjective interpretation of information you’ve chosen..and I don’t believe an ad hoc fallacy can apply in that situation.
So can you prove me wrong and find some source which explains ad hoc fallacy as involving counter claims which are subjective interpretation of facts as opposed to facts testable, and open to verification? Despite this in my opinion not being about ad hoc fallacy because there is no objective means to test and verify your counter, none the less I’ll still address the reasoning involved…because there can be faulty or poor reasoning irrespective of lack of ad hoc fallacy.
I didn’t invent what the witnesses said with regards to Solomon’s story. However you are saying that the facts and reasoning you present, indicate the witnesses were likely not telling the truth or were lying because in your opinion there is no way Solomon’s story could have had American Indian ancestors leave Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and have any connection to the lost tribes exiled in 720 B.C.
You write:
Your response was that Solomon was a biblical skeptic, probably did not believe in the lost tribes myth anyway, and maybe wrote a variation on the theme where a descendent of Joseph, through Mannaseh, which became one of the Lost tribes, left Jerusalem for some unknown reason (it couldn't have been a warning from the Lord since Solomon's story had no religious material) and came to America and somehow became the ancestors of the American Indians.
The response is ad hoc, off the cuff. What makes it a fallacy is that you have provided no evidentiary support for your hypothesis other than the unsigned letter showing that the writer, presumably Solomon, had become a skeptic. However, that reasoning is negated by Martha Spalding's statement (among others), that :
He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question.
The evidence is that Solomon Spalding was a biblical skeptic. In his own handwriting is a note or letter with MSCC, explicitly stating this fact.
http://solomonspalding.com/docs/lds1910b.htm#pg114aSpalding“
But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible & consider it a mere human production designed to enrich & agrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude.”
There is nothing ad hoc fallacious, off the cuff about my mention of that evidence Glenn. So if Spalding thought the Bible was written by men and he had no belief in the divinity of the Bible…then the exiled tribes by the Assyrians in 720 B.C. out of Northern Israel he’d acknowledge, but a God sending them anywhere he’s not going to acknowledge as historically true. So for Spalding the “lost tribes” are simply that ..they are the exiled tribes in 720 B.C. reported in the Bible but not accounted for afterwards. This is not an ad hoc fallacy Glenn, there are warrants for what I’ve stated.
As far as what the witnesses understood, you are speculating what you think they should or must have understood and you are ignoring that they are relating a story written by a biblical skeptic who they had discussions with. You haven’t tried to understand from that perspective at all. Your counter is not verifiable objective evidence. What they were describing is what Spalding told them back in 1812…and Spalding did not tell them he was writing a book about the “lost tribes” rather he was writing a fictional account intended to be read as if true history explaining who the people were, buried in the local mounds and where they came from, as well as the Am. Indians. Since the Bible has an ancient tribe that’s lost as of 720 B.C. ..it’s quite conceivable for him to use that group to historically tie the moundbuilders and Am. Indians and give that explanation credibility. He doesn’t have to go back to 720 B.C. he can take it back to 600 B.C.and tie them to a few descendants of that exiled group. To present a historical account and add authenticity he only needs to tie them to a historical account accepted as factual.
You point out that the Book of Mormon has no “lost tribes” story in it. Well Spalding’s apparently didn’t either. His story was not about the “lost tribes”. The lost tribes only served as a historical focal point to tie the bloodline of the Am. Indians and the moundbuilders to. And in actual fact the Book of Mormon does tie Lehi by blood to one of the lost tribes. The fact that the Book of Mormon makes a few mentions that the lost tribes (as per the myth) live elsewhere is inconsequential. Of course a believer in a lost tribe myth would note Spalding’s moundbuilders and Indians tied by blood to the lost tribes... but up to the point of 600 B.C. and leaving Jerusalem..that it is inconsistent with the myth. And it's understandable they'd make adjustments to have it be consistent with the myth.
The Conneaut witnesses did not say the historical parts were exactly the same, they said it was the same in parts…and I take that to mean essentially the same. As I said a few mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere is not much of a change.
To sum up, my response to you is not an example of ad hoc fallacy.
- First...l your counter is subjective not open to objective verification. My counter also involves subjective interpretation of facts, but that’s simply the nature of this discussion. There are some facts and then those facts are open to interpretation to some degree. For this reason the ad hoc fallacy is not applicable.
- Second, it is inappropriate to impose a different standard of proof on my response than you do on your counter to which I'm responding.
-Third, my response included evidence and reasoning that pertained to that evidence. Nothing I said was irrational, that is without evidence and warranted reasoning. An ad hoc fallacious response is an irrational response to adverse facts in order to maintain a hypothesis, that’s not what is going on with my response.