Marg,
You are also accusing them of lying..that because they think the Book of Mormon is a lost tribe story they are lying about their recall of Spalding in order to make it seem that Spalding's story was used. You've now got a huge conspiracy theory going on...and yet there is no motivation ..no benefit for all the witnesses to conspire against Mormonism.
Where do you get that? It’s quite possible that vague memories can be altered to the point that where the person thinks it’s a real memory. If there were people who didn’t remember the ten tribe story, they wouldn’t have made affidavits and wrote it off as a different MS was read to them. So, so far, I haven’t accused anyone of lying and therefore no conspiracy.
As far as using Josiah Priest...what exactly does "this is now a popular one, and generally believed" How is it, that Morse's geography talked about Am Indian being of Asian descent if the lost tribe theory is so well believed.
Sorry, don’t see the contradiction. Priest only speaks to the prevalence of the theory, as a well-traveled man and seller of chapbooks. This is only a caution to your insinuation that the ten tribes was an esoteric concept discussed only among theologians.
Is Josiah Priest a noted non fiction writer, now the authority you are relying on in this as to how people would truly understand the concept of lost tribes? In wiki it says
"Josiah Priest (1788 – 1851) was a popular American nonfiction writer of the early 19th century. His books and pamphlets, which presented both standard and speculative history and archaeology sold in the thousands. Although Priest appears to have been poorly educated, he attempted to portray himself as an authority in his books. Priest is often identified as one of the creators of pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric literature.[1] Although his work was widely read and several of his works were published in multiple editions, his books were characterized by theories that were used to justify the violent domination over both the Native American and African-American peoples. Priest's works were among the most overtly racist of his time.
He doesn't sound like an authority nor someone with much scholarly objectivity. That people read fiction and it is popularly read does not mean they accept what they read as true.
I truly don’t get your line of reasoning. Priest was a non-fiction writer, but his book
Wonders was mostly a compilation of previously published works by other authors. None of this matters. Now, I suppose we are going to witness you arguing tooth-and-toe-nail over how prevalent the ten tribe theory was. One big eye-roll and an Oy Vey to boot!
Oh I see, the Book of Mormon witnesses have no motivation to lie according to you, but the S/R witnesses do. So Hurlbut shows up at their door and ..they just decided to lie...for what exactly? It's a start up religion that in their minds they likely thought would likely fizzle out. What on earth are they going to gain?
But what is more interesting in this is how obvious your bias is showing in that for witnesses with little if any vested interest or reason to lie, you are saying they have a reason to lie, but for the witnesses are part of a scam...you argue they don't have a reason to lie.
I never said the Mormon witnesses didn’t have motivation to lie, only that it’s not likely considering the massive conspiracy it would take, their testimonies are independent from one another, Joseph Smith had not need for coconspirators, and the stone in hat story went against Smith’s spectacles story.
The Conneaut witnesses knew enough about Mormonism from missionaries and anti-Mormons like Hurlbut to understand what it was all about. It included a large settlement of Mormon to the west of them—nothing to fool around with. Joseph Smith had already been mobbed, and in five short years, he will be fleeing for his life. Don’t give me that no one felt threatened by Mormonism. It was one of the most divisive and hated religions around. There are no uninterested witnesses, Marg. No one gets a free ride on this one. What do they get? They get the thanks of the dominant Christian culture. Hurlbut doesn’t just show up at their door. These people have already been talking, and some of them reading.
Relying on those unreliable Book of Mormon witnesses with a vested interest in a scam ..as your only evidence does not warrant establishing that as likely what actually happened for the entire Book of Mormon
The multiple independent witnesses are backed up by the MS, which has every mark of a dictated text. They are also backed up when Joseph Smith was unable to reproduce the lost MS. What vested interest? Did they profit from believing the Book of Mormon? I don’t see any of that. They were signing up for a very unpopular demanding religion. The draw was to be with other people who believed in visions and revelations, and those types of personalities came flocking despite the hazards.
I see, so the Amity, the printer and the conneaut witnesses in your mind are not independent witnesses.
Are you telling me he didn’t know what the Conneaut witnesses had said?
So says Dan with his unwarranted speculation
Did they not say by implication that the Book of Mormon was about the “lost tribes”?
Had they been the ones to approach the media, had they given indications they were highly motivated to discredit Mormonism by lying about what Smith wrote..you might have a point..but you don't. They did not go out of their way to give statements, and the printer confirms that Spalding wrote a story in biblical style.
Are you saying only interested witnesses approach the media? With the exception of David Whitmer’s 1887 pamphlet, none of the Mormon witnesses sought the limelight either, but also were sought out for their statements. So maybe both groups are sincere? How would you work that out, Marg? While the Mormon witnesses didn’t give their statements until decades after Joseph Smith’s death—thus demonstrating their lack of enthusiasm for defending Mormonism, even in the midst of the Spalding onslaught—the Conneaut witnesses were interviewed before we can make the judgment your are attempting here. The printer’s statement may or may not be relevant—it’s hardly a confidence builder. Isn’t that the same MS that was placed in the trunk that mysteriously changed back into the Roman story?
No because memory does get jogged and people do know when they that memory is being jogged when that memory has been formed and has associated source memory attached. Added to that fact that there are too many recalling a biblical style manuscript written by Spalding with unique names which match..to chalk it up to memory confusion, mistaken on key respects or trying too hard.
You don’t know what was retained by the witnesses. Incidentally, they all remembered nearly the same stuff at the beginning of the book and the same simple names. But no one was tested to see what they could remember before they read the book or a portion of it. Where were the skeptics you have been demanding for the Mormon witnesses?
Your use of and interpretation of a fictional writer Josiah Priest is best evidence for how everyone understood lost tribes is it? You've "defined the term" is correct, you have not taken into account that witnesses were describing what Spalding discussed.
Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t change the definition. And, no, it doesn’t rest on Priest alone. That’s the point Glenn and I have been making, it’s all over the place.
Dan of course I speculate as do you. But I have warrants for that, it is not irrational. I don't think their definition was unique, I think your definition is highly restricted in that you don't allow Spalding to use the lost tribes simply as a focal point and blood line to tie moundbuilders and Am. Indians to. Not only do you want to bring in the myth as being necessary , but then you want to speculate how you think everyone understood lost tribes to be, speculate that the witnesses thought the Book of Mormon was a lost tribe story and speculate they were trying to make Spalding's story match the Book of Mormon this way...despite the fact the Book of Mormon has about 2 mentions of lost tribes in the whole thing.
The difference between what I do and you do is that you speculate to defend your thesis against adverse evidence. You have no warrants for your trick-hat theory, none for an anomalous definition of “lost tribes” that is fulfilled by one tribe, none for the Book of Mormon being about the ten tribes, and none for Spalding hold a version of the ten tribe theory that somehow incorporates the Book of Mormon storyline.
You've blown this lost tribes issue way out of proportion in an obvious attempt to rescue your theory by discrediting the S/R witnesses. You do not apply the same critical standards against the Book of Mormon witnesses as you do against the S/R witnesses. And you fallaciously use the Book of Mormon witnesses as reliable evidence to dismiss the S/R witnesses.
Well, it’s ceased to be about rescuing the Spalding theory long ago; for quite some time it’s been about you rescuing your reputation. I would beg to differ and suggest that you don’t apply critical standards to the Spalding witnesses. You think they have a free pass because they aren’t Mormons. You also think they are disinterested and independent witnesses. And you are willing to use ad hoc rationalizations to defend them when they incorrectly imply the Book of Mormon is about the lost tribes. Nor, apparently, does William Miller’s claim that passages in the Book of Mormon were taken from Spalding’s MS verbatim cause you any skepticism.
Dan..lost tribes is a concept. It's has a historical foundation which is scholarly accepted did happen..that historical fact ends from the point of exile in 720B.C. After that is speculation ...of which some religious people inspired by Esdras ..speculate a particular myth..and some have written books to enlarge upon that myth. Spalding would likely have known about those speculations but appreciated them as such. The witnesses were recalling Spalding's story and what he told them.
I thought you said you weren’t going to speculate on what Spalding thought? The problem is that you speculate in a very convoluted and improbable way to get your imaginary Spalding to write the story so as to incorporate the Book of Mormon storyline, when the Book of Mormon by any stretch of the imagination could possibly be construed as explaining Indian origins as coming from the lost tribes. Try as you will, but it can’t be done so as to satisfy reasonable minds. It has no connection with reality outside your need for it to be just so to save your cherished witnesses from embarrassment.
… but after reviewing Schick’s and Vaughn’s discussion, I will modify my point. This statement is based on philosopher Philip Kitcher’s analysis of what an ad hoc move or invention does, that is, by implication. It deals with a larger philosophical discussion on disproving hypotheses in general (see their discussion of the Quine-Duhem hypothsis on p. 155, as well as the problem of underdeterminism), not just with ad hocs.
I fail to see any modification. The point I was addressing was your comment: “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs".
Marg, I know what you are trying to do. You are searching for a wedge, a quibble-point to escape the ad hoc label. You can’t. It’s perfectly clear that you are indulging in them without restraint. As to the point above, I determined that Kitcher was just describing the implications of some ad hocs, that is, the kind that are confronted in science. Scientific theory deals with the nature of reality, history doesn’t. So these background assumptions come into play. Scientific theories are tested in bundles, as they say. History isn’t the same. Scientific theories and the scientific method are only models historians try to emulate. There is no one-to-one transference of concepts. History isn’t testable in the same way science demands. Hence, the concept of an ad hoc is not going to be exactly the same. In history, they are explanations or responses to adverse evidence that are not evidence-based and usually are irrefutable. McCullagh gives this definition: “… it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.” Preferred theories are those with the fewest such ad hocs and qualifications.
Ad hocs are a result of changes to background assumptions done to maintain a hypothesis…that’s what the book you are using says. It's not simply a matter of changing "background assumptions", the changes must also be irrational, that is unwarranted with any evidence and reasoning except that it's done to maintain a hypothesis or claim. So ad hoc fallacy is not simply a matter of changing the hypothesis or claim by adding new evidence or warranted reasoning. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It’s the irrational changes to background assumptions Dan, those which which lack evidence and warranted reasoning..that are considered ad hoc fallacy.
I don’t know where you get the irrational part. Some changes to background assumptions are irrational. Those are obvious and usually used as examples, because they are easily understood. But others are not irrational, and sometimes turn out to be right. The book we are discussing said that ad hocs are not inherently wrong, they lead to more research; but when a theory relies more and more on ad hocs, it becomes increasingly irrational to hold onto it, although there is no point at which a theory can be definitely disproved. The reason for that is that ad hocs can be invented forever at will to prevent that decisive moment from ever coming.
How is the relevant to your claim: "Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs." ? What that quote is discussing is the interdependence of scientific theories, that each one does not exist independent of all others. One theory can not contradict another.
Yes, I changed what I said there when I read closer what the authors were saying. I realized Kitcher was talking about the same thing from a larger theoretical point of view. I was focused on the example the authors gave and how the ad hoc theory responded to the adverse evidence. I still know what one is, and apparently you don’t.
Again Dan this has nothing to do with your claim that I addressed “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence, but they’re not ad hocs.” It doesn’t refute my argument "which is that it is irrational changes in background assumptions as defenses against adverse evidence which is ad hoc fallacy" against your statement that “Changes in background assumptions are defenses against adverse evidence but they’re not ad hocs”.
So I’ll be interested to see if we can resolve this one issue or not.
Now, you’ve quoted something I said four times, which I corrected. It’s really no big deal and doesn’t help you in the least to get out of the ad hocs you’ve invented. I don’t know why you quote yourself; it’s not going to help you either. You are making the “irrational” requirement up yourself. There was nothing irrational when Parallax hypothesized light bends. It only seems that way in retrospect. In history, they are simply suppositions or speculations that have no evidence, which are used to explain away adverse evidence or even to make the interpretation or theory work.