Divining Rods and DCP

[_Corpsegrinder]

So Dan, why did you halt the discussion at divining rods? Why didn’t you continue on to Joseph’s seer stones, which played a greater role early Mormonism than either his or Oliver’s divining rod?

Regarding your experiences with divining, I’m surprised that you haven’t done any further investigation into a phenomena that so “stunned and unnerved” you. Be that as it may, you might consider performing a similar experiment, but with a seer stone in place of your ersatz diving rod. You might, for instance, take this baby out for a test drive…



I recall seeing this seer stone on display at the Daughter’s of Utah Pioneers Museum back when I last visited in 2002. I’m sure the nice old ladies who run the establishment would be delighted to have someone as eminent you place the stone in a hat and search for water pipes in their basement.

So what do you say, Dan? It would be fascinating to see you on YouTube demoing an honest-to-goodness seer stone.

Dude, it would be, like, totally empirical...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Did the fact that science can provide an extremely detailed explanation of the real-world geological phenomena that you witnessed at Yellowstone happen to change your dim view of science and scientists in some way?

My "dim view of science and scientists"?

If you're going to throw Scratch-like nonsense like that at me, why don't you at least go for something more plausible? You could, for example, accuse me of being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas, or demand that I account for my whereabouts on the day AIDS was invented in a CIA laboratory, or something of that sort.

[_DrW]

Did the fact that science can provide an extremely detailed explanation of the real-world geological phenomena that you witnessed at Yellowstone happen to change your dim view of science and scientists in some way?

My "dim view of science and scientists"?

If you're going to throw Scratch-like nonsense like that at me, why don't you at least go for something more plausible? You could, for example, accuse me of being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas, or demand that I account for my whereabouts on the day AIDS was invented in a CIA laboratory, or something of that sort.

Dr. Peterson,

Anyone who has followed our exchanges wherein you vilify my arrogant dogmatic scientistic worldview would understand where the comment comes from.

Now - why not just answer the question and explain how you can justify your claim to be a rational empiricist?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Anyone who has followed our exchanges wherein you vilify my arrogant dogmatic scientistic worldview would understand where the comment comes from.

You confuse scientism with science. They're not the same thing.

Now - why not just answer the question and explain how you can justify your claim to be a rational empiricist?

I would happily discuss that question elsewhere, and with a person I deemed intellectually serious.

[_Corpsegrinder]

I would happily discuss that question elsewhere, and with a person I deemed intellectually serious.

How about the logistics of demonstrating a seer stone? Would you be willing to discuss that elsewhere, and with a person you deemed intellectually serious?

[_jon]

Anyone who has followed our exchanges wherein you vilify my arrogant dogmatic scientistic worldview would understand where the comment comes from.

I would happily discuss that question elsewhere, and with a person I deemed intellectually serious.

Dan, why do you run away from discussions like this where you have the chance to back up your statements?

[_DrW]

Anyone who has followed our exchanges wherein you vilify my arrogant dogmatic scientistic worldview would understand where the comment comes from.

You confuse scientism with science. They're not the same thing.

Dr. Peterson,

If you would bother to look up the definition of the word you introduced into the discussion and seem so fond of using in reference to me, I am confident that you would be able to understand my comment.

[The first given definition of "scientistic" is: "The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists."]

Now - why not just answer the question and explain how you can justify your claim to be a rational empiricist?

I would happily discuss that question elsewhere, and with a person I deemed intellectually serious.

I see your point. You would be looking for someone who would be willing to lend at least a bit of credibility to the truth claims of Mormonism so that you could carry on a "nuanced" discussion.

And I don't blame you. It is no fun to discuss the fine points of fairy tales with rational non-believers. They just seem to continually be referring to pesky facts and demanding evidence. And since the objective facts and evidence don't support your position, there just doesn't seem to be any common ground.

Perhaps if someone on the board who isn't as dogmatically scientistic as I seem to be were to ask you very politely, you could find the time to explain how you could possibly justify calling yourself a rational empiricist.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, why do you run away from discussions like this where you have the chance to back up your statements?

DrW, who doesn't know me and has never met me, throws out ridiculous accusations about my supposedly "dim view of science and scientists" and I'm supposed to marshal evidence to rebut them as if, even for me, they're at least discussably open questions?

(Note how, in his response to my comment about my recent trip to Yellowstone, he insinuates that it represents a new and paradigm-changing encounter with science on my part. Even though I had also mentioned a similar trip, earlier this summer, to Rocky Mountain National Park, and despite the fact that he has no actual reason to believe that this was really any kind of a "first" for me.)

Why should I bother? He knows essentially nothing about me -- nothing about the school to which I nearly went as an undergraduate, for example, and nothing about my first BYU major, and nothing about my prior trips to places like the Grand Canyon and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison and Costa Rica, and nothing about my passion for the Alps -- and criticizes me in virtually complete ignorance, based on his wild distortions of my attitudes and his baseless caricatures of my positions.

DrW is a dogmatic ideologue, and conversing with him holds no interest for me. Arguing back and forth with such a person, for the entertainment of an audience of about ten or fifteen people -- what other purpose would it serve? -- doesn't seem a particularly good use of time.

[Guest]

Perhaps someone (who at least appears) less scientistic and obsessed with reality, facts and evidence than I am could simply ask Dr. Peterson how it is that he sees himself as a rational empiricist.

Maybe it is just me, but the fact that he likes the Alps and has been to Costa Rica would seem to shed little light on the issue at hand.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Maybe it is just me, but the fact that he likes the Alps and has been to Costa Rica would seem to shed little light on the issue at hand.

DrW doesn't know, and, more significantly, doesn't care to understand, why those facts are relevant. He is, as I suggested (but did not explain in detail), essentially ignorant of my intellectual biography. Yet he confidently pronounces on my allegedly "dim view of science and scientists." And I'm supposed to regard him as a serious conversation partner?