Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_ClarkGoble]

Well since you are not sharing anything specific why are you bothering to participate in this discussion board?

The philosophical issues are interesting as are dealing with particular narrow discussions on criticisms.

To give an example if I encounter a person while walking to work I don't say it's subjective until I consult notes with other people.

That's because you did that already at some point in your very early life.

But that gets at the point I'm making between classes of phenomena and particular phenomena. I feel like the components of the phenomena are already things I've tested. So I don't need to test them again. If to return to the hypothetical an angel is pretty much like a human being, why do I need to retest?

But you haven't given any foundation upon which to establish such knowledge. You critique scientific knowledge and engage in special pleading for private knowledge. Is string theory to be established upon communication from angelic visitors?

I don't think I've critiqued scientific knowledge, depending upon what you mean by critique. Not sure what you're after.

I think part of the problem is that for any narrow subject people here typically assume the falsity of the larger body as a ground from which to interpret the narrow parts. Since I'm not doing that we then quickly get to an impasse with people more or less demanding I prove the whole before we deal with the particulars. Yet I'm pretty upfront I can't do this. So I just discuss narrow topics based upon how plausible the general features of the narrow topic are.

From what I can tell people aren't too pleased with that approach. I'm not quite sure why that would be, although of course I'll respect whatever the forum owners want to do. At best I can but say I don't think I'm being irrational in my beliefs even if I can't necessarily demonstrate their truth on demand. The typical response is then to raise the narrow points, but since I don't feel an compunction to defend ideas I think are incorrect readings of scripture that shuts that avenue of discussion down. More or less what people want is a particular conception of Mormonism with which to attack. But since I don't think that a correct view of Mormonism I can tell that's frustrating to people who are perhaps more comfortable knocking down a more fundamentalist conception of Mormonism.

[_spotlight]

If to return to the hypothetical an angel is pretty much like a human being, why do I need to retest?

Umm, because it's a hypothetical.

Imagine I introduce a hypothetical that I can float to wherever I wish. Would you be convinced that gravity can be circumvented by that train of thought?

[_Themis]

It explains why you are sticking to a poor line of thought that all frauds, pious not not, would give up and move onto something else if they had some major problems.

I don't think all would, which is why the fraud theory can't be fully eliminated. I just think it a problem as it seems quite improbable.

Even at improbable it destroys your argument. Like I said before, we can find a lot more unsuccessful religious cons then successful ones.

To the degree that I think a better explanation is in order that I just haven't seen made. That is, why Joseph would persist through all this is something that needs explanation. The explanation of "well some people were lousy frauds and suffered" isn't terribly persuasive. I suspect most here accept it simply because they don't think they need to explain Joseph Smith, much like believers who already think they know the Book of Mormon is true don't need to explain horses.

Back to your bias. I think your over estimate how bad things were for Joseph, or how Joseph may connect any troubles to his con. He wasn't always poor after he got his following, although he was up and down here(not a trait unusual for fraudsters). He was also having sex not long after he had created his religion with a 16 year old. He was getting lots of sex with many women, and while he was good at making enemies and losing followers, he was also good at getting followers. I wouldn't underestimate sexual access to many women and having dedicated followers to the mind of a religious con-artist. One who I think also had some religious beliefs about what he was doing. I would also add that while his behavior got him into lots of trouble at times, I suspect he didn't blame every aspect of his con/behavior.

One of the important aspects of long term success for a more unusual religion is separation from the general population. Utah allowed the church to grow long term and cement itself into a long term religion. If Joseph could have gotten there he would have had better wealth. I suspect BY was better at this. He was a manager type, so I doubt he could have gotten it going, but was good at managing what Joseph started.

[_ClarkGoble]

Even at improbable it destroys your argument. Like I said before, we can find a lot more unsuccessful religious cons then successful ones.

Again Joseph's experiences go well beyond being merely unsuccessful.

Back to your bias. I think your over estimate how bad things were for Joseph, or how Joseph may connect any troubles to his con.

Many children died, he was tarred and feathered, his life was constantly in danger. I mean even biographies critical of him are pretty consistent to the challenges.

[_ClarkGoble]

If to return to the hypothetical an angel is pretty much like a human being, why do I need to retest?

Umm, because it's a hypothetical.

Imagine I introduce a hypothetical that I can float to wherever I wish. Would you be convinced that gravity can be circumvented by that train of thought?

Typically we discuss hypotheticals in order to discern better our conceptions. That is the purpose of a hypothetical is to figure out what would or wouldn't count as justification. We can then use the principles we learn from discussing such hypotheticals to try and figure out more typical cases.

There are of course dangers to such "intuition pumps" as they are sometimes called. Often our intuitions are functional for a certain set of circumstances and when we go outside of them they break down.

In this case the purpose of the hypothetical is to figure out what kind of phenomena would count as justifying a belief and not a claim that such a belief is in actuality justified.

[_spotlight]

Umm, because it's a hypothetical.

Imagine I introduce a hypothetical that I can float to wherever I wish. Would you be convinced that gravity can be circumvented by that train of thought?

Typically we discuss hypotheticals in order to discern better our conceptions. That is the purpose of a hypothetical is to figure out what would or wouldn't count as justification. We can then use the principles we learn from discussing such hypotheticals to try and figure out more typical cases.

There are of course dangers to such "intuition pumps" as they are sometimes called. Often our intuitions are functional for a certain set of circumstances and when we go outside of them they break down.

In this case the purpose of the hypothetical is to figure out what kind of phenomena would count as justifying a belief and not a claim that such a belief is in actuality justified.

So hypothetically, if I could float wherever I want would you agree that gravity could be circumvented?

[_Themis]

Again Joseph's experiences go well beyond being merely unsuccessful.

Feel free to elaborate, but Joseph was successful. He had tens of thousands of followers over time. He had sexual access to many women. He was up and down on how much wealth he had, but he wasn't completely unsuccessful, and if he had gotten to Utah he would have done even better.

Many children died, he was tarred and feathered, his life was constantly in danger. I mean even biographies critical of him are pretty consistent to the challenges.

I don't think his life was constantly in danger, but the problem is how one connects their behavior, such as a religious con, to any troubles they have in life. Does he make a connection to his fraudulent behavior to any of his problems? Does he blame others for his troubles? That is a common trait for many people I know in real life to blame others for their problems even though people who know them would consider them to be the problem. So far I am not seeing a good argument for why a most religious frauds would give up because they have some problems. Especially when we look at all the successes, some of which I provided.

[_ClarkGoble]

So hypothetically, if I could float wherever I want would you agree that gravity could be circumvented?

Depends upon what you are trying to establish. If you're doing a thought experiment about massless objects, sure. Physicists do things like that all the time.

If your argument is simply that if I can imagine floating that then gravity doesn't matter then that doesn't follow logically. So what you can establish all depends upon what your arguing for and the strength of the argument. An unsound argument doesn't get you terribly far.

[_spotlight]

Depends upon what you are trying to establish. If you're doing a thought experiment about massless objects, sure. Physicists do things like that all the time.

So you think I am massless Clark?

If your argument is simply that if I can imagine floating that then gravity doesn't matter then that doesn't follow logically. So what you can establish all depends upon what your arguing for and the strength of the argument. An unsound argument doesn't get you terribly far.

Was I talking about imagining floating? I don't think so. I asked if I could hypothetically float about at will, would that mean gravity could be circumvented.

[_ClarkGoble]

Was I talking about imagining floating? I don't think so. I asked if I could hypothetically float about at will, would that mean gravity could be circumvented.

And again I was rather explicit that argument is not logical. i.e. the conclusions don't follow from the premises. So you were already answered.

I just was trying to help your confusion by explaining the place of thought experiments, why they are used, and when they are valid. They have a very narrow use that I think I've been quite clear on. They are used regularly in science and especially philosophy. The do not pretend to establish "what is" but rather are used to help clarify how people think about issues and the principles with which they are thinking.

There are numerous examples of them ranging from the thought experiments Einstein used to develop relativity to Searle's famous Chinese Room experiment or the notion of zombies to try to elucidate the issues at play with phenomenal accounts of consciousness. No one thinks the thought experiments somehow tell us about the world. They do make far more clear our arguments and premises though. If you're interested a fun light hearted book written for a more popular audience on them is Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. (I've not read the book since I'm already familiar with the notion but have heard him in interviews discussing it along with a few excerpts. It sounds like it might be helpful.)

The reason all of this came about was the attempt to get you to think about the principles you are using to think about epistemology. i.e. get you to think about your premises.