Are there still liberal Mormons?

[I Have Questions]

Thanks Marcus and Res. I appreciate your suggestions.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks Marcus and Res. I appreciate your suggestions.

You're welcome. I'll try to see if there is an easy way to make the conclusion a little punchier.

[malkie]

Would it be fair to say that eyewitness evidence is inherently unreliable, and can generally be regarded as reliable only if corroborated by other evidence

[Marcus]

Thanks Marcus and Res. I appreciate your suggestions.

You're welcome!

[Marcus]

Would it be fair to say that eyewitness evidence is inherently unreliable, and can generally be regarded as reliable only if corroborated by other evidence

No, as the inherent attribute could be interpreted as applying to all eyewitness evidence, given its common meaning:

existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

Which would be too close to saying "all," and open up the argument to the same criticisms.

IHQ's definition of it as "notoriously unreliable" captures the idea quite well, in my opinion. It doesn't rule out a possibility of reliability for a piece of evidence, while clearly capturing the idea that much is unreliable, and therefore any piece of evidence has to be looked at carefully and individually.

In my opinion, that's the main issue with the mopologist argument. Objection to eyewitness evidence is met typically by an overall argument of its use in court, especially by the Afore, which means not only is its overall "notorious unreliability" sidestepped, but the individual possibility of unreliability is left unaddressed, or at best under-addressed.

[Res Ipsa]

What Marcus said.

[MG 2.0]

Syllogism: A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.

Wouldn’t begging the question or circular reasoning fall under this definition of a syllogism?

You are saying that two different LLM’s are ‘up in the night’?

I mean, I know you’re smart gadianton, but really…?

Regards,
MG

Where in the world did you find that totally incorrect definition of syllogism?

The problem with the A.I. responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

I’d also note that there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony. If I recall correctly, most of the identified wrongful convictions have been based on faulty eye witness testimony.

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses they all went to their graves with the testimony of the Book of Mormon on their lips.

From another thread. Apparently the Witnesses Movie is available until Oct. 10th at this link:

https://vimeo.com/824199556/ecefc622ed

For critics the 3 witnesses offer up a conundrum. Seeing as, you say, witness testimony is not reliable we…in this special case…have to explain how and why they stuck to their story. Yes, I know there are ‘work arounds’ that critics are wont to use, but in my estimation they are rather flimsy.

They held to their testimony.

I suppose each person has to honestly look at the witness testimony and decide whether or not these were good and decent men that held to their position even when, in some cases, they were under a certain degree of duress.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." In this case, the argument assumes the conclusion that eye witness testimony is unreliable, and then uses that assumption to conclude that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is also unreliable. However, the argument doesn't actually provide any evidence to support the claim that eye witness testimony is unreliable in this specific case, or that the eye witness testimony for the Book of Mormon is unreliable. Instead, it simply assumes that eye witness testimony is generally unreliable, which may or may not be true in this particular instance.
PiAI

Regards,
MG

My last post is in response to this post.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Where in the world did you find that totally incorrect definition of syllogism?

The problem with the A.I. responses is that it would classify every syllogism as question begging, despite the fact that a well-formed syllogism is logically valid.

I’d also note that there is a ton of evidence that demonstrates the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony. If I recall correctly, most of the identified wrongful convictions have been based on faulty eye witness testimony.

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses they all went to their graves with the testimony of the Book of Mormon on their lips.

...For critics the 3 witnesses offer up a conundrum. Seeing as, you say, witness testimony is not reliable we…in this special case…have to explain how and why they stuck to their story. Yes, I know there are ‘work arounds’ that critics are wont to use, but in my estimation they are rather flimsy.

They held to their testimony.

I suppose each person has to honestly look at the witness testimony and decide whether or not these were good and decent men that held to their position even when, in some cases, they were under a certain degree of duress...

So you think not changing one's story is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that? In what way does changing or not changing a story after it was first told relate to the reliability of the original eyewitness account?

You also seem to think being a good person is evidence of reliability of eyewitness accounts. Why specifically do you think that character and eyewitness reliability are related? In what way?

[Marcus]

IHAQ’s sig line: Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. The best evidence for The Book of Mormon is eye witness testimony, therefore… 3.The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Is this an example of a logical fallacy?

Regards,
MG

My last post is in response to this post...

You responded to yourself. By the way the answer is no.

However, there has been quite a discussion about your definitions of fallacies and syllogisms as they relate to ihq's signature line. Do you have a response to those?