Clarification so as to be clear.

[Gadianton]

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

hilarious, Morley, and so true.

[malkie]

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

hilarious, Morley, and so true.

Countdown to MG claiming that of course he understands the Sorites Paradox sort of like how he understands al la Gadianton.

Yeah, I know, MG - here goes malkie dragging stuff up from the past again. But all in good fun, right?

[MG 2.0]

huckelberry, you have read me well. It does go to show how various folks can 'read the room' so differently. I have pointed out a number of times that, in my opinion, one of the things that many critics have in common is a fundamentalist view of things. I have referred to it as a black/white perspective/view without having the ability or even an awareness of the shades in between.

From this, I'm not sure if you know the meaning of "read the room."

A while back I brought in a discussion having to do with the Sorites Paradox. It applies here. The question could be asked "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" Over the years there has been one 'smoking gun' brought in here after another with the hopes that it is this 'one thing' that now pushes the tipping point to undeniably/indefensibly untrue.

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

To my knowledge, no one here would ask "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" except you. The question is almost poorly framed as the claim that you yourself make when you stand up in Fast and Testimony Meeting, and exclaim, "I know that the Church is true!"

This whole idea is a straw man that you just now created. Folks here (present company excluded, of course) are more likely present arguments with terminology they can defend.

My point was that the approach of critics often relies on vague thresholds, the idea that one more contradiction, one more historical anomaly, will tip the scales into undeniable territory. That’s where the paradox fits, not as a defense of belief, but as a critique of how belief is sometimes attacked.

There have been a number of these instances over the years. A 'smoking gun' thread will be presented and most folks jump on board. Then it ends up going nowhere.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

To my knowledge, no one here would ask "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" except you. The question is almost poorly framed as the claim that you yourself make when you stand up in Fast and Testimony Meeting, and exclaim, "I know that the Church is true!"

This whole idea is a straw man that you just now created. Folks here (present company excluded, of course) are more likely present arguments with terminology they can defend.

My point was that the approach of critics often relies on vague thresholds, the idea that one more contradiction, one more historical anomaly, will tip the scales into undeniable territory. That’s where the paradox fits, not as a defense of belief, but as a critique of how belief is sometimes attacked.

There have been a number of these instances over the years. A 'smoking gun' thread will be presented and most folks jump on board. Then it ends up going nowhere.

Regards,
MG

"My point was that the approach of critics often relies on vague thresholds, the idea that one more contradiction, one more historical anomaly, will tip the scales into undeniable territory. That’s where the paradox fits, not as a defense of belief, but as a critique of how belief is sometimes attacked."

My memory may be failing me, but I cannot think of an example of that phenomenon. Are you talking about here, on this board, or elsewhere? Perhaps there are critical voices that I've been missing out on reading

Can you give a few links to illustrate?

[drumdude]

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

To my knowledge, no one here would ask "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" except you. The question is almost poorly framed as the claim that you yourself make when you stand up in Fast and Testimony Meeting, and exclaim, "I know that the Church is true!"

This whole idea is a straw man that you just now created. Folks here (present company excluded, of course) are more likely present arguments with terminology they can defend.

My point was that the approach of critics often relies on vague thresholds, the idea that one more contradiction, one more historical anomaly, will tip the scales into undeniable territory. That’s where the paradox fits, not as a defense of belief, but as a critique of how belief is sometimes attacked.

There have been a number of these instances over the years. A 'smoking gun' thread will be presented and most folks jump on board. Then it ends up going nowhere.

Regards,
MG

Do you need a smoking gun to find the truth claims of Scientology false? How much time have you invested proving it wrong? How about the other countless religions?

There is no need to prove Mormonism false. Its extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And most human beings alive today consider Mormonism to have not met that burden of proof. Just as you have done implicitly for every other religion.

Mormonism has to wrestle with the fact that it’s not sweeping the world. It’s just a curiosity amongst myriad esoteric Christian branches. Nothing particularly special or worth considering.

Perhaps all part of Mormon God’s plan to stay hidden and avoid too many spirits getting into Super VIP Heaven (tm).

[I Have Questions]

hilarious, Morley, and so true.

Countdown to MG claiming that of course he understands the Sorites Paradox sort of like how he understands al la Gadianton.

Yeah, I know, MG - here goes malkie dragging stuff up from the past again. But all in good fun, right?

Here’s a link to the last time MG tried talking about the Sorites Paradox…

[I Have Questions]

My point was that the approach of critics often relies on vague thresholds…

Can you explain, explicitly, what “True” means in the context of the Church or the Book of Mormon being “true”?

I have seen many times examples of you accusing the critics of behaviours that you exhibit. This is another example in a long list. You’re either deflecting or have an extreme lack of self awareness.

[Limnor]

From my perspective, the idea of adding “one more” grain of sand isn’t required to determine whether the Book of Mormon is ancient. That question, for me, is already settled by the preponderance of evidence.

The internal features point unmistakably to a 19th-century origin, and the absence of external evidence for an ancient setting reinforces that conclusion.

What remains interesting is how it was written, the mechanics of composition, not if they (Joseph or others) did.

It is understandable, to me, that the faithful don’t want to see it that way. But, as IHQ has said, it isn’t my, or anyone’s, responsibility to find that elusive grain that will convince others. You are on your own there.

However, for discussion, I’ll offer my assessment: It might be more of a refusal to see and weigh the evidence available than it is the provision of the perfect evidence, especially since the criteria for acceptable evidence is defined by each individual.

If one wanted to cling to a pre-established belief, all the individual would need to do is continually change the criteria and blame the evidence-finder (investigator, if you will) for not providing the perfect grain of sand.

[Gadianton]

I think the biggest problem with MG's crusade is that he goes meta on every and all topics immediately and stays there. If I think a certain car is the best I'm looking at factors like horsepower, comfort, reliability, traction through a tight turn or maybe in the snow. With Morley's latest highlight, instead of getting into the details of that engine, it's like, "critics and naysayers who don't agree the Ford Pinto is the greatest driving machine ever built desperately pile on vague arguments: it's underpowered, the warranty wasn't very good, it's not stylish, but at what point do the scales tip into undeniability territory? At what point can we definitively say with no reservations that the Ford Pinto isn't the greatest driving machine ever?"

Every other MG argument is more of the same. I've driven this Pinto for years and I'm saying it's the best car ever made. You guys are stuck in relativism, but there can only be one best car. Do you think that maybe when you were younger, you refused to ride in a Pinto, and maybe that's why now you can't admit it's the best all of these years later?

I think the car analogy works because arguing about cars relies heavily on facts but is also incredibly subjective. However, even with all that subjectivity, I don't recall the Top Gear guys ever going meta. They don't spend any time on the possibility of knowledge -- how do we know what we know? What is the truth, really? How would we definitively say what counts as a good warranty and what doesn't? But that's all MG talks about. Oh look, this other reviewer said a different car is better. How about that? How can you be so confident your pick when this other guy appears pretty darn intelligent?

[sock puppet]

I think the biggest problem with MG's crusade is that he goes meta on every and all topics immediately and stays there. If I think a certain car is the best I'm looking at factors like horsepower, comfort, reliability, traction through a tight turn or maybe in the snow. With Morley's latest highlight, instead of getting into the details of that engine, it's like, "critics and naysayers who don't agree the Ford Pinto is the greatest driving machine ever built desperately pile on vague arguments: it's underpowered, the warranty wasn't very good, it's not stylish, but at what point do the scales tip into undeniability territory? At what point can we definitively say with no reservations that the Ford Pinto isn't the greatest driving machine ever?"

Every other MG argument is more of the same. I've driven this Pinto for years and I'm saying it's the best car ever made. You guys are stuck in relativism, but there can only be one best car. Do you think that maybe when you were younger, you refused to ride in a Pinto, and maybe that's why now you can't admit it's the best all of these years later?

I think the car analogy works because arguing about cars relies heavily on facts but is also incredibly subjective. However, even with all that subjectivity, I don't recall the Top Gear guys ever going meta. They don't spend any time on the possibility of knowledge -- how do we know what we know? What is the truth, really? How would we definitively say what counts as a good warranty and what doesn't? But that's all MG talks about. Oh look, this other reviewer said a different car is better. How about that? How can you be so confident your pick when this other guy appears pretty darn intelligent?

Very insightful and accurate. He's like a shapeless goblin.