Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_wenglund]

I just came across a web article titled Spalding Notes, that suggest that there are a number of remarkable similarities between Spalding's manuscript and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), co-participated in by Joseph Smith, William Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, and latter Warren Parrish.

Perhaps a case is being worked up that the Book of Abraham may also be a Spalding production.

I am not sure what-all implication this may have on the current discussion here (or other threads that it may touch on), but it looks like there may be another area for word print studies to venture into. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Roger]

Marg wrote:

The Book of Mormon witnesses other than Emma's dad and brother in law, all have a vested and financial interest in this new start up religion, none of them appear the least bit skeptical or questioning. Their statements appear to be purposefully planned to adhere to a party line..and to promote that the supernatural was involved. This is also consistent with the statement/testimonies in the Book of Mormon.

Bingo! This should be obvious. Ironically a common critique of S/R is to characterize the witness statements as being just a bit too similar, which they then interpret as evidence that Hurlbut did a "little judicious prompting" (overlooking, of course, the differences), but then these same critics ignore the fact that the Book of Mormon witnesses all sign one statement for the three and one statement for the eight, both of which were likely penned by Joseph Smith. There's no comparison in the quality of those contrasting witness statements and yet it's the S/R witnesses who are accused of memory confabulation!

What I described is what I observed. It was a one time observation of an event recorded and on the internet, of which I made known I viewed it there. I don’t and wouldn’t simply accept the trick at face value, without any skepticism. Contrast that with the Book of Mormon witnesses who describe things they didn’t even see, but presented it as if they had..and not one word indicating skepticism.

Correct. Dan is simply being ridiculous to attempt to make a rational comparison. You are not a devotee of Blaine's magic. You don't think Blaine does his magic with divine assistance lest any man should boast.

Dan's original point--I think--is that even skeptics can be fooled and some of what they describe may come out sounding supernatural.

But if that's still his point it proves nothing since we do not dispute what the skeptics testify to--namely that Joseph put his head in his hat and rattled off some words. The context of the Badger's Tavern testimony even makes it sound like those words were painfully slow. But Dan's notion that everything came from Joseph in record time, would require him to dictate at a fairly rigorous pace, day in and day out. That pace is not consistent with the tone of the Badger's tavern testimony and the other critics don't give us much information to go on.

I also considered the Book of Mormon testimony statements..their claims of hearing God and seeing an angel, I considered Emma’s lack of skepticism regarding the alleged “miraculous” plates she supposedly dusted around but never looked at..despite the fact that her dad was annoyed with it all and didn’t buy into any of it and despite that those plates and this new religion were important to her future financial well being…since that was at the time the only means by which Smith demonstrated plans to earn a living for her and their children. And yet we are supposed to believe her that she doesn’t even attempt to look at the plates?

A bit hard to believe, for sure.

What I did in critically evaluating was use the method McCullagh wrote about…which is to make an inference or arguments to the best explanation. The evidence leads one to conclude the best explanation is that the witnesses including Emma are not only unreliable but as well they lied at times to serve their ends. Day after day, Smith could not have consistently known when they were misspelling while he kept his head in a hat. That bit of information along with the other they related..was obviously intended to promote the miraculous ..that a God was involved.

Correct. This is true for nearly all of their statements. They are all given in an effort to demonstrate that God was doing this--lest any man should boast. But Dan's version of S/A requires a separation of the supernatural from their statements--something I suggest they would recoil at. The supernatural elements of their statements are essential elements. They were put there on purpose to promote the idea that God was behind the whole thing. The idea that we can neatly extract the supernatural elements from their claims without doing serious damage to the claims in order to get to the truth of the matter is simply wrong, in my opinion. Rather, the word of the Book of Mormon witnesses must be measured against the word of the skeptics. When you consider that even a friendly witness (David Whitmer) admits that a blanket was used to shield the translator from the eye of the public, then it becomes clear that something was going on behind the blanket that was not meant for public consumption. If Joseph had the gift Dan wants us to think he had, where he could just plop his head in his hat and rattle off sentence after coherent sentence for hours on end, then there is no need to hide anything. It should have been open to the public and Glenn would be using that to his advantage in this discussion. As it is, we are left with a blanket to hide the translator from the view of the public.

The Book of Mormon witnesses not only were motivated to lie for self interest but their statements appear purposefully prepared in advance to conform to a party line given them. Their statements don't ring true...and given the context of other evidence..they are extremely unreliable witnesses for those claims which promote the miraculous and anything benefiting promotion of the start up religious enterprise..which they have a vested interest in.

It's somewhat amazing that we are having this discussion, isn't it?! I'm still a bit amazed at the ease with which Dan just accepts--and defends--the testimony of early LD "saints." It's as if he truly sees them as saints who could never tell a lie. I think this is a key distinction between Dan's version of S/A and that of the Tanners.

It's like taking the word of the FLDS that Warren Jeffs is really a great guy. Whether they believe it or not, is their word reliable?

[_GlennThigpen]

I have found that, for whatever reason, most S/R critics aren't interested in being objective.

Roger, there are no objective posters on this board. Everyone comes here with some kind of bias. That shoe fits many feet.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

An argument can be made against the sort of ad hoc accusations Dan Vogel has been arguing. A brief analogy to the sort of argument he makes which while not equivalent in all respects suffices to illustrate. His argument is like arguing in a murder case of a husband (J. Smith) suspected of conspiring with a girlfriend (Book of Mormon witnesses) for murdering his wife (the Book of Mormon). Dan's argument is similar to saying that the say so of the girlfriend that the husband and her were together at the time of the murder and didn't commit it..is primary evidence..and any evidence such as what the neighbours (S/R witnesses) saw .. is ad hoc...and because due to their age their eyesight isn't perfect (due to time lapse memory not perfect) while the girlfriend should know better whether or not the husband and her were together at the time..but not near the wife.

It’s situations like this that tell me not to waste time on you. You may think your reasoning skills are good, but they are demonstrably poor. The nonsense above is an example. You have constructed an analogy not at all like what is confronted with the Mormon witnesses who are supported by physical and independent testimony. If the murder took place while the man was preaching at church and had a congregation of believers as alibi witnesses, do you honestly think the police would brush that aside? Or would they think it was improbable and look elsewhere? Your analogy only proves only what a distorted and incomplete view you have of this subject.

While the ad hoc concept can be useful for reasoning purposes in situations in which there is strong refuting evidence against a proposed hypothesis...it is not appropriate to be used in situations in which one uses it to maintain their own hypothesis by arguing that their evidence supercedes all other evidence when in fact their evidence is weak, tainted or biased and non-verifiable. This is how Dan employs the ad hoc accusation ..when he claims the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable witnesses and evidence counter to their claims is ad hoc.

You are making things up, Marg. Whether or not your responses are ad hoc has nothing to do with your opinion of the strength or weakness of the adverse evidence; it has to do with the nature of your response. Your trick hat theory, for example, is ad hoc no matter what you were responding to. You could have simply attacked the adverse evidence as being deficient—but you didn’t. You chose to construct an ad hoc theory to explain away the eyewitness testimony—probably because you saw your attempts to discount multiple independent testimony failing. So you invented the trick-hat theory—which is clearly ad hoc and silly.

I have done some checking and found that this invention of ad hoc escapes has been a mental habit of yours for years—along with brief goggle checks and quibble escapes--and until now no one called you on it. You have also tortured posters with accusations of intellectual dishonesty. You tried that with me on Occam’s Razor, but it didn’t work. Now, I’m calling you on your own tactic. Are we going to see you admit to using ad hoc escapes?

He has used the book "Justifying Historical Descriptions" by McCullagh as a warrant for his ad hoc accusation, but in actual fact the book does not warrant his use of it.

As I pointed out, you didn’t understand his discussion—mostly because you were looking for quibble points rather than trying to learn something.

This ad hoc accusation by Dan has been nonsense. In the very book Dan uses to warrant his accusation of ad hocs against S/R ... there are 3 theories which parallel quite closely the 3 Book of Mormon theories. At no point does the author McCullagh say that because one theory is more ad hoc than another it is the better theory. In fact although he mentions "ad hoc" as a factor he doesn't use it as a factor in arguing which theory is the best explanation. The only thing he uses is explanatory power and scope..as the determining factor for arguing to best explanation for the theory that the King was murdered by a conspiracy involving the King's brother.

I think you are confused. McCullagh gives “seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation”. Point five reads:

5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

As I have already pointed out, the three theories don’t match our current situation, because the Spalding theory doesn’t have greater scope and power of explanation than Smith alone. McCullagh preferred none of the three because they were all ad hoc, but the strongest theory was deemed less ad hoc because it had greater scope and explanatory power, although it had more suppositions.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Like I said, I do not know how feasible it is. Hopefully someone will chime in and either burst the bubble, or ad to the din.

Maybe you could PM Bruce?

[Guest]

Dan:

Your trick hat theory, for example, is ad hoc no matter what you were responding to. You could have simply attacked the adverse evidence as being deficient—but you didn’t. You chose to construct an ad hoc theory to explain away the eyewitness testimony—probably because you saw your attempts to discount multiple independent testimony failing. So you invented the trick-hat theory—which is clearly ad hoc and silly.

I have already shown that what you label "trick hat" is not ad hoc. S/R can exist just fine with or without a "trick hat." Just as easily as S/A can. It is silly for you to continue to attempt to present the notion of a "trick hat" as though it was some sort of escape from adverse evidence. That is just nonsense.

The fact is your theory requires something in the way of a response to the same testimony you want to present as being adverse to S/R because that testimony was intended to claim that God was providing a translation to Joseph Smith and, just like S/R, you do not accept that. Therefore, just like S/R proponents, you have to respond to that in some manner. You choose to characterize your response as not being ad hoc since you argue that supernatural elements are unnecessary. The problem is--and this is key--the problem is the witnesses themselves--whose testimony you are attempting to recruit for your theory--don't give you that option. You have to forcefully extract it from their testimonies which were intentionally designed to support Glenn's theory (S/D), not yours. They do not agree with your interpretation of their testimonies. Therefore, if you're going to accept their testimonies as being reliable then they are as adverse to your theory as they are to S/R.

You think you have an escape clause in claiming the supernatural is inherently ad hoc and that by so proclaiming you are only getting your theory off the hook, but the fact is, if that escape clause works for S/A then it just as surely works for S/R. You can't explain how Joseph Smith pulled this off any more than we can. Sure, like us, you can speculate all you want, but you can't definitively say how he did it. The problem is that when we propose one possible natural avenue (as opposed to the supernatural) you then attempt to mock it by labeling it "trick hat" and then falsely proclaiming it to be an ad hoc response to adverse evidence as if your theory is somehow superior in explaining how Smith pulled it off! And the irony is, you yourself refuse to accept the very intent of the exact same testimonial evidence you want to present as being adverse for S/R. I find this whole dynamic remarkable.

[Guest]

Dan,

You have constructed an analogy not at all like what is confronted with the Mormon witnesses who are supported by physical and independent testimony. If the murder took place while the man was preaching at church and had a congregation of believers as alibi witnesses, do you honestly think the police would brush that aside? Or would they think it was improbable and look elsewhere? Your analogy only proves only what a distorted and incomplete view you have of this subject.

The key point Dan is that in critically evaluating witnesses not only must one take into account what was said, how likely or plausible are the accounts given but as well take into consideration does the account benefit the person making the statement, does it benefit those they are connected or involved. In addition the information given must be considered in the context of all the data accumulated that is related. So just as I suggested in my hypothetical murder case that we can not take at face value the girlfriend's word..the same applied to the situation in the book you cited by McCullagh, in which historian Brooke wrote about King William’s death…involving the 3 proposed scenarios. Taking into consideration the related evidence...that it was virtually impossible for the King’s brother Henry to have taken over so rapidly without a support of group ..in that context..an accidental death seemed highly unlikely. The chroniclers must have obtained the information of what happened by those present which included Tirel and the King’s brother Henry at the hunt. It didn’t benefit them to suggest a murder took place, they were not loyal to King William and they were motivated to promote that King William’s death was a result of divine justice because of the King’s disrespect for the clergy and church. So when one consider the context of the related data and the interest and motivation of the chroniclers…their statements Brooke concluded were unreliable. Even Tirel’s denial Brooke argued couldn’t be relied upon….because when one looks at the evidence…it seems highly probably that King’s brother benefits too much by the King’s death and seemed to have been well prepared for it.

Regarding your analogy your church witnesses don't have a vested interest in maintaining the husband's innocence..therefore if they claim he was in the church at the time, there is little reason to be skeptical of their claim. That's completely different to comparing to events which are crimes in which a witness has a vested interest. I'm stating the obvious. With the Book of Mormon witnesses you have …a small closely connected related to one another except for Harris group of individuals..all with a vested personal and financial interest in a new start up religion. And in those days many religions were starting up, it was a means to earning a living when few other choices besides farming was available. The other type of witness you have are Emma’s dad and brother in law, in which they had limited exposure under Smith’s control and a few public shows staged by Smith. Your analogy is way off the mark in the key respect of "vested interest".

Brooke’s hypotheses for the King’s death are very similar in key respects to the 3 hypotheses for the Book of Mormon. Brooke doesn’t take at face value..any witnesses with a vested interest such as Tirel or the chroniclers but he does accept witnesses without vested interest..the ones who in later years after Tirel had fled the country said he denied killing the King.

While the ad hoc concept can be useful for reasoning purposes in situations in which there is strong refuting evidence against a proposed hypothesis...it is not appropriate to be used in situations in which one uses it to maintain their own hypothesis by arguing that their evidence supercedes all other evidence when in fact their evidence is weak, tainted or biased and non-verifiable. This is how Dan employs the ad hoc accusation ..when he claims the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable witnesses and evidence counter to their claims is ad hoc.

You are making things up, Marg. Whether or not your responses are ad hoc has nothing to do with your opinion of the strength or weakness of the adverse evidence; it has to do with the nature of your response. Your trick hat theory, for example, is ad hoc no matter what you were responding to. You could have simply attacked the adverse evidence as being deficient—but you didn’t. You chose to construct an ad hoc theory to explain away the eyewitness testimony—probably because you saw your attempts to discount multiple independent testimony failing. So you invented the trick-hat theory—which is clearly ad hoc and silly.

Dan every explanation for a hypothesis is ad hoc. That is the explanation has been devised to explain the hypothesis in question. But when talking about “ad hoc” being fallacious it is more than simply being about an explanation for an hypothesis..as wiki says: in science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Much of scientific understanding relies on the modification of existing hypotheses or theories, but these modifications are distinguished from ad hoc hypotheses in that the anomalies being explained propose a new means of being real.
Ad hoc hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hoc hypothesis was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.

Note Dan 'it is used to save a theory from being falsified'. You keep bringing up this “hat trick” ad nausea. I never suggested it to save the S/R theory being falsified ..by what you claim is a refutation. You think that because (the vested interested) Book of Mormon witnesses said Smith had no other material or manuscript with him..that it should be taken at face value, that he didn't have any other material with him. I don’t accept and have never accepted the Book of Mormon witnesses’ statements at face value. Temporarily Dan, (because I no longer think this) I thought let's assume Emma was telling the truth that she saw no other manuscript..perhaps Smith wouldn’t want her too involved and she herself wouldn’t necessarily want to know too much..then could Smith have done what she said but used a hat trick (which I've explained). And just as she was very obliging and never attempted to look at the plates (how convenient) she may have been similarly obliging and never attempted to look over the table to see what he held on his lap. But certainly Dan I NEVER suggested it to save the S/R theory from your pathetically weak untrustworthy witnesses you rely so much on.

And as far as you saying 'I could have attacked the adverse evidence', I’ve already done that by citing from Alex Fisher’s book “Critical Thinking” in which he has a chapter on evaluating the credibility of source evidence…but I believe you pooh-poohed that.

I have done some checking and found that this invention of ad hoc escapes has been a mental habit of yours for years—along with brief goggle checks and quibble escapes--and until now no one called you on it.

Good for you Dan, nice to see how busy you've been keeping yourself

You have also tortured posters with accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

You know why Dan, there are a lot of intellectually dishonest individuals in this business of religion and faith based beliefs.

You tried that with me on Occam’s Razor, but it didn’t work. Now, I’m calling you on your own tactic. Are we going to see you admit to using ad hoc escapes?

Ok Dan, let's get back to this occam's razor again...

This is what you wrote on Occam’s razor in reply to me:

Dan: You wording is confused and misleading. Occam’s Razor deals with competing theories that attempt to explain the same phenomenon—here the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon. It’s not “less data” vs. more data; it’s about competing theories attempting to explain all the data, or at least most of it, with the least qualifications, elaborations, and ad hoc hypothesizing. I’m going to skip discussion of your examples, because they only show your unfamiliarity with the principles under discussion. Instead, I will supply the following discussion of Occam’s Razor and ad hoc hypothesizing:

>>>snip

That was in response to my words:
You have an assumption that you understand Occam's Razor and therefore can use it effectively and appropriately in support of the Smith alone theory over the S/R theory. Unfortunately you do not understand Occam's Razor. Where Occams' Razor is applicable is where there are 2 or more explanatory theories and they reach the same conclusion. In such cases, obviously it's not necessary to use the explanatory theory with the greatest amount of data supporting the same conclusion if the simpler (less data) theory adequately warrants that conclusion.

The situation with the S/R and Smith alone theories is that they are explanations with different conclusions. They are competing theories but they are not equal explanatory theories for the same conclusion.

Note Dan the key concept you failed to grasp. For Occam’s Razor to be applied the theories MUST have equal explanatory power.

When 2 or more theories have equal explanatory power then and only then can it be considered justified based on experience...to choose the less ad hoc one as an explanation.

Look at wiki which you quoted and note the bolded part. Wiki: Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

In other words Dan you can not rationally take 2 competing theories which don’t explain the data equally well and then argue the simplest or least ad hoc is the preferable one. That is what you have been doing.

One may be much more ad hoc..make greater assumptions and it be preferable because it has greater explanatory power.

He has used the book "Justifying Historical Descriptions" by McCullagh as a warrant for his ad hoc accusation, but in actual fact the book does not warrant his use of it.

As I pointed out, you didn’t understand his discussion—mostly because you were looking for quibble points rather than trying to learn something.

Dan I am critical of McCullagh for a number of reasons. He doesn't clearly define his terms, in my opinion he's inconsistent, he pushes his religious agenda in a book he presents as scholarly for historical methodology. I also think he misrepresented Brooke's point.

Be that as it may..the chapter is about arguments to best explanation and I'll use what he has and point out where I disagree.

The 3 theories do closely parallel the Book of Mormon theories:

1) King killed by accident
-chronicler’s statements..unreliable evidence..their motivation and vested interest was to promote King killed by divine justice via human agency, they had no loyalty to King William
- Tirel denied Killing king but tirel’s statement unreliable due to vested interest
-brother King Henry had a vested interest in King Williams’ death... any report from him claiming King’s death an accident unreliable.

Looking at context of all evidence including Henry was not in line to be king, his older brother was. All cirumstances lead to suspicion King Henry conspired to kill King William.

Smith alone theory
- Book of Mormon witnesses..unreliable ...had vested interest, a few without vested interest had limited exposure to translation process and likely exposed to staged presentation by Smith.
- requires rejection of reliable witness evidence ..they had no motivation or vested interest

2) Witchcraft involved in King’s death
Smith Divine theory..both theories highly implausible and unsupported with evidence.

3)King was murdered
- conspiracy planned by King Henry and Tirel. Theory which best fits all the evidence.

S/R theory

-conspiracy planned by Rigdon using as initial backbone for Book of Mormon ..a Spalding manuscript and with Smith later involved Best theory which fits all the evidence. (For brevity I’m not going to get into details of evidence)

So historian Brooke prefers the 3rd theory the King was murdered as the best explanation of the evidence and he presents that evidence..but also notes it is not proven.

This ad hoc accusation by Dan has been nonsense. In the very book Dan uses to warrant his accusation of ad hocs against S/R ... there are 3 theories which parallel quite closely the 3 Book of Mormon theories. At no point does the author McCullagh say that because one theory is more ad hoc than another it is the better theory. In fact although he mentions "ad hoc" as a factor he doesn't use it as a factor in arguing which theory is the best explanation. The only thing he uses is explanatory power and scope..as the determining factor for arguing to best explanation for the theory that the King was murdered by a conspiracy involving the King's brother.

I think you are confused. McCullagh gives “seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation”. Point five reads:
Quote:
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

Dan…suppositions which are implied as opposed to "not implied" to some extent by existing beliefs"..then are not the sort of ad hocs he’s talking about. That is, if there is justification for an explanation, if the evidence gives reason to infer an explanation…then that’s not the kind of ad hoc explanation he’s talking about. Frankly he’s not very clear in explaining ad hocs. And I wonder if it is deliberate that it has to do with his use of ad hocs in arguing for Christianity. He's not an historian, he's a philosopher/Christian apologist and his interest may be first and foremost in using philosophy of history as a means to write apologies for Christianity. In this book on ‘historical methodogy’ he pushes his Christian faith based agenda..which he should not do…at least not in a book if it is to be taken as scholarly..which should be about seeking objectivity in historical methods. As as example he writes:

One example which illustrates the conditions most vividly is discussion of the Christian hypotheses that Jesus rose from the dead. This hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power than other hypotheses which try to account for the relevant evidence, but it is less plausible and more ad hoc than they are. That is why it is difficult to decide on the evidence of whether it should be accepted or rejected. Discussion of the resurrection hypothesis and of alternatives to it is very complex, however, and a simpler example has been chosen as more suitable for present purposes. (Many of the issues involved in deciding whether Jesus rose from the dead are clearly explained in Marxsen, 1970 and Evans, 1970.)

If he’s not going to use it as an example, he shouldn’t have brought it up. And he really thinks "the Christian hypotheses that Jesus rose from the dead" has greater explanatory scope and power than other hypotheses? Yikes.

And on p 7 Faith in empiricist assumptions is not enough, I believe, for happy life. The reality of human consciousness and the triune God must also be acknowledged. But empiricism is part of our cultural inheritance which has been of such spectacular value in helping us to understand and control nature that it would seem foolish to abandon it.

I really don’t care what his religious beliefs are..but he should keep them out of a book which is about methodology in history..in which one goal is to prevent historical propaganda from being part of that methodology.

But anyhow “ad hocness was # 5…but if you read it closely he’s talking about explanations which are not warranted at all. "it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs "

As I have already pointed out, the three theories don’t match our current situation, because the Spalding theory doesn’t have greater scope and power of explanation than Smith alone. McCullagh preferred none of the three because they were all ad hoc, but the strongest theory was deemed less ad hoc because it had greater scope and explanatory power, although it had more suppositions.

Dan he never says the strongest theory was less ad hoc. In fact he implies the least ad hoc theory is # 1. This is what he says: "Thus the third hypothesis is contradicted by no observable data. It certainly explains more than the first, and seems less ad hoc than the second so it is the one to be preferred according to the present theory."

He doesn't say the 3rd is less ad hoc than the first but the implication is that it is. # 1 doesn't require the implausible like # 2 and # 1 is the simplest theory. It's a matter of taking at face value what the chroniclers say. And as far as "but the strongest theory was deemed less ad hoc because it had greater scope and explanatory power" note on p 20 he say: In singular hypotheses, however, maximum falsifiability, while certainly implying a maximum of explanatory scope and power, usually also implies a maximum of complexity and ad hocness.



And this makes sense if the more data that any hypothesis has the more falsifiability it is open to and ...and consequently the more complex a theory it will be as well as greater ad hocness...that is greater explanation will be required because of the intference available to be made from the evidence.

That’s the situation for the S/R theory versus the Smith alone. The Smith-Rigdon theory accounts for much more data, is open to more falsifiability, is a more complex theory and therefore greater ad hocness. But Dan those explanations are warranted/justified because of the data..that’s why they don’t fall into the ad hocness he refers to in # 5. In # 5 he’s talking about explanations for which there is no justification at all.

The argument to the best explanation Dan does not provide a conclusive conclusion it is inductive it provides a probable conclusion. Brooke clearly preferred number 3 and Brooke is the historian...not McCullagh. Brooke pointed out that the 3rd theory was not proven but he certainly presented evidence and argument which would lead one to be convinced that it was likely true that the King was murdered via a conspiracy by King Henry. As I said McCullagh though is not very clear and he's inconsistent.

But let’s look at what he says:

Thus the third hypothesis is contradicted by no observable data. It certainly explains more than the first, and seems less ad hoc than the second so it is the one to be preferred according to the present theory. But Brooke is too good a scholar to think as some philosophers of history would have him think, that the third hypothesis is therefore acceptable. ‘The circumstantial evidence against Henry can be piled up; but of positive evidence there seems to be none. The verdict must be “not proven”. . . The most we can say is this: if Rufus’s death in August 1100 was an accident, Henry I was an exceptionally lucky man’ (pages 195, 196).


If one reads historian Brooke’s chapter on the King’s death, which I have done…Brooke doesn’t mention “ad hoc” at all. He makes a convincing case that the explanation of an accidental death is not well warranted and the best explanation for the King’s death is a conspiracy by King Henry to murder his brother. He points out..as McCullagh notes that is not proven. When Brooke says : “The most we can say is this: if Rufus’s death in August 1100 was an accident, Henry I was an exceptionally lucky man’ “, that statement is also somewhat sarcastic. Yes he was an exceptionally lucky man...a little too exceptionally luck! And of course, it’s not proven. No argument to best explanation is proven true, so what's McCullagh's point? if you can prove something "true" with positive evidence you don't need an argument to best explanation.

So I don’t agree with McCullagh interpretation of Brooke..when he says:

Positive evidence, on the other hand can give both the historian and the lawyer good reason for thinking that an explanatory hypothesis is true. Taken together with an appropriate generalization, positive evidence implies the truth of a hypothesis in a way that circumstantial evidence does not. If Brooke had had a letter describing Henry I’s conspiracy to murder William II and seize the throne, written by one of the conspirators to a friend, then assuming that people generally tell their friends the truth, especially if it is against themselves, Brooke could have inferred that his hypothesis was probably true. Without such evidence, however, he knows it to be a figment of his fertile imagination, and perhaps very far from the truth.


Brooke was presenting 3 hypothesis and clearly presenting one as the best explanation. He was not presenting an argument that was intended to be taken as conclusive.

So McCullagh seems to be inconsistent. He says: It looks as if arguments to the best explanation are not much more useful than simple hypothetico–deductive arguments after all. The same reason we have for doubting the truth of the conclusions of hypothetico–deductive arguments has turned out to be a reason for doubting the truth of the conclusions of arguments of the best explanation as well. Does superiority of an explanation in respect of conditions 2 to 6 not insure its truth?

The short answer is that it does not, but if condition 7 is satisfied as well, that is if one hypothesis is so far superior to the others that can be thought of in respect of conditions 2 to 6 that there is virtually no chance of it being proved false soon, then it is reasonable to believe it true. In particular, if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true. There are some historical events which help to explain so much in such a variety of evidence that there is good reason to believe they could not be superseded by a better explanatory hypothesis.

But # 7 is really a matter of judgment. # 7 says: “It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.”


Brooke’s # 3 does exceed the other incompatible hypothesis in 2- 6. McCullagh acknowledges this when he says: “Thus the third hypothesis is contradicted by no observable data. It certainly explains more than the first, and seems less ad hoc than the second so it is the one to be preferred according to the present theory.”


He continues: But Brooke is too good a scholar to think as some philosophers of history would have him think, that the third hypothesis is therefore acceptable. ‘The circumstantial evidence against Henry can be piled up; but of positive evidence there seems to be none. The verdict must be “not proven”. . . The most we can say is this: if Rufus’s death in August 1100 was an accident, Henry I was an exceptionally lucky man’ (pages 195, 196).

Just because Brooke sarcastically says "The most we can say is this: if Rufus’s death in August 1100 was an accident, Henry I was an exceptionally lucky man’ “ and he's acknowledging he doesn't have conclusive proof does not mean Brooke doesn't think he has not shown with high probability that King William was likely murdered. Brooke is simply acknowledging he doesn’t have positive proof the King was murdered..one can not say with absolute certainty the King was murdered obviously, but Brooke definitely made a strong convincing argument using the evidence that the best explanation is he was with high probability and that it wasn’t an accident.

Since # 7 is a matter of a judgment call "It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects"..it appears to me under these conditions that Brooke's # 3 qualifies. Sorry but unless McCullagh can define clearly "so much" it becomes a matter of interpretation when an argument to best explanation succeeds or not.

It’s the same situation with the 3 Book of Mormon theories. There is no positive proof and perhaps never will be. So the arguments are a matter of presenting evidence and reasoning to the best explanation.

In any case Dan....a more complex theory as McCullagh rightly points out will have more ad hocs..but that is no reason to reject that theory.

he says:

In singular hypotheses, however, maximum falsifiability, while certainly implying a maximum of explanatory scope and power, usually also implies a maximum of complexity and ad hocness.

[/quote]

And when it comes to occam's razor Dan, the competing theories must have equal explanatory power before the simpler one is chosen over the other that is why occam's razor has nothing to do with the competing Book of Mormon theory.

And ad hoc fallacy..in which the more ad hocs there are the less likely the theory is valid is a situation in which the explanations/ad hocs are completely unwarranted by any evidence and are only used to rescue a theory against adverse refuting evidence. You really need to understand the concepts here Dan. It is critical to have strong refuting evidence..before you can even consider that an explanation/ad hoc has been created to rescue a theory. When it is a matter of mere opinion such as in your case, in which you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable and their say so that Smith used no other material in writing the Book of Mormon despite the fact they have a vested interest, despite that their claims appear unlikely and despite that their statement appear purposefully devised to promote the supernatural..that opinion Dan is not refuting evidence.

As far as McCullagh and his # 5..that is ad hocs which are not warranted at all by any evidence. If the evidence can infer an explanation..that's not fallacious to consider it.

[_marg]

You can't explain how Joseph Smith pulled this off any more than we can. Sure, like us, you can speculate all you want, but you can't definitively say how he did it.

Exactly!


And the Smith alone is not the best explanation. Even if there was no evidence for Spalding, nor reason to suspect Rigdon, the evidence still is not favorable that Smith who showed no interest in writing before the Book of Mormon, would have dictated with his head in a hat,without review, notes, etc the Book of Mormon. The church acknowledges this..and I agree with them. That's one thing I agree with them on.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I have already shown that what you label "trick hat" is not ad hoc. S/R can exist just fine with or without a "trick hat." Just as easily as S/A can. It is silly for you to continue to attempt to present the notion of a "trick hat" as though it was some sort of escape from adverse evidence. That is just nonsense.

What you write above is nonsense and absurd. The trick-hat theory isn’t something I made up. I didn’t make Marg say it; she said it on her own—with a straight face no less. I use it only as a quick example—there are several others, which I have listed many times. Roger, it doesn’t matter if S/R needs the trick-hat theory or not—it’s still ad hoc. We spent several pages arguing with Marg about it, and she neither acknowledged it as ad hoc nor gave it up. And she didn’t just start using it without a reason. It was brought up when it appeared her attempt to dismiss all the witnesses as interested and therefore not trustworthy wasn’t working, so she offered a theory that she thought would explain the evidence of multiple independent testimony. That’s an ad hoc escape pure and simple.

The fact is your theory requires something in the way of a response to the same testimony you want to present as being adverse to S/R because that testimony was intended to claim that God was providing a translation to Joseph Smith and, just like S/R, you do not accept that. Therefore, just like S/R proponents, you have to respond to that in some manner. You choose to characterize your response as not being ad hoc since you argue that supernatural elements are unnecessary. The problem is--and this is key--the problem is the witnesses themselves--whose testimony you are attempting to recruit for your theory--don't give you that option. You have to forcefully extract it from their testimonies which were intentionally designed to support Glenn's theory (S/D), not yours. They do not agree with your interpretation of their testimonies. Therefore, if you're going to accept their testimonies as being reliable then they are as adverse to your theory as they are to S/R.

It troubles me that you think the above is logical. It’s not. I’m free to accept the observations of the witnesses while rejecting their interpretations. This is standard procedure in courts of law. You must be familiar with this, Roger. So you are free to do the same. Where you go wrong is when you try to overcome the part of their testimony that is not interpretive but is adverse to the Spalding theory.

You think you have an escape clause in claiming the supernatural is inherently ad hoc and that by so proclaiming you are only getting your theory off the hook, but the fact is, if that escape clause works for S/A then it just as surely works for S/R.

I’m having difficulty following your desperate and convoluted logic, but I’ll give it a stab. The witnesses saw Joseph Smith dictate with head in hat for the bulk of the Book of Mormon, which they thought was miraculous. There was no real miracle here. No different than a fraudulent medium or psychic could do, but probably better. You agree. So what we have are two competing theories, and yours is the one that has trouble with this adverse evidence. To escape it, you have offered ad hoc speculations such as trick hats, locked doors, blankets, and conspiring and lying witnesses.

You can't explain how Joseph Smith pulled this off any more than we can. Sure, like us, you can speculate all you want, but you can't definitively say how he did it. The problem is that when we propose one possible natural avenue (as opposed to the supernatural) you then attempt to mock it by labeling it "trick hat" and then falsely proclaiming it to be an ad hoc response to adverse evidence as if your theory is somehow superior in explaining how Smith pulled it off! And the irony is, you yourself refuse to accept the very intent of the exact same testimonial evidence you want to present as being adverse for S/R. I find this whole dynamic remarkable.

Again, this is convoluted and incoherent. It appears you are still trying to slip out of defending your theory by requiring me to prove with absolute certainty my theory before admitting yours has problems. That’s ad hominem. The only thing that’s needed is to show my theory is more probable than yours. I have shown that the bulk of the Book of Mormon came out of Joseph Smith’s mouth while his face was in his hat. We know he did it—the question of how is a different matter. It's just your smokescreen or red herring.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

And the Smith alone is not the best explanation. Even if there was no evidence for Spalding, nor reason to suspect Rigdon, the evidence still is not favorable that Smith who showed no interest in writing before the Book of Mormon, would have dictated with his head in a hat,without review, notes, etc the Book of Mormon. The church acknowledges this..and I agree with them. That's one thing I agree with them on.

That makes sense to you? A first book is always plagiarized? Doesn’t his interest in telling stories about ancient Americans count? What about his experience as a Methodist exhorter and participant in a debating club? What about the example of his grandfather Solomon Mack in publishing a book about his conversion to Christianity?