Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_dblagent007]

Wouldn't a believer be jusitified in believing that your characterization of the believer's IPE, which, incidentally, non-believers don't seem to have (at least in the realm of religion), is a wee bit condescending? Maybe even to the point of concluding that you are saying that the believer is stupid (after all non-believers don't have this IPE problem), dishonest (ignoring evidence), or mad?

Could you accept that believers may have weighed the same evidence as you did and just came to a different conclusion

Let me highlight the portion of my text that your own IPE has helpfully edited out.

I generally agree, although I equivocate more on the word “honest” than “rational”. Human beings* are inherently prone to all sorts of logical fallacies in our thinking, unless we strictly adhere to a disciplined method of analyzing ideas (which is the beauty and power of science). The human brain – without the volition of the person who happens to have that brain in his/her cranium – has the habit of editing information for our consideration – The Invisible, Patronizing Editor (IPE – my own “cute” creation). I’ve seen this over and over in conversations with believers, and I’m sure they’ve witnessed the same thing from their side. Neither side is immune to this phenomenon.** We can train ourselves to be more aware of it – one of the reasons Darwin was such a great thinker was that he was aware of this tendency in human thought, and deliberately sought out disconfirming data whenever he was exploring a theory. But it is difficult, and we tend to be selective in terms of when we choose to be more careful and aware of the IPE. I fully recognize I am more aware of it in religious conversations,*** and less aware of it in political conversations. Likely this is due to the heightened emotions associated with the particular item under consideration (and I tend to believe politics affects my life more than religion, so tend to have more emotions associated with that, which is why I avoid political boards like the plague).

* are nonbelievers human beings?
** do the words “they’ve witnessed the same thing from their side” and “neither side is immune to this phenomenon” indicate that I think nonbelievers also fall prey to IPE?
*** Does the word “I” indicate the speaker is talking about herself, alone?


First, let me assure you that while I coined the phrase IPE, the phenomenon I am describing is not of my own invention. It is described in literature that studies human thought processes. It is related to confirmation bias.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm

Now, how is it that you read my post, which included the bolded phrases, and yet concluded that I was saying only believers fall prey to IPE, and I was really just saying, in a round-about way, that believers are stupid? Could it be that you did not pay sufficient attention to the portion of my text that would contradict the conclusion you had drawn? Were you reading fast? Sloppily? Or was there some unconscious process that prevented you from mentally noting this disconfirming evidence?

I did state that I am more cautious in regards to my own IPE in religious arenas. This was a personal statement, not meant to reflect something about the larger pool of nonbelievers in general.

Chap also has a good point, which is people who began as believers and then became nonbelievers usually went through a process which led to that loss of faith, and the process included learning to look at one’s own beliefs in a critical and skeptical fashion.

Second, of course some believers have weighed the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Whether or not I suspect that the IPE helped them do that has to do with the particular conclusion or point being weighed. There are some issues that have a preponderance of evidence on one side – let’s take it outside of Mormonism and take the Young Earth debate. The preponderance of evidence weighs against the idea that the earth is around 6,000 or so years old. Do Young Earthers weigh the same evidence? Some do. How is it that they can still ignore that preponderance of evidence that contradicts their belief? Are they stupid? Mad? Dishonest? Or was their belief formed in a way that has nothing to do with logic, debate, or rational analysis, and they then simply use logic, debate, and rational analysis to try to support a belief that was formed in an entirely different process to begin with?

John Clark hints at this when he states that it’s necessary to get a testimony of the Book of Mormon first, and only THEN will the evidence become clear. Why is it necessary to get a testimony first, if the evidence alone is persuasive and clear? The answer is that the evidence alone is NOT persuasive and clear, and in fact, leads those without testimonies to the strong conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient Mesoamerican document. So why does believing FIRST change the ability to recognize evidence????

There are other issues far less clear cut – I’m talking about the issues that have a clear set of evidence that can be evaluated and weighed.

Wow, things get caustic fast around here.

Let me start over. What I took away from your post is that a believer's religious beliefs are not based on a fully honest survey of the information. If believers would honestly survey the information, then they would not believe. In other words, those that are IPE free will not believe (i.e., IPE free = nonbeliever). The mistake I made was to reverse this equation. For that I apologize.

Nevertheless, can you see why this might come off as condescending, possibly even to the point of saying a believer is stupid, dishonest, or mad?

[_beastie]

Wow, things get caustic fast around here.

Let me start over. What I took away from your post is that a believer's religious beliefs are not based on a fully honest survey of the information. If believers would honestly survey the information, then they would not believe. In other words, those that are IPE free will not believe (i.e., IPE free = nonbeliever). The mistake I made was to reverse this equation. For that I apologize.

Nevertheless, can you see why this might come off as condescending, possibly even to the point of saying a believer is stupid, dishonest, or mad?

I didn’t intend to be caustic. I can be blunt and to the point, but it normally isn’t meant to be caustic. My caustic is pretty obvious.

I guess it depends on how you view belief in general. I think belief is a very complex mechanism. Moreover, no one is “IPE free”. All we can do is try to control the factor, like Darwin did, by trying to discipline our thoughts logically and by deliberately looking for disconfirming evidence. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that simply because one has fallen prey to a heavy IPE hand means that they’re “stupid, dishonest, or mad”. Smart, honest, and sane people can believe things that do not have persuasive evidence, and even have a lot of contradicting evidence. They can believe these things fervently. If your mind has edited information during the processing, you can hardly be blamed for not being fully cognizant of it during your conscious considerations.

I guess if an individual has not done any reading about thought process and the formulation of belief, he/she could interpret these things as “stupid, dishonest, or mad”. But it would not be an accurate summary.

[_beastie]

Dan,

Please share your interpretation of this statement:

And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

[_Ray A]

This is what Dr. Clark said on BYU Newsnet http://www.rickross.com/reference/Mormon/mormon163.html in 2004:

BYU Anthropology Professor John Clark revealed ways archaeology could help prove the credibility of the Book of Mormon at Tuesday's Forum.
In his speech, "Archaeology, Relics and Book of Mormon Belief," Clark presented key evidences he discovered in his years of research.

"Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

By recognizing anti-Mormon views of the Book of Mormon, not only the LDS perspective, archaeology can help disprove many uncertainties, Clark said.

Clark summed up LDS view of archaeology: If the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

Many artifacts and evidence of the Book of Mormon have been found in geographical and archaeological findings. These same artifacts and incidents described in the Book of Mormon line-up correctly in ancient history, he said.

"Practices, instruments of war and history in the Book of Mormon are in accordance with Mesoamerican ways," Clark said.

Metal plates in stone boxes, ancient writings, warfare, cities, cement, kings and monuments, metaphors, time-keeping, old-world geography, new-world geography, cycles of civilization and demographics are all evidences found in the Book of Mormon that are verified in Mesoamerican culture. [Emphasis added]

This doesn't seem to square with:

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear.

I tried to explain my sense of Dr. Clark's meaning above -- I know him, have had a number of conversations with him on such topics, and am pretty confident that I understand him correctly -- but apparently failed. (And I'll be out of town for several days, starting in just a few hours.)

Here is what I said:

A theory, or a name, can sometimes cause us to see things that were there all along but that were invisible to us beforehand. I like to tell of an experience I had when I was a high school kid. We went to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, to see an exhibit by the Norwegian lithographer Edvard Munch. I wandered through the exhibit and thought nothing of it. Then I heard a brief lecture on Munch from a docent, went through the exhibit again, and loved it, seeing things I hadn't noticed before.

Data is given significance by theory. The same data, on the whole, were there for Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe as for Copernicus and Kepler. But, after the latter two, astronomers saw the data, and the solar system, fundamentally differently.

A person whose interpretative framework for the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic doesn't include the Book of Mormon will view it one way. A person whose framework does include the Book of Mormon will see it slightly differently, and will place significance and stress on certain things that the other person won't.

Professor Clark is entirely correct in saying that the current data certainly doesn't entail acceptance of the Book of Mormon. But he's also saying that the data are increasingly consistent with acceptance of the Book of Mormon, but that one won't be inclined to see that without some sort of commitment to the paradigm of the Book of Mormon.

Professor Clark does not believe that the evidence exists to prove the Book of Mormon true -- that is, to coerce observers to believe in it:

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true.

(Incidentally, that "BoMor" is a dead giveaway that these notes came from BrenMetc, or someone heavily influenced by BrenMetc.)

Professor Clark does, however, believe that the general picture of Mesoamerica emerging from recent archaeology is increasingly (and significantly) coherent with what the Book of Mormon entails. He does not believe that the current evidence would compel anybody, absent guidance from the Book of Mormon, to conclude that Nephites once inhabited Mesoamerica or to deduce the Book of Mormon narrative. He does believe, however, that one who accepts the narrative of the Book of Mormon will find that it illuminates his understanding of the Mesoamerican data, and that the Mesoamerican data will illuminate his understanding of the Book of Mormon, and that the Book of Mormon makes increasing sense against the emerging archaeological picture.

This is what Dr. Clark said on BYU Newsnet http://www.rickross.com/reference/Mormon/mormon163.html in 2004:

BYU Anthropology Professor John Clark revealed ways archaeology could help prove the credibility of the Book of Mormon at Tuesday's Forum.
In his speech, "Archaeology, Relics and Book of Mormon Belief," Clark presented key evidences he discovered in his years of research.

"Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

By recognizing anti-Mormon views of the Book of Mormon, not only the LDS perspective, archaeology can help disprove many uncertainties, Clark said.

Clark summed up LDS view of archaeology: If the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

Many artifacts and evidence of the Book of Mormon have been found in geographical and archaeological findings. These same artifacts and incidents described in the Book of Mormon line-up correctly in ancient history, he said.

"Practices, instruments of war and history in the Book of Mormon are in accordance with Mesoamerican ways," Clark said.

Metal plates in stone boxes, ancient writings, warfare, cities, cement, kings and monuments, metaphors, time-keeping, old-world geography, new-world geography, cycles of civilization and demographics are all evidences found in the Book of Mormon that are verified in Mesoamerican culture. [Emphasis added]

This doesn't seem to square with:

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

I don't see any contradiction. Professor Clark and I both agree with the proposition that, if the claims made by the Book of Mormon are confirmed through archaeology, then the claims are true, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. Neither one of us believes, however, that the claims made by the Book of Mormon have been confirmed through archaeology, though we both believe that they've received some interesting and mounting archaeological (and other) support, and I don't think that either of us expects them to be archaeologically confirmed in the foreseeable future, if ever.

[_rcrocket]

You might begin to "satisfy" me by:
---Naming the peer reviewers

That can't be done on any journal I've ever worked on. I have been an anonymous peer reviewer.

Name one single academic journal, pubilshed by a private university, where peer reviewers are known to the readership. Just one. One. [I've asked you many times; you can't give me a one.]

Dr. Guy Sajer, here, the uber critic of Mormonism, is heavily published in peer reviewed journals. Ask him which journals publish the names of peer reviewers.

---Publishing pieces critical of Mopologetic orthodoxy

Last time I checked, FARMS 19/1 published a piece critical of Dr. Peterson. And a very good article it was, as well on the "ye are gods" theology. The author is quite well known and head and shoulders above Dr. Peterson in terms of reputation in greater Christian community in the subject matter of the article.

---Eliminating ad hominem attacks, mind-reading, and character assassination

Yes, that would be nice.

But you very often see that stuff in academic journals -- so often it is quite surprising to the outsider.

Dr. Michael Coe at Yale does a good job in describing this kind of academic warfare, insults and name calling in "Breaking the Maya Code". Although he pretends to occupy the higher ground, it is apparent from his work that he slung mud with the best of them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Br'er Crocket and I disagree on the presence of alleged "ad hominem attacks, mind-reading, and character assassination" in the FARMS Review, but his points are otherwise right on target.

And extraordinarily tough personal attacks -- far beyond anything that the FARMS Review would ever dream of publishing -- are considerably more common in academic journals and academic books than outsiders might imagine. I've seen some real doozies.

[_Jersey Girl]

You might begin to "satisfy" me by:
---Naming the peer reviewers

That can't be done on any journal I've ever worked on. I have been an anonymous peer reviewer.

Name one single academic journal, pubilshed by a private university, where peer reviewers are known to the readership. Just one. One. [I've asked you many times; you can't give me a one.]

Dr. Guy Sajer, here, the uber critic of Mormonism, is heavily published in peer reviewed journals. Ask him which journals publish the names of peer reviewers.

---Publishing pieces critical of Mopologetic orthodoxy

Last time I checked, FARMS 19/1 published a piece critical of Dr. Peterson. And a very good article it was, as well on the "ye are gods" theology. The author is quite well known and head and shoulders above Dr. Peterson in terms of reputation in greater Christian community in the subject matter of the article.

---Eliminating ad hominem attacks, mind-reading, and character assassination

Yes, that would be nice.

But you very often see that stuff in academic journals -- so often it is quite surprising to the outsider.

Dr. Michael Coe at Yale does a good job in describing this kind of academic warfare, insults and name calling in "Breaking the Maya Code". Although he pretends to occupy the higher ground, it is apparent from his work that he slung mud with the best of them.

Crock is exactly right. Peer reviewers are anonymous.

[_moksha]

That can't be done on any journal I've ever worked on. I have been an anonymous peer reviewer.

I bet that anonymity rankled the very core of your being. How fiendish of them to foist that upon you.

----
Penguin-At-Law
Your fish will be our fish

[_Chap]

You might begin to "satisfy" me by:
---Naming the peer reviewers

That can't be done on any journal I've ever worked on. I have been an anonymous peer reviewer.

rcrocket is correct to the extent that no sensible journal would reveal the names of the scholars who have reviewed a particular article.

It is a separate question whether a journal would ever tell anybody the names of scholars who have done some reviewing for the journal.

For a start, the question never in my experience arises: I know of no journal (apart from the FARMS review) which claims to peer-review submissions, but which has been questioned as to the reality of that policy in a way that might require it to fess up by naming some scholars who have reviewed for it. But so long as the naming was done with the consent of the reviewers, and in a way that did not run the risk of linking reviewers with a particular article - such as, for example, saying 'Dr X, Dr. Y and Dr. Z are among those who have reviewed submissions for us over the last five or ten years', I don't see anything impossible about it.