Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Kishkumen]

That's stupid. I posted in this thread complimenting Kish and DJ. In response DJ started the attacks.

You left out a step here, stem. The step in which you criticized DJ's argument. So, DJ sets out to refute your disagreement after you expressed disagreement. The issue continues to be one of you trying to dodge the crucial point that the testimony of the eight witnesses is designed to slip in an affirmation that Joseph Smith translated the plates along with an affirmation of their existence. And again, they had no basis for knowing whether Joseph had translated the plates. They simply did not know that.

I understand how they were induced to do this, since, like you, they were probably focusing on the main issue, which was that they had been shown this object that seemed to be the thing Joseph Smith had told them was the set of plates he had translated. My issue is not with these fellows (some of whom did actually hesitate to sign the statement as Smith formulated it), but rather with Smith's construction of the document such that it placed the good name of these men under a misleading statement. He had to know that they had no way of knowing whether he did translate those plates.

[_stemelbow]

You left out a step here, stem. The step in which you criticized DJ's argument.

How awful of me! So did EA and Chris for that matter.

So, DJ sets out to refute your disagreement after you expressed disagreement. The issue continues to be one of you trying to dodge the crucial point that the testimony of the eight witnesses is designed to slip in an affirmation that Joseph Smith translated the plates along with an affirmation of their existence. And again, they had no basis for knowing whether Joseph had translated the plates. They simply did not know that.

That's what I said. Their use of saying Joseph translated was one of identifying and labeling. They obviously did not testify that he did translate ancient records into english. They also knew the story that Joseph Smith translated, so I don't know what your fuss is about. It seems Chap was just joking about it, or something.

I understand how they were induced to do this, since, like you, they were probably focusing on the main issue, which was that they had been shown this object that seemed to be the thing Joseph Smith had told them was the set of plates he had translated. My issue is not with these fellows (some of whom did actually hesitate to sign the statement as Smith formulated it), but rather with Smith's construction of the document such that it placed the good name of these men under a misleading statement. He had to know that they had no way of knowing whether he did translate those plates.

I find it a silly little quibble, on your part for the reasons I've identified. You find it some gross blatant lie. At this point, i don't care, its more of a need to paint a picture on your end, it seems. There's nothing malicious in the testimony. YOu're reading into it.

[_Kishkumen]

How awful of me! So did EA and Chris for that matter.

Yes I do think it is slimy to distort what happened in order to make yourself look like the victim of some kind of unprovoked attack.

That's what I said. Their use of saying Joseph translated was one of identifying and labeling. They obviously did not testify that he did translate ancient records into english.

No, they actually did. They signed a statement in which Joseph is identified as the translator of the leaves they touched.

I find it a silly little quibble, on your part for the reasons I've identified. You find it some gross blatant lie. At this point, i don't care, its more of a need to paint a picture on your end, it seems. There's nothing malicious in the testimony. YOu're reading into it.

I'm not reading anything into it, stem. They clearly signed a statement that affirms that Joseph Smith translated the plates that they touched. I don't see how you can get around that simple fact. I actually don't think they intended to lie, since they did not write the statement. Joseph wrote the statement in such a way that he could get them to sign off on his having translated the pages they touched. It is as simple as that.

People sign lots of things they don't read with sufficient care. The people who compose misleading documents for others to place their good names under are the ones more at fault, although it is true that due diligence requires that one read everything one signs one's name to.

[_stemelbow]

Yes I do think it is slimy to distort what happened in order to make yourself look like the victim of some kind of unprovoked attack.

My goodness. This is makes your outcries about how badly FAIR folks behave look worse, I'd say. I didn't provoke attack. I challenged his claims. he attacked me in response. You guys all cheer. Even if I was wrong, there is no reason for it. But, since that is how some FAIR person has done it in the past, your complaints about them seems as hollow as your heart (just kidding about the heart thing. I'm sure you're full of love for some folks).

No, they actually did. They signed a statement in which Joseph is identified as the translator of the leaves they touched.

Because that was his identification. The statement itself does not testify they know he translated.

I'm not reading anything into it, stem. They clearly signed a statement that affirms that Joseph Smith translated the plates that they touched. I don't see how you can get around that simple fact. I actually don't think they intended to lie, since they did not write the statement. Joseph wrote the statement in such a way that he could get them to sign off on his having translated the pages they touched. It is as simple as that.

You don't know Joseph's heart. It could have been written with the intention of identification. there's no statement in it that says the witnesses testify he actually did translate ancient writings into english. Therefore there's nothing here but a testimony of them seeing the plates and giving a couple of impressions on them. The saying Joseph is translator is indentification.

People sign lots of things they don't read with sufficient care. The people who compose misleading documents for others to place their good names under are the ones more at fault, although it is true that due diligence requires that you read everything one signs one's name to.

So you're saying they never had chance to review after the fact and offer corrections to it?

[_Buffalo]

Because that was his identification. The statement itself does not testify they know he translated.


You don't know Joseph's heart. It could have been written with the intention of identification. there's no statement in it that says the witnesses testify he actually did translate ancient writings into english. Therefore there's nothing here but a testimony of them seeing the plates and giving a couple of impressions on them. The saying Joseph is translator is indentification.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

[Guest]

My goodness. This is makes your outcries about how badly FAIR folks behave look worse, I'd say. I didn't provoke attack. I challenged his claims. he attacked me in response.

I never said you provoked attack, stem. I said that you intended to create the impression that DJ sideswiped you out of the blue and for no reason, when you clearly followed up your brief praise for our posts with a criticism that invited the exchange, as you now concede. Don't twist my words.

Because that was his identification. The statement itself does not testify they know he translated.

The statement does, whether that was each individual's intention or not. Do you know their hearts, stem? Can you read their minds?

You don't know Joseph's heart. It could have been written with the intention of identification. there's no statement in it that says the witnesses testify he actually did translate ancient writings into english. Therefore there's nothing here but a testimony of them seeing the plates and giving a couple of impressions on them. The saying Joseph is translator is indentification.

The document says that Joseph Smith translated those plates. He either did or he did not. Yet the men who signed the document had no way of knowing. Still, their signed statement is a testimony of that fact. You can't choose which parts of the document their signature applies to. They were unable to as well. Of course saying Joseph Smith is "translator" is an identification. Duh. It is identification of Joseph Smith as the guy who translated the plates they touched--something that they were incapable of determining with their knowledge. So they signed it, and it is a misleading statement. I don't rake them over the coals for it.

Maybe Joseph actually did believe that he translated the plates that he had fabricated for the purposes of getting these witnesses to sign the statement. I don't know. Maybe the plates are real. Maybe lots of things.

That still doesn't change the fact that the testimony is misleading in that it gets these eight men to affirm something they could not possibly have known. I don't believe that you really think that detail is of little consequence.

So you're saying they never had chance to review after the fact and offer corrections to it?

If I recall correctly, there actually was some discussion of what these guys felt comfortable signing off on. Still, the statement as it stands makes a false representation of the reality, since they attest that Joseph Smith translated the plates and they had no ability to check the truth of that statement.

[_Darth J]

Apparently even Dawkins has a more open mind than you do.

All you do is mock. It's your trademark, and that's why you cannot be taken seriously.

That was the point of DCP's blog post - it's not "so patently obvious". What you are is a pseudoskeptic:

Wow, strong words, Ray. Let's look at an example of something I posted a while ago in response to you and see if it's consistent with being a pseudoskeptic:

Instead of taking two quotes talking about different things, maybe it would be helpful if you took one of my several statements where I said, like Buffalo, that I do not claim to know that space aliens don't exist, but I have not seen convincing proof to make me believe that they have visited the Earth. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17043&p=421222&hilit=agnostic#p421222

Hmm. That doesn't look very much like a pseudoskeptic. Let's see if there's another example of something I have said that looks like pseudoskepticism:

I would like to believe that there is some kind of intelligence in the universe that could reasonably be called "God," and this is related to my feeling that I would like to believe that we don't simply cease to exist when we die. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13757&hilit=agnostic

Nope, that's not quite doing it, either. Okay, maybe this?

I'm not really sure where I am now as far as metaphysics go. I think there is a God, and I think he has a particular relationship with the human race. I hope there is life after death. I can't offer a rational explanation right now for why I think those things. I think that Jesus of Nazareth has a unique place in humanity, and I still think he in some way bridged the gap between humanity and God---although I feel that he died for "sin" in the general sense of mankind's separation from God, not for "sins." And I think that God could care less what religion a person follows. If there is a God that has some special purpose for humanity, then I think whatever salvation is, it is individual, not institutional. I do not believe that rituals are relevant to whatever salvation is. I don't believe that a just and rational God---the only kind you would want to be with anyway---lives in a tree fort and you need to know the password and the secret handshake to get in. I'm probably leaning gnostic right now, except that I am also leaning heavily that experiencing life itself is the secret knowledge. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&p=335723&hilit=agnostic#p335723

Oh, I guess not. You know, Ray, it looks exactly like you're on a fanatical jihad about nothing, and you're making things up and arbitrarily throwing labels around when people say things you don't like. How ironic that you are doing so in a thread discussing the meaning and analysis of what evidence is.

[_Darth J]

I see that Stemelbow has now gone in to full-blown arguing from ignorance mode. Wow, a believing Mormon relying on, "You weren't there! You don't know! Nobody knows!"

How surprising.

[_Darth J]

EAllusion and Chris:

To avoid everyone having to go back in the thread, here's EA's Bayesian analysis.

Take a Bayesian definition of evidence:

P(h|e) = P(h) * ( P(e|h) / P(e) )

P(h) is the probability that the hypothesis is true given only the background information. This is often referred to as the prior probability. P(h|e) is the probability that h is true given the the observations under analysis. P(e|h) is the probability we'd see the observations given the hypothesis. And P(e) is the unconditional probability of the observations alone. Because P(h|e) is going to be > P(h) in this case, we can say it counts as evidence support. Evidence is any e where P(h|e) is > P(h).

Granted the witness testimony doesn't add all that much confirmation and the prior probability is quite low, but on this definition of evidential support it qualifies. Witnesses saying they had some sort of physical contact with something plate like is expected given the faithful version events moreso than if it were to occur just randomly. So the theory has received a little bit of confirmation.

Now suppose we add in the comparative principle I mentioned in my first post. Are their any other hypotheses that better account for the witness testimony? I bet you say yes.

I'm going to disclose up front that my knowledge of Bayesian statistics is superficial. Given that, here's what this looks like to me.

I picked the Eight Witnesses as an example simply because Peterson singled out the "Book of Mormon witnesses" (which is already a question-begging term) in his blog post. You seem to be addressing a different point than what I was discussing. The Eight Witness' ability to determine that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and that the plates they saw appeared to be of ancient work is a different issue than the probability that the plates they were shown were in fact what Joseph Smith claimed them to be. The probability that the Eight Witnesses were qualified to make those determinations is zero. They did not have any knowledge or ability to research the plates that would make them competent to make those statements. If what they were shown were in fact ancient Nephite records, that's coincidental to their testimony. You're not looking at the odds that they knew what they were talking about; you're trying to guess what the odds are that Joseph Smith was telling the truth. It still comes down to whether Joseph Smith was right, which still means that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is irrelevant (because their personal knowledge doesn't factor into your analysis) and and lacks foundation (they couldn't have known whether Joseph Smith translated the plates and whether the plates were of ancient origin).

You're right that my discussion about foundation and relevance is similar to evidence in a legal setting, but I'm not suggesting that people should follow the Rules of Evidence in their daily lives. I'm talking about the reasoning behind rules that determine what a fact-finder can legitimately consider as evidence---whether that fact-finder is a member of a jury, a researcher, or a person shopping religions. So maybe the distinction between my post and yours is I'm talking about what data I'm willing to acknowledge as valid before we talk about the probability that the data mean something.

But I'm having a hard time seeing how P(h) is not arbitrary. How are you determining a base rate for ancient Hebrew civilizations in the Americas that wrote scriptures on golden plates that were buried in a hill and shown to a Yankee money-digger by an angel? Do we have known instances of such things so we can get a feel for how likely it is that Joseph Smith experienced it, too?

[_Darth J]

Because that was his identification. The statement itself does not testify they know he translated.

You don't know Joseph's heart. It could have been written with the intention of identification. there's no statement in it that says the witnesses testify he actually did translate ancient writings into english. Therefore there's nothing here but a testimony of them seeing the plates and giving a couple of impressions on them. The saying Joseph is translator is indentification.

The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.