FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_cksalmon]

I emailed the Maxwell Institute re: the controversial item in the OP's Q&A.

My prediction: if you receive an answer, it will dismiss the problem as a "tempest in a teapot" and insist there is plenty of other supporting evidence besides. :O

My prediction, based on the testimony of Tarski, is that I will get no response whatsoever. I do want to go unequivocally on record that I did email the Institute requesting documentation supportive of this claim. I will post both my original email and any response I receive here.

One would think that, if documentary evidence exists, then the Maxwell Institute would be more than happy to provide it. I hope to receive a response, but I don't think it likely.

Perhaps no response is deemed better than, "Whoops! Our bad."

I dunno.

Best.

CKS

[_cksalmon]

For anyone who is interested in this issue...

I'd suggest an email campaign.

Go to the Maxwell Institute's "contact" page and ask for clarification/documentation of this claim. Let the Maxwell reader know that you plan to post the response on an (anti)LDS-themed MB (i.e., MDB) and, if you're able, on an LDS apologetics MB (i.e., MADB).

Let him or her know that you want the truth of this claim to be validated or removed from the website. Perhaps the folks at the Maxwell Institute might feel comfortable ignoring a couple stray emails requesting references, but, then again, perhaps they might feel duty-bound to provide some sort of response to multiple emailers. Especially if they know that you plan to post their hypothetical lack of response on MADB.

I'm going to give it two weeks (14 days from the date of my email), personally. I hope some response will be forthcoming within that time. Past that, I will conclude that the folks there, well-meaning as they may be, do not wish to provide any sort of documentation of this claim. I'll post the exchange (or lack thereof) then.

Best.

CKS

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.

You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.

That's unfortunate.

[_enigm0]

Drop a note to the Institute. The people in the office will route your inquiry to the appropriate person. If you're not satisfied with the person they choose, you can contact them again. Simple.

Why are you dodging my questions, Prof. P? Who is in charge of the content at the website? Why won't you answer that question?

Why is it so burningly important to you to have a specific name? So that you can drag him or her through the usual mud?

There is no one person responsible for content. But the person most obviously responsible is the person who wrote the paragraph to which you object. I don't know who that was. I've supplied a guess, but I can't guarantee that I'm right.

Contact them and ask.

In the meantime, you can pester me here with a couple of dozen idiotic posts. But the Maxwell Institute office won't open before 8 AM (Utah time) on Monday, no matter how many such things you write here.

This sounds a lot like an old thread on ZLMB discussing one of the church periodicals(new era?) printing the gold plates were "solid gold"....we tried to get an answer from the editorial crew as to who actually wrote it, but had no luck. They were tight-lipped like our pal, freethinker. I do enjoy seeing freethinker distancing himself from that bogus horse claim though. Wonder how long they will keep that horse s*** up.

e-0

[_Daniel Peterson]

I do enjoy seeing freethinker distancing himself from that bogus horse claim though.

I've said nothing about its truth or falsity. I've merely said that I have nothing to do with it at any level.

[_Tarski]

I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.

You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.

That's unfortunate.

Yeh, lets just give them another chance to respond in an appropriate way (one that leave no doubt about the existence of a scientifically significant find of the type indicated)

I suggest no email campaign.

Of course, remember, there remains also the fact that the blurb mentions reassuringly, in another sentence, that horses existed in the Americas and this without mentioning the all important question of the time frame which is somewhat deceptive.
Why? Well just watch how many who read stuff like that given by Jeff Lindsay et. al. don't even realize there is a time frame issue. They walk around thinking that Pleistocene horses are an answer to the critics.

That part of the blurb is bad no matter what.

[_enigm0]

I do enjoy seeing freethinker distancing himself from that bogus horse claim though.

I've said nothing about its truth or falsity. I've merely said that I have nothing to do with it at any level.

Do you have an opinion on the claim? If so, what is your opinion?

e-0

[_enigm0]

I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.

You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.

That's unfortunate.

I think it's fair to wait a couple days for a reply and also fair that DCP offered to ask for a reply himself if one is not given via email. I get the feeling the reply will be well worth the wait.

e-0

[_cksalmon]

I'm disappointed in this suggestion, cks.

You're slipping into the all-too-common mindset here that "Mopologists" are dishonest.

That's unfortunate.

Hi Dan--

No, I don't believe that "mopologists" are inherently (or even by external historical necessity) dishonest. I don't think that, frankly. I just don't.

You might be getting that from the F. Michael Watson reference. I just thought that was sort of funny. And not true (as I hope I made clear).

You suggested earlier (if I'm remembering correctly) that, if someone at the Maxwell Institute hadn't responded to an email request within a reasonable amount of time (and I think you suggested that such would be a day or so), then you'd put the request to someone personally.

I think that, in light of that, 14 days (two weeks) is quite a reasonable amount of time within which to expect some sort of response.

That doesn't mean I distrust "mopologists." At a very fundamental level, I share a common worldview with LDS: i.e., immanent theism. It just means that I'd like to have some sort of (at least) potential access to the material to which the responder to this particular Q&A has access. Admittedly, that is a partisan concern on my part.

I do hope to have some response. I will gladly and forthrightly post any and all responses I receive from the Maxwell Institute on this issue. Whether or not said responses support my own personal worldview is, to my mind, utterly inconsequential to an honest relaying of material fact(s).

Mine is a sincere request for information. Not an indulgence in "gotcha-ism."

Such is the confusion of MB's. I'm on your side, in some ways. And I'm on the side of LDS critics in others. ?

Best.

CKS

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that, in light of that, 14 days (two weeks) is quite a reasonable amount of time within which to expect some sort of response.

I've already sent a question to them (after closing time this evening, I'm afraid) asking what gives. Maybe the system isn't working. I don't know.