Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

I think even Dr. Clark and Dr. Hansen would concede that Coe and Demarest Trump them in terms of authoritative voices in the field.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to get into with you, but Demarest and Coe are not nearly as "authoritative" in 2009 as you'd like to think.

In any case, the fact remains that Dr. Hansen is one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. He is considered perhaps the foremost current expert on the ancient Maya, hence his being asked to consult on the film. You and your buddies here can and will--as expected--dismiss his belief in the Book of Mormon as unrelated to his profession. I only know that he knows what he knows, and yet he still believes. And, to me, that says something about the possibilities that you fail to appreciate. It says that someone with a grasp on the "big picture" of ancient Mesoamerica can still find room in that picture for Nephites.

[_beastie]

I don't have the time nor the inclination to get into with you, but Demarest and Coe are not nearly as "authoritative" in 2009 as you'd like to think.

In any case, the fact remains that Dr. Hansen is one of the most highly respected archaeologists in the world today. He is considered perhaps the foremost current expert on the ancient Maya, hence his being asked to consult on the film. You and your buddies here can and will--as expected--dismiss his belief in the Book of Mormon as unrelated to his profession. I only know that he knows what he knows, and yet he still believes. And, to me, that says something about the possibilities that you fail to appreciate. It says that someone with a grasp on the "big picture" of ancient Mesoamerica can still find room in that picture for Nephites.

I note you ignore the fact that Dr. Clark clearly stated he's attempted to convince his colleagues that the Book of Mormon is Mesoamerican in origin.

As opposed to other scientists and scholars, whose minds are tabulae rasae, who simply stand before the world of objective facts without any preconceived notions and permit The Truth to speak through them unfiltered?

Both Dr. Clark and Dr. Hansen believe due to spiritual testimonies of the Book of Mormon. They don't consider that it "might" be true - they already "know" it's true due to spiritual affirmation. Then they work to find evidence that supports that "KNOWLEDGE".

Having sure knowledge, due to a method outside logic or science, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document is far different from scholars dealing with normal biases towards or against various theories.

Extremely intelligent, informed people can and do believe in theories that the rest of their colleagues find "eccentric", to use a kind term. EA just provided an example, and there are many others.

What would be persuasive in this is if Dr. Clark or Hansen had been able to convince their colleagues that there is good evidence to consider the Book of Mormon an ancient Mesoamerican document. Dr. Clark told us himself that he can't do that.

[_EAllusion]

I, for one, accept that it is possible that Dr. Hansen is a superintelligent being from the core of Mars who has come to enslave us all with his mind-illusion powers. I hope everyone else here does as well.

What is possible and what is rationally warranted are very different categories. Failing to find something reasonable is not the same as failing to appreciate what is logically possible.

[_Daniel Peterson]

beastie, your apparent notion that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, loyalties, preferences, ideology, tastes, enthusiasms, aversions, commitments, etc., or even that, if they have such, these play no significant role in what they do, is simply naïve.

Interestingly, by sheer chance, I was reading something just last night that argued, in passing, that it was the Marxism of Stephen Jay Gould and some of his fellow "punctuated equilibrium" advocates that smoothed the way for their revision of neo-Darwinism -- a nice illustration of the impact that an extraneous ideological commitment can have (and not always for ill) on a person's area of scientific or scholarly expertise.



.

[_EAllusion]

As opposed to other scientists and scholars, whose minds are tabulae rasae, who simply stand before the world of objective facts without any preconceived notions and permit The Truth to speak through them unfiltered?

The choices are not simply between thinking all personal bias is Ok in scientific practice and thought or thinking that one has a direct link to noumena free of all bias.

It's not uncommon for people to make an argument that goes, "Bias does and indee has to occur in science, therefore, I'm rationally free to be as biased as I want in interpreting evidence so it corresponds to prior held beliefs I have." Clearly, you don't want to make that argument. But you also don't seem to want to address what would be problematic about a statement that one must already believe a religious book is historical before being able to appreciate the secular evidence for it. All you seem to be able to put together is an implied strawman critique of what Seven is pointing out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

beastie, your apparent notion that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, loyalties, preferences, ideology, tastes, enthusiasms, aversions, commitments, etc., or even that, if they have such, these play no significant role in what they do, is simply naïve.

It seems to me that you're creating a straw man here. She can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Beastie was speaking to the *specific* case of Clark & et al. If your point was generally and widely true (as you seem to be implying), then we would expect religious-minded LDS doctors to rely primarily upon laying on of hands for healing. Your point implies that people are incapable of compartmentalization.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch, substance isn't your thing. Stick to what you know.

But you also don't seem to want to address what would be problematic about a statement that one must already believe a religious book is historical before being able to appreciate the secular evidence for it. All you seem to be able to put together is an implied strawman critique of what Seven is pointing out.

The whole enterprise of human thought is problematic. That's one of the crucial modern insights, overlooked, it seems, even by such great earlier thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and etc.

But I don't think it's a particularly wild observation to suggest that one has to seriously entertain a hypothesis/theory in order to have any likelihood of appreciating the evidence that might tend to support or illustrate it. And that, even so, different people will weigh the evidence differently, for reasons that may well be (almost certainly are) extrinsic to the evidence itself.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But you also don't seem to want to address what would be problematic about a statement that one must already believe a religious book is historical before being able to appreciate the secular evidence for it. All you seem to be able to put together is an implied strawman critique of what Seven is pointing out.

The whole enterprise of human thought is problematic. That's one of the crucial modern insights, overlooked, it seems, even by such great earlier thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and etc.

Your solution now is to condemn the "whole enterprise of human thought"? I suppose that it somewhat convenient, since it gives "inspired" thought a free pass.

But I don't think it's a particularly wild observation to suggest that one has to seriously entertain a hypothesis/theory in order to have any likelihood of appreciating the evidence that might tend to support or illustrate it.

Again: how does that address Beastie's point? A testimony---which, in this case, is what constitutes "serious entertainment" of the hypothesis/theory---is based on faith and personal revelation, and not on concrete, empirical evidence.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch, I appreciate your willingness to show up here as an illustration of the old, naïve notion of objectivity that, as I was just pointing out, has been rendered problematic over the past several decades. I don't know whether it's really your position, or simply a pose that you've assumed in order to make my point visible. But thanks.

[_EAllusion]

I just took a shower. Coincidentally, I was thinking about this discussion and imagining back to past interactions with other people who conflate having faith in something prior to seeing evidence with thinking through hypotheticals. Good times.

There is a difference between hypothetically imagining if something were true what the logical consequences would be and actively believing that thing to be true. There of course is nothing wrong with the former. It's an important component of reasoning with evidence. Clark's statement quite clearly is the latter. If he meant the former, then he communicated without clarity.

And that, even so, different people will weigh the evidence differently, for reasons that may well be (almost certainly are) extrinsic to the evidence itself.

[/quote]Again, this assertion is trivial in the context of what Beastie is saying. This fact doesn't make all criteria for rational assessment equivalent.