DiscussMormonism.com

The big "Surprise" in Duane Boyce's recent contribution to the Review entitled, "Of Science, Scripture, and Surprise," is this. In the end, at the judgement bar, those who don't believe in God are going to be in for a big "surprise" when God shows them that they are wrong and also, liberal Mormons like Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum will be in for a big surprise when God tells them that they were wrong too, and that the apologists were right all along. His concluding line,

Boyce wrote:I believe they're the ones who are in for a surprise.

You can almost feel the righteous triumph over the coming plot twist of galactic proportions. Presumably, just before God pushes the red button and the trap door opens sending Stephens, Meldrum, Vogel, and countless other critics and liberal believers free falling into a fiery hell, these adversaries will know that they were wrong about some point the apologists think is important and that the apologists were right. And the apologists will know that these adversaries know this, thus fulfilling their joy.

Apologists, as we know, seem to have a thing for testifying about what the state critics and "liberals" will be in at the judgement bar. This reminds me of the lyrics to an old pop song by Depeche Mode, "...everyone's waiting for judgement day, so they can go told ya so!"

What greater vindication could a mortal have than to die and have her opinions championed by God himself at the expense of anyone who disagreed with her?

For Boyce, however, the fate of the critics is not without foreshadowing. Like any good movie, there is fair warning of the tables turning --- for those wise enough to pick up on the cues. And these cues comprise the bulk of his essay as a long-winded summary of the philosophy of science, from a quasi "postmodern" viewpoint of course. Those who realize science is flawed, will see the problems with evolution and other non TBM-friendly theories and be blessed. Those who don't, will be in for a "surprise" come judgement day.

Boyce summarizes Stephen Gould's 1433 page tomb, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, as a response to Stephens and Meldrum's rhetorical plea to be taken seriously in their book attempting to harmonize evolution and the gospel on account that in science, "there is no conspiracy . . . to suppress reasonable hypotheses". For Boyce, this is the Achilles heel of his reviewees, the loose thread that unravels their entire book. And so for a long while, prepare to hear all the details about the many priestcrafts of the academy.

There is a glarring flaw in Boyce's project right at the outset. Boyce, like many of those who rejoice over the "postmodern" view of science, has way, way too much confidence in the idea that conscientiousness about the philosophy of science is important for doing good science.

Boyce wrote:This is not an insignificant matter. To the extent that we know only the ideal, and assume that actual scientific practice is a perfect reflection of that ideal, we will be naïve about scientific disciplines.

Scientists are not necessarily great at understanding their work within the overall context of humanity and truth. More often than not, scientists oversimplify the philosophical intersections with what they do. Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and not to mention lesser popularizers like Carl Sagan, all report fairly simplistic philosophical ideas. I believe, they may all have (or had) a great investment in those simplistic ideas and offer them passionately, but whatever downful this constitutes, it hardly matters for their overall success. Success that Boyce nor any other apologist, nor myself will ever come close to touching. So there is a huge disconnect between Boyce's accusation that Stephens and Meldrum's philosophy of science is naïve -- which I'd probably agree with -- and their reliability as scientists. And it's very Gee-like to bludgen the point page after page in technical details or endless footnotes.

The next blunder of Boyce's surfaces in his cheap shot at Dan Vogel. After anouncing that one's simplistic philosophy of science will ruin one's ability to do good science, he reports,

Boyce wrote:It is then all too easy to actually become dogmatic and to adopt a level of certainty that is out of all proportion to our actual acquaintance with the evidence and with the internal logic of the claim in question.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in two recent biographies of Joseph Smith by Richard D. Anderson and Dan Vogel

That's right my friends, in a serious discussion about the philosophy of science, about the universal codifications of investigatory best practices, nowhere, nowhere in the history of science is there a better example of failure than in that (darned) Dan Vogel!

How small the universe of the apologist must be, Where God's greatest concern will be to show those liberal Mormons they were wrong at the judgement, and where the archtypical failure of scientific method is found in a Mormon critic.

And the specific criticism of Vogel is very bad, it's terribly self-contradicting. Recall, Boyce is here to put the question mark to the institution, the big, overblown popularity contest that believes in non brethren-approved ideas like evolution.

Boyce wrote:[vogel et al.]...rely heavily on the Freudian psychoanalytic tradition to justify their biographical speculations about the activities and motivations of the Prophet. Unfortunately, though worshipped by many for nearly half a century, for sound intellectual reasons Freud's psychoanalytic theory is passé today as a scientific program

Wow! Boyce sure is confident in taking the "institution's" fiat against psychoanalysis, something proven harmful to TBM ideals, but finds the establishment all of a sudden in self-serving fanasyland for not doing the same with evolution. By Boyce's own standards, Vogel is anything but taken by "Publication bias", "authority and stigma", or "authority and the bandwagon effect" -- some of the crimes he accuses science and science worship of -- since Vogal is taking up the controversial and unpopular theoretical framework of psychoanalysis. What an embarrassing oversight! His pot shot should be directed at a critic who toes the party line of mainstream science, not one who takes up controversial methods.

unfortunately, there isn't too much to tell after this. Boyce continues for page after page after page relating minutia about Stephen Jay Gould's plight against the establishment, Kuhn's revolutions, holism, and the whole list. Then he gets into the scriptures for a little while, and argues over Meldrum and Stephens's interpretations of them. Fascinatingly, the fact that we can debate the scriptures and morph them endlessly into whatever is want parallels the fact that virtually any philosophy of science could have been used in this article to dispute Stephens and Meldrum given a little creativity. I doubt there is any serious philosophy of science that could be used to vindicate Boyce's views over Stephens and Meldrum's.

In summary, the endless, dry desert of a summary of Gould is probably ok and the summary of phil science alright, whatever, but the ends it's put to fails like a bunt cake in a sticky pan.

Liberal non-apologist Mormons still have hope, if Boyce's criticisms are the best we have.





.

Boyce wrote:It is then all too easy to actually become dogmatic and to adopt a level of certainty that is out of all proportion to our actual acquaintance with the evidence and with the internal logic of the claim in question.

HOLY COW!

Has this guy never sat in on a Fast & Testimony meeting??

I agree that Vogel goes too far in some of his speculations, particularly when interpreting Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dreams, but his understanding of the philosophy of science isn't "simplistic". If you listen to Vogel debating Goff, for example, you'll find that Vogel uses the term "positivism" in its technical, philosophy-of-science sense, whereas Goff uses it in a popular, polemical sense invented by critics of science whose training is actually in the humanities. Yet Goff is so assured of his definition of positivism and of the appropriateness of that label for Vogel that he seems almost... well... positivist (if you'll forgive my temporary, tongue-in-cheek concession to the polemical postmodern use of the term). Your critique of Boyce along the same lines is apropos; he evidently invalidates psychoanalysis on the basis of little more than a scientific majority, yet criticizes the same certainty and the same grounds when they appear in defense of a view he does not like.

Similar problems recur everywhere that postmodern uncertainty is cited as an apologetic for religion-- and it is a tactic that is (tragically) increasing in popularity. These apologists refuse to apply their postmodern critique to their own views.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Boyce wrote:It is then all too easy to actually become dogmatic and to adopt a level of certainty that is out of all proportion to our actual acquaintance with the evidence and with the internal logic of the claim in question.

HOLY COW!

Has this guy never sat in on a Fast & Testimony meeting??

Yes, it's amazing. TBMs surely won't be in for a surprise.

CaliforniaKid wrote:..but his understanding of the philosophy of science isn't "simplistic". If you listen to Vogel debating Goff...

I agree, in fact, he owns both Goff and Christensen here.

he evidently invalidates psychoanalysis on the basis of little more than a scientific majority, yet criticizes the same certainty and the same grounds when they appear in defense of a view he does not like.

The apologists love to use the authority of the institution against critics. The senior apologists and some of the mid-tiers brag about their degrees and contrast themselves to critics who don't have the degrees, and are so thoroughly sure about the bleesings of the institution that they see the validation of their degrees to extend credibility deep into apologetic territory that has little to nothing to do with their real credentials. In fact, on the other thread, Dr. Peterson mentions Boyce's enviable training in the philosophy of science at Hawvard University.

There could not be a "collective" more proud of themselves for their great academic attainments than the apologists who ruitinely dismiss critics by noting their own authority, but then just at the points there is tension between their legacies as scholars and their religion of birth, the fine tooth comb and magnifying glass comes out to expose academic overconfidence, groupthink, demagoguery, and so on. You witnessed first hand Gee's challenges which were contrived to block anyone out of the gate for debating the Book of Abraham that isn't an Egyptologist. But then in Abracadabra... he presses the "Kuhn Switch" and ejects, calling into question the entire foundation of his practice when it isn't favorable for Joseph Smith.

One day Gadianton is going to be sorry he wrote that stuff.

A minor point,

since Vogal is taking up the controversial and unpopular theoretical framework of psychoanalysis. What an embarrassing oversight! His pot shot should be directed at a critic who toes the party line of mainstream science, not one who takes up controversial methods.

(bold mine)

Dan does not take up the theoretical framework of psychoanalysis and is not a fan of Freud.

Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, is based on Family Systems Theory.

~td~

FYI, If I recall correctlyInside the Mind of Joseph Smith, by Robert Anderson is the work based on psychoanalysis.

If any here wonder whether Gadianton Scratch has fairly or accurately represented Duane Boyce's essay -- the bits about Dr. Boyce's alleged lip-smacking glee at the thought of the damnation of the critics are especially striking, and, of course, quintessentially Scratchist -- are welcome to read it for themselves.

It's on line at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=725

Of course, it's more efficient to skip that reading and, based upon Gadianton Scratch's helpful summary, simply proceed to ritualized expressions of astonishment at the stupidity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and viciousness of The Apologists.

truth dancer wrote:A minor point,

since Vogal is taking up the controversial and unpopular theoretical framework of psychoanalysis. What an embarrassing oversight! His pot shot should be directed at a critic who toes the party line of mainstream science, not one who takes up controversial methods.

(bold mine)

Dan does not take up the theoretical framework of psychoanalysis and is not a fan of Freud.

Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, is based on Family Systems Theory.

~td~

FYI, If I recall correctlyInside the Mind of Joseph Smith, by Robert Anderson is the work based on psychoanalysis.

Thanks TD, if you are right here, that of course means Boyce really slipped up and should publically correct himself. For my argument, of course, what matters is that this is how Boyce perceives Vogal, and its against the grain of his greater argument.

DCP wrote:Of course, it's more efficient to skip that reading and, based upon Gadianton Scratch's helpful summary, simply proceed to ritualized expressions of astonishment at the stupidity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, arrogance, and viciousness of The Apologists.

Peterson's words, not mine folks. I would invite all of you to carefully consider Peterson's summary of my essay but also read what I actually say. I believe he is misrepresenting me pretty badly here.