DiscussMormonism.com

hagoth7 wrote:

grindael wrote:...What Dan lays out here is exactly what you are trying to do. I don't buy it. You lost the argument, now you want to try and smear the person that won it.

?!
1. As to losing the "argument", the part of the discussion I conceded to was that the Nauvoo Legion was more heavily armed after surrendering their state arms than I had previously thought. I actually appreciate the correction on that. That part of the discussion, though, is somewhat of a tangent.

2. The "argument", or discussion, is not "lost." It is just started. The main point of the discussion (at least where I entered into it back on May 11th) was Just Me's dual assertion that (i) Joseph hoped to be rescued by the Nauvoo Legion at Carthage Jail, and (ii) Joseph didn't believe he was going to die. I disagree with both of those assertions, and provided some initial evidence for consideration to explain why I disagree with Just Me.

3. I have absolutely no desire to "smear" you, and I apologize if you feel that's somehow what I've unintentionally done. I simply believe that everyone forms bias or partiality, at least to some degree along the way, because different people choose to give different weight to different scraps of evidence. So I don't buy into the assertion that the evidence somehow speaks for itself, because assessing and weighing evidence involves flawed human interpretation of some sort. I am convinced that flawed humans (which includes everyone) can interpret the same evidence differently without having to resort to calling one another names.

Yes, sure. And this ^^^^ was more important to you than answering the evidence I just presented.

Your "initial evidence" was wrong about the Nauvoo Legion and its arms, it is wrong about Jo prophesying that he was going to die at Carthage (based on his earlier statements which flipflopped all over the place, (and his contemporary letters which showed he did NOT think so - you only have after the fact statements which prove little) and the only thing we agree on is the letter to Dunham, which I wasn't even arguing. Your "evidence" for Jo being rescued was that the Legion would not have been able to, which was wrong. Was it still a possibility? Yes, and likely that Jo made that kind of overture, because based on the actual evidence, Jo DID NOT believe he was going to die at Carthage. Like I said, he may have come to that conclusion at the very last, and that would have been when he sent out a message for a rescue. Jo even in his last dying moments gave the Masonic distress sign, indicating that he wanted to be rescued even then.

hagoth7 wrote:
3. I have absolutely no desire to "smear" you, and I apologize if you feel that's somehow what I've unintentionally done. I simply believe that everyone forms bias or partiality, at least to some degree along the way, because different people choose to give different weight to different scraps of evidence. So I don't buy into the assertion that the evidence somehow speaks for itself, because assessing and weighing evidence involves flawed human interpretation of some sort. I am convinced that flawed humans (which includes everyone) can interpret the same evidence differently without having to resort to calling one another names.

According to Google:

"bi·as
/ˈbīəs/
Noun
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Verb
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

You are claiming one thing, that everyone is "biased", or that everyone goes around being prejudiced in an UNFAIR way, yet you haven't proved that at all in my case. Please EXPLAIN how I'm biased. Can you even do that? You are working on assumptions that because YOU claim to be, that everyone else is. That's just BS. For example, for years I was a Republican. Then, after George Bush I, I became a Democrat. It was based on policy and what the parties did and what they stood for. In 2000, I switched again and voted for Bush II, which, looking back was a mistake, but I wan't a big fan of Al Gore. But it was based on what evidence I had at the time, not just blind prejudice or bias. This is how I approach everything in my life. My wife is black. My father was a racist. I understand bias, and I'm telling you that you making such a blanket assumption about people is 100% wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. And then shifting the argument after someone denies bias to them claiming to be 100% objective is a red herring. I've had many discussions with Mormon Historians, and have changed my opinion about a lot of things I had theories about. To call someone biased (prejudiced in a bad way) is smearing them. That you can't understand this, just makes my point. And yes, the evidence always speaks for itself. Always. If you have a problem with how someone interprets it, it is up to you do show EVIDENCE to the contrary, (or that they are actually biased) not claim that "everyone is biased."

grindael wrote:...What Dan lays out here is exactly what you are trying to do. I don't buy it. You lost the argument, now you want to try and smear the person that won it.

hagoth7 wrote:?!
1. As to losing the "argument", the part of the discussion I conceded to was that the Nauvoo Legion was more heavily armed after surrendering their state arms than I had previously thought. I actually appreciate the correction on that. That part of the discussion, though, is somewhat of a tangent.

2. The "argument", or discussion, is not "lost." It is just started. The main point of the discussion (at least where I entered into it back on May 11th) was Just Me's dual assertion that (i) Joseph hoped to be rescued by the Nauvoo Legion at Carthage Jail, and (ii) Joseph didn't believe he was going to die. I disagree with both of those assertions, and provided some initial evidence for consideration to explain why I disagree with Just Me.

3. I have absolutely no desire to "smear" you, and I apologize if you feel that's somehow what I've unintentionally done....

grindael wrote:Yes, sure. And this ^^^^ was more important to you than answering the evidence I just presented.

Answering your first post from yesterday wasn't more important. I was was simply replying to your comments in the order you posted them. Patience please. And it certainly wasn't "^^^^", at least not in my opinion.

In response to your second post yesterday, I've read and considered it carefully, and I concede that if you're representing the record accurately, which you appear to be, Joseph may actually not have been aware he was going to die at Carthage. Which raises an eyebrow about several of the accounts claiming otherwise that were written after the fact.

With that, the discussion of whether Joseph was expecting to be rescued by the Nauvoo Legion becomes a moot point.

grindael wrote:According to Google:

"bi·as
/ˈbīəs/
Noun
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Verb
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

You are claiming one thing, that everyone is "biased"

By claiming everyone is biased, I simply mean that everyone is biased to some degree. I could be wrong, but that is what I suspect to be the case.
(Even you backpedaled at being 100% objective.) I think we're saying the same thing, but are just tripping up a bit on word meanings.

For example, when you said you weren't biased, I looked up what "unbiased" meant, and also a thesaurus for synonyms for "unbiased", and "objective" was listed, which was the basis for my first reply on that matter. So I'm simply saying that I believe people are somewhere on a scale from biased to objective/unbiased, with some being more biased than others, and others being more objective than others, but that everyone has some degree of bias. (Meaning that, in my opinion, no one is 100% objective.)

grindael wrote:Please EXPLAIN how I'm biased. Can you even do that? You are working on assumptions that because YOU claim to be, that everyone else is.

Does the explanation above illustrate what I mean in a way that perhaps removes the unintended offense?

grindael wrote:I've had many discussions with Mormon Historians, and have changed my opinion about a lot of things I had theories about.

I hear you. I've had similar discussion with people of differing beliefs which have impacted my own opinions, interpretations, and beliefs. And, as you have seen, I have changed my opinion in short order on two issues in this thread alone (while still admitting that I had some preexisting bias). That demonstrates that I can exercise at least some degree of objective judgment, even with such bias. (Having previous theories about something, which you describe, is, in my opinion, a form of bias - or prejudice). Yet you were able to be objective enough in those discussions to overcome whatever degree of bias you previously had.

At least that's my take on things. I hope that better explains where I was coming from.

grindael wrote:To call someone biased (prejudiced in a bad way) is smearing them. That you can't understand this, just makes my point.

Perhaps, after considering the above, you might see that I had zero intention of smearing you. You just happen to see bias as an insult, where I don't. Your selected definition said bias was "usually...unfair". But usually is not always. I see bias simply as part of human nature which we all need to work through.

grindael wrote:And yes, the evidence always speaks for itself. Always. If you have a problem with how someone interprets it, it is up to you do show EVIDENCE to the contrary, (or that they are actually biased) not claim that "everyone is biased."

OK, for starters, here are two examples, both from Stanford, about how bias and objectivity are at odds, from the perspective of memory, eyewitness testimony, and the interpretation of historical events:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm (and the historical documents we read are often based on such eyewitness accounts).

"Expert testimony may not be helpful. Indeed, since the very act of forming a memory creates distortion, how can anyone uncover the "truth" behind a person’s statements? Perhaps it is the terrible truth that in many cases we are simply not capable of determining what happened, yet are duty-bound to so determine....As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony."

The whole document is pretty short, but that sums up the inherent flaws of human memory and human interpretation.

Another more relevant read from a Stanford publication:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HisObj

"To refer to the “Taiping Rebellion” requires an act of synthesis of a large number of historical facts, along with an interpretive story that draws these facts together in this way rather than that way. The underlying facts of behavior, and their historical traces, remain; but the knitting-together of these facts into a large historical event does not constitute an objective historical entity."

(Emphasis added.)

hagoth7 wrote:By claiming everyone is biased, I simply mean that everyone is biased to some degree. I could be wrong, but that is what I suspect to be the case.

(Even you backpedaled at being 100% objective.) I think we're saying the same thing, but are just tripping up a bit on word meanings.

Um, I didn’t backpedal about anything. YOU claimed that I claimed to be 100% objective. I never said that. For example, if someone murdered my wife, I could conceivably not be as objective towards them, as I would be if it were someone else. That is why people recuse themselves from cases. But this is apples and oranges. Bias is an UNFAIR prejudice. If the man actually did murder my wife (proved by DNA, etc) I would not be BIASED, since it was the truth, and that would not be UNFAIR, but I sure might not be 100% objective about it if I were in charge of doling out this person's punishment. You have inserted this red herring into the argument, not me.

Again, you have to PROVE that everyone is biased “to some degree”. What degree? What circumstances? What I am asserting is that your argument in this case is flawed.

hagoth7 wrote:For example, when you said you weren't biased, I looked up what "unbiased" meant, and also a thesaurus for synonyms for "unbiased", and "objective" was listed, which was the basis for my first reply on that matter. So I'm simply saying that I believe people are somewhere on a scale from biased to objective/unbiased, with some being more biased than others, and others being more objective than others, but that everyone has some degree of bias. (Meaning that, in my opinion, no one is 100% objective.)

I notice you don’t actually quote what unbiased means. Here it is, “showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.” Impartial means, “not partial or biased; fair; just:”

That is what I am claiming to be, FAIR. It says nothing about being 100% objective. Using the available evidence to make an impartial determination of events is being FAIR. The burden is on you to show how I am not doing this. Again, to claim everyone is biased is 100% wrong, because you have to show exact circumstances of how that is. Can you in my case? I don’t think so. You are taking a BROAD term and trying to apply it to everyone in all circumstances. This is a red herring argument and slander, if it is not true, (calling someone unfairly prejudiced when they are not) and you should be careful when applying it to ANYONE.

hagoth7 wrote:]Does the explanation above illustrate what I mean in a way that perhaps removes the unintended offense?

No. Because it is based on something YOU claimed about me, not what I actually said.

hagoth7 wrote:I hear you. I've had similar discussion with people of differing beliefs which have impacted my own opinions, interpretations, and beliefs. And, as you have seen, I have changed my opinion in short order on two issues in this thread alone (while still admitting that I had some preexisting bias). That demonstrates that I can exercise at least some degree of objective judgment, even with such bias. (Having previous theories about something, which you describe, is, in my opinion, a form of bias - or prejudice). Yet you were able to be objective enough in those discussions to overcome whatever degree of bias you previously had.

I didn’t have any “previous bias”. You can have “opinions, interpretations and beliefs” without being UNFAIRLY prejudiced. That is what bias is.

That is what I’m claiming and that is borne out through the evidence. How exactly did I “overcome” the bias you claim that I have? What was that bias? Do you have evidence that I was “previously biased”? If so, where is it? Are you psychic, or are you just throwing crap out there to see if it sticks to something?

I’m sorry that you have bias and happy you can overcome it. But please, don’t put your problems on others, especially me. If you want to claim that someone has bias, have the argument first, (or good reasons to say so) and then make your claim based on what they say or have said. This is the correct way to approach this, not claiming right off the bat that everyone has bias about everything. This is not true at all, and you claimed this to try and defend the Prices, who I believe (based on the evidence) are indefensible. They want to blame EVERYTHING on John C. Bennett. If Bennett was “under close investigation” in 1841, why did Jo make him an Assistant President of the Church in April, 1841? As Thomas Ford wrote,

This Bennett was probably the greatest scamp in the western country. I have made particular enquiries concerning him, and have traced him in several places in which he lived before he joined the Mormons, in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and he was everywhere accounted the same debauched, unprincipled, profligate character. He was a man of some little talent, and in 1840-1841 had the confidence of the Mormons, and particularly that of their leaders. (Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois, Chicago, 1854, 263).

This is exactly true. It was not until Bennett started using Jo’s own teachings to accomplish his debauchery that Jo became concerned, because he linked them to Jo himself (rightly so). Even William Smith did the same and he was a chosen “apostle”.

The Prices don’t even mention the problems with William Smith being in the 1842 affidavits as one of those propagating the same doctrines that Bennett taught based on Jo’s teachings.

hagoth7 wrote:Perhaps, after considering the above, you might see that I had zero intention of smearing you. You just happen to see bias as an insult, where I don't. Your selected definition said bias was "usually...unfair". But usually is not always. I see bias simply as part of human nature which we all need to work through.

Where is bias NOT unfair? If you meant it in some other way, why bring it up at all? This is from wiki,

“Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.”

It gets bandied about way too much in terms of generality, usually by Mormon Apologists or those that are losing an argument. I claimed that the Price’s were biased because they actually are. They present partial, one sided arguments and their perspective is skewed towards one outcome that Joseph did not practice spiritual wifeism, when the evidence is overwhelming that he did.

Murder is also part of human nature, but I’m not a murderer. Are you? So would you ever claim that everyone has a penchant to be one and has to overcome it every day in every situation? You wouldn’t. That is why our justice system goes by the tenant of “innocent until proven guilty”. And still, they put people on death row that are innocent because of unfair prejudice and other reasons that NOT EVERYONE has.

hagoth7 wrote:OK, for starters, here are two examples, both from Stanford, about how bias and objectivity are at odds, from the perspective of memory, eyewitness testimony, and the interpretation of historical events:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm (and the historical documents we read are often based on such eyewitness accounts).

That is why YOUR argument was flawed. My argument was based on what actually happened, the count of arms, the actual newspaper reports that showed that the disbanding of the Legion was published on the 24th, and Joseph’s actual letters that he dictated and his actual recorded statements that were made long before he died. I only see you digging a bigger hole here for yourself, not me.

hagoth7 wrote:The whole document is pretty short, but that sums up the inherent flaws of human memory and human interpretation.

Which doesn’t apply to my argument. Sorry but this is really another red herring.

hagoth7 wrote:To refer to the “Taiping Rebellion” requires an act of synthesis of a large number of historical facts, along with an interpretive story that draws these facts together in this way rather than that way. The underlying facts of behavior, and their historical traces, remain; but the knitting-together of these facts into a large historical event does not constitute an objective historical entity."

This is another red herring, because this is not what we are doing here. I’m not speaking about the causes of wars, or economic problems, or trends in human achievement. If I were speaking about Jo’s MOTIVES for his theology, for example, as some do, it would be a more difficult argument to present. That might pose a problem with the evidence that may cause others to disagree with the “interpretive story” that of necessity would have to be presented, because Jo is dead. But once again, even in that instance to claim bias would be to show that one is skewing the evidence in favor of a narrative that the author is manipulating the evidence to achieve. That is OBVIOUS in the Price’s work.

I did not employ an “interpretive story” in this case. I quoted actual documents that showed exactly what transpired. That “interpretation” speaks for itself, or you would not be conceding the argument as you have done. They also claim in that article that,

“There is such a thing as historical objectivity, in the sense that historians are capable of engaging in good-faith interrogation of the evidence in constructing their theories of the past.”

Please show exactly how I have not done this.

grindael wrote:...YOU claimed that I claimed to be 100% objective. I never said that.

Fair enough. So then I'm curious. Why then do you recoil at the suggestion of having even some bias? In your own self-appraisal, do you consider yourself completely objective? If not, why all the extensive objection to the idea of having any bias?

grindael wrote:For example, if someone murdered my wife, I could conceivably not be as objective towards them, as I would be if it were someone else. That is why people recuse themselves from cases. But this is apples and oranges. Bias is an UNFAIR prejudice.

Again, if you look at the definition you provided, it merely said that bias was "usually" unfair. That means not always. So within your definition, one can actually have bias without necessarily being unfair. Wouldn't you agree? I certainly didn't have "unfair" in mind when I initially used the word.

grindael wrote:Again, you have to PROVE that everyone is biased “to some degree”. What degree? What circumstances? What I am asserting is that your argument in this case is flawed.

I stand by my statement. Even your interpretation above appears to show a little bias, by repeatedly glossing over the "usually" in the definition you provided, and showing an inclination to lean towards the most negative possible meaning of the word "bias". Again, one can exhibit a little bias without being unfair. You're repeatedly interpreting my earliest statement to mean I was calling you unfair, slandering you, or insulting you. I was doing nothing of the kind, if you actually consider what I'm saying about "bias".

hagoth7 wrote:For example, when you said you weren't biased, I looked up what "unbiased" meant, and also a thesaurus for synonyms for "unbiased", and "objective" was listed, which was the basis for my first reply on that matter. So I'm simply saying that I believe people are somewhere on a scale from biased to objective/unbiased, with some being more biased than others, and others being more objective than others, but that everyone has some degree of bias. (Meaning that, in my opinion, no one is 100% objective.)

grindael wrote:I notice you don’t actually quote what unbiased means. Here it is, “showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.” Impartial means, “not partial or biased; fair; just:”

OK. And again, I don't think people are fully one or the other. (For the record, based on what I've read of your posts so far, I am of the opinion that you tend to be far on the objective side of the scale.) Again, I don't see the ongoing need to take offense, if that is what is happening here. No offense was intended.

That is what I am claiming to be, FAIR.

And that is largely what you appear to be, based on what I've read so far.

It says nothing about being 100% objective.

"Biased" and "objective" are simply two opposing traits. People can (and I believe do) exhibit a blend of both.
Being happy doesn't necessarily mean you have no sadness in your life.
Driving fast doesn't mean you're not going slow in comparison to others.
Many such definitions are relative, and/or can be on a sliding scale.

Using the available evidence to make an impartial determination of events is being FAIR.

Using the available evidence is a fair way to approach the events in question. But that doesn't mean every determination of those events will be impartial.

Again, to claim everyone is biased is 100% wrong...

Feel free to object. I think it's simply an encouragement for everyone to be a little more humble, myself included, about preconceptions and potential blind spots.

grindael wrote:...because you have to show exact circumstances of how that is. Can you in my case?...Do you have evidence that I was “previously biased”?...

Sure. You said you had prior opinions. Or, in your own words, "I've had many discussions with Mormon Historians, and have changed my opinion about a lot of things I had theories about."

Those prior opinions, by definition, are one form of bias. A synonym of bias, according to the dictionary is preconception. And also according to the dictionary, preconception = "an idea or opinion formed beforehand." Prior opinions are then, by their very definition, a form of bias. To be fair then, does your own testimony, combined with a dictionary of the English language, suffice for acceptable evidence to demonstrate that you were "previously biased"?

As a potential second form of bias, you have repeatedly sought to reinforce your preconception (which is a bias) that "bias" must somehow be an insult or slander (when it's actually not necessarily so, if you choose to consider the English definitions of bias and its synonyms, and if you choose to accept my claim to having no intent to insult you).

grindael wrote: You are taking a BROAD term and trying to apply it to everyone in all circumstances. This is a red herring argument and slander, if it is not true, (calling someone unfairly prejudiced when they are not) and you should be careful when applying it to ANYONE.

Again, you're choosing to use the word "unfairly." May we please remove that word from the discussion? If you could do that, we would be in general agreement. As I have said and demonstrated above, I don't typically equate bias with being unfair.

grindael wrote:I didn’t have any “previous bias”.

I respectfully beg to differ. As I have demonstrated by a simple appeal to the English language/dictionary, prior opinions or preconceptions are a form of bias.

grindael wrote:You can have “opinions, interpretations and beliefs” without being UNFAIRLY prejudiced. That is what bias is.

Again, please remove the emphasis on "unfairly", and we might get closer to understanding one another.
Having opinions, interpretations, and beliefs, is a form of prejudice, or bias. Whether one is unfair in dealing with such preconceptions is a separate matter.

grindael wrote:I’m sorry that you have bias and happy you can overcome it.

I actually consider that I and everyone else deals with bias on an ongoing basis. Unless you think people are somehow blank slates without preconceptions or initial opinions of any kind.

grindael wrote:But please, don’t put your problems on others, especially me. If you want to claim that someone has bias, have the argument first, (or good reasons to say so) and then make your claim based on what they say or have said. This is the correct way to approach this

Does the above content help any?

grindael wrote:...and you claimed this to try and defend the Prices, who I believe (based on the evidence) are indefensible. They want to blame EVERYTHING on John C. Bennett.

Whatever you think of the Prices, I happen to think the combined assertions of LDS, Strangeites, and other Mormon factions, (plus, as you mentioned, even Gov. Ford's assertions) provide a glimpse into Bennett's character.

(If you think that I was instead attempting to defend the Prices, you've completely misunderstood the context of my statements.)

Likewise, I believe the eyewitness testimony of various Mormon groups, plus that of the neighboring Swedish Bishop Hill settlement, to offer a corroborating glimpse into the character of Dr. Foster. When independent parties agree in general about the character of a person, it suggests a likely pattern for consideration.

If Bennett was “under close investigation” in 1841, why did Jo make him an Assistant President of the Church in April, 1841?

Great question. I've read somewhat about this, and have come to the tentative conclusion that despite Bennett's flaws, he had abilities and experience that Joseph could put to use, including getting the Nauvoo charter approved by the Illinois state legislature.

From everything I've read so far, Bennett's brief role as Assistant President was limited to secular and administrative duties. (Please speak up if you have come across anything to the contrary.) As to choosing people of questionable character, Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve, and I don't hear other Christians criticizing that decision.

As Thomas Ford wrote, This Bennett was probably the greatest scamp in the western country. I have made particular enquiries concerning him, and have traced him in several places in which he lived before he joined the Mormons, in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and he was everywhere accounted the same debauched, unprincipled, profligate character. He was a man of some little talent, and in 1840-1841 had the confidence of the Mormons, and particularly that of their leaders. (Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois, Chicago, 1854, 263).

Yes, I read Ford's book years ago.

Perhaps, after considering the above, you might see that I had zero intention of smearing you. You just happen to see bias as an insult, where I don't. Your own selected definition said bias was "usually...unfair". "Usually" also means not always. So by definition, one can be biased without necessarily being unfair. For whatever reason, you seem to repeatedly prefer to emphasize the most negative possible meanings of the word bias. I didn't (and don't) have those negative connotations in mind when using that word. So please drop the bias or inclination towards assuming the worst in the word "bias".

grindael wrote:Where is bias NOT unfair?

See the above.

grindael wrote:If you meant it in some other way, why bring it up at all?

Again, see the above. Admitting to bias on any issue is, in my opinion, a form of humility. It can be a first step to overcoming it.

grindael wrote:This is from wiki,
“Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.”

I respectfully suggest, if you don't mind, that we use a standard dictionary instead. But note that even in your choice of wiki, they use the word "often" twice. This word agrees overall with what I was saying about the overlooked word "usually" in your earlier-provided definition. "Often" doesn't mean always. "Usually" doesn't mean always either. Again, based on both of the definitions you cited, one can have bias without having the most negative connotations that are sometimes attached to the word.

grindael wrote:It gets bandied about way too much in terms of generality, usually by Mormon Apologists or those that are losing an argument.

For the record, I don't resent you at all for showing me where my previous opinions were wrong. Let the record also stand that I even thanked you for the correction. So please don't think that I view that outcome of this discussion as "losing" in any way. I have gained, and I appreciate your help with that. Why then, if I truly feel that way, would I go and deal a cheap shot of an insult in your direction? I wouldn't and I didn't. You have simply chosen to interpret it as an intentional insult, smear, or slander. Please don't interpret it that way.

grindael wrote:Murder is also part of human nature...

That is news to me. But having opinions is quite typical of human nature. You've just stated an opinion. As have I. (Opinions are preconceptions, which are a form of bias.)

grindael wrote:...but I’m not a murderer. Are you?

No.

grindael wrote:So would you ever claim that everyone has a penchant to be one and has to overcome it every day in every situation? You wouldn’t.

No, I wouldn't. Because I'm not convinced murder is human nature. I've certainly never had the desire or inclination to kill someone. I suspect such a thing is relatively rare, or murder would be much more common than it actually is.

grindael wrote:I did not employ an “interpretive story” in this case. I quoted actual documents that showed exactly what transpired. That “interpretation” speaks for itself, or you would not be conceding the argument as you have done.

Claiming to have no bias, is quite a separate matter from asserting that there was any supposed attempt to discredit what you documented here. You're apparently assuming the latter is the case, when it is not.

grindael wrote: They also claim in that article that, “There is such a thing as historical objectivity, in the sense that historians are capable of engaging in good-faith interrogation of the evidence in constructing their theories of the past.”

You left out the following sentences in that paragraph, sentences which qualified the context of your preferred statement: "But this should not be understood to imply that there is one uniquely true interpretation of historical processes and events. Rather, there is a perfectly ordinary sense in which historical interpretations are underdetermined by the facts, and there are multiple legitimate historical questions to pose about the same body of evidence. Historical narratives have a substantial interpretive component, and involve substantial construction of the past."
(Underdertermined means not "having...enough constraints to specify a unique solution".) What this all means is that more than one supportable conclusion can be reached from examining the same evidence, and such an outcome is, as they say, "perfectly ordinary."

Likewise, in this thread, we both appeal to the dictionary, and we have come out with more than one supportable conclusion, from that evidence, as to the definition for "bias". Your conclusion is skewed, or biased, towards a more negative connotation for that word. Mine is skewed, or biased, towards a more benign connotation. You're welcome to your own conclusion. I prefer mine.

grindael wrote:Please show exactly how I have not done this.

I haven't nitpicked your approach to the evidence, if that's what you're thinking. I have simply both asserted, and then demonstrated with your own testimony, that you elsewhere actually admitted to having bias (previous opinions), without you even realizing it was a form of bias. Having bias is not necessarily the dreaded bugaboo you prefer to believe it is. Again, preconceptions and prior opinions are, by definition, bias. It's not that big of a deal. So please stop being offended where no offense was intended. It is neither slander nor an insult. But if you prefer to continue taking offense, where absolutely none was intended, there's not much more I can do. I sincerely hope that's not the outcome here.

Regards.

hagoth7 wrote:I respectfully suggest, if you don't mind, that we use a standard dictionary instead. But note that even in your choice of wiki, they use the word "often" twice. This word agrees overall with what I was saying about the overlooked word "usually" in your earlier-provided definition. "Often" doesn't mean always. "Usually" doesn't mean always either. Again, based on both of the definitions you cited, one can have bias without having the most negative connotations that are sometimes attached to the word.

You are wrong again. Here are the definitions from the top 6 or so of Google (And I did quote a Standard Dictionary above):

1. a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography; our strong bias in favor of the idea.

2. unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice: accusations of racial bias. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias (this was the definition I quoted here: viewtopic.php?p=892883#p892883)

There is no “usually” in this definition. That definition I quoted came from an article on bias, but it appears that it is not in any dictionary that I could find. Here are more:

***********
b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
c : an instance of such prejudice http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
********************
Use the noun bias to mean a preference for one thing over another, especially an unfair one.

Some biases are completely innocent: "I have a bias toward French wines." But most often, bias is used to describe unfair prejudices: "The authorities investigated a case involving bias against Latinos." It is also a verb meaning "to show prejudice for or against," as in "They claimed the tests were biased against women." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bias
*************************

C2 [C usually singular, U] the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment:

The senator has accused the media of bias. [unfairly because not all are] Reporters must be impartial and not show political bias. [because not all do] There was clear evidence of a strong bias against her. [prejudice] There has always been a slight bias in favour of/towards employing liberal arts graduates in the company. [slight UNFAIR favor of one over others]

*************************

The only time bias is not meant in a derogatory way, is when you have a bias towards something you like, like food or drink, etc. In other connotations, it is used NEGATIVELY. In your connotation, it was used negatively. If not, then why then did you claim I had to “overcome” my bias, if it was not something that was detrimental? You are trying to squirm out of what you said, but you can’t. The fact is, you meant it in a negative way, because that was the context of the discussion and your comments to me.

I wrote, “Your source is notoriously biased to the point of disingenuousness.” And your reply was “And YOUR [sic] BIASED, and SO AM I. That doesn’t mean that what they, you, or I say is untrue.” No, it doesn’t, but it taints their work in a bad way, because that kind of bias is the negative kind. Your later backpedaling makes no sense in the context of the argument. In the case of the Prices, it does affect the truth, because they use their bias to try and blame everything on Bennett and exonerate Joseph of all of it. You then later wrote,

“Yet you were able to be objective enough [as if I were unobjective before - negative] in those discussions to overcome whatever degree of bias you previously had.” In other words I was able to change my flawed objectivity to overcome whatever degree of unfair prejudice I previously had.

How is this supposed to be taken as “positive bias”? Your argument here, is silly. The fact is, I had no bias to “overcome” as bourne out by the facts. You haven't shown where I have any, and really you can't.

hagoth7 wrote:For the record, I don't resent you at all for showing me where my previous opinions were wrong. Let the record also stand that I even thanked you for the correction. So please don't think that I view that outcome of this discussion as "losing" in any way. I have gained, and I appreciate your help with that. Why then, if I truly feel that way, would I go and deal a cheap shot of an insult in your direction? I wouldn't and I didn't. You have simply chosen to interpret it as an intentional insult, smear, or slander. Please don't interpret it that way.

Where did I claim you resented me? I didn’t. This is a red herring. I simply claimed that the term (which is of NEGATIVE connotation in almost ALL CASES, and especially in the way you apply it) gets bandied about too much mostly by Mormon Apologists that are losing an argument. The word “resent” does not appear in this at all. That is YOUR erroneous interpretation of what I’m saying. I really don’t care if you view it as something other than losing, the fact is you lost the argument, because you didn’t know or understand the facts. I’m glad that you feel thankful for me providing you with them. And the “cheap shot” came BEFORE you thanked me or admitted losing. It was the first thing you wrote after I claimed that the Prices were a bad source of information because they were biased.

hagoth7 wrote:That is news to me. But having opinions is quite typical of human nature. You've just stated an opinion. As have I. (Opinions are preconceptions, which are a form of bias.)

I’m not the only one who thinks so, For example, “Our minds are designed to kill. It's part of human nature.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/20 ... /oe-buss20

Incredibly, 91% of men and 84% of women have thought about murdering someone. These statistics come from Dr. David M. Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin after his study of 400,000 FBI murder files and in-depth probes into the minds of 400 murderers.https://progeneter.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... ople-kill/

No, opinions are NOT preconceptions. Your preconceptions can be opinions, but opinions are something totally different.. Opinion:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment

An opinion is something based on the best evidence you have. Your opinion MAY be biased, but that is when you inject an unfair prejudice into your opinion that has nothing to do with the actual evidence. You are really confused here.

Bias is always negative in that regard. You just don’t get it, even though it is obvious that you've gone looking for the definition. We are animals. We kill. Our ancestors murdered without the benefit of law. That developed over time. It IS human nature to think about killing. But the majority of people don’t fight that urge everyday. It is the same with bias. It might be human nature, like murder, but not all succumb to it and it does not affect everyone all the time as you claim it does.

hagoth7 wrote:Why then do you recoil at the suggestion of having even some bias? In your own self-appraisal, do you consider yourself completely objective? If not, why all the extensive objection to the idea of having any bias?

Because it is unfair prejudice. You haven’t shown that in my comments. In fact, you claim that I don’t have it. So, when you try to blanket accuse everyone of having bias, it is 100% wrong. I take every problem and deal with it in the same way. By analyzing the facts and by reason and common sense. For example, when I get pulled over, I know it can be a good cop, a bad cop, etc. But I don’t think that ALL cops are good or bad. They are all individuals and you don’t know what you are going to get until THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION ARISES IN YOUR LIFE. This may be difficult for you, but it isn’t for me.

hagoth7 wrote:I stand by my statement. Even your interpretation above appears to show a little bias, by repeatedly glossing over the "usually" in the definition you provided, and showing an inclination to lean towards the most negative possible meaning of the word "bias". Again, one can exhibit a little bias without being unfair. You're repeatedly interpreting my earliest statement to mean I was calling you unfair, slandering you, or insulting you. I was doing nothing of the kind, if you actually consider what I'm saying about "bias".

You are completely wrong, because I’m looking at CONTEXT, which you seem to be ignoring. And the “usually” is from ONE definition and does not appear in the majority. Usually means under normal conditions, or generally. What is ABNORMAL about this situation that we can make an exception? Nothing that I can see.

hagoth7 wrote:OK. And again, I don't think people are fully one or the other. (For the record, based on what I've read of your posts so far, I am of the opinion that you tend to be far on the objective side of the scale.) Again, I don't see the ongoing need to take offense, if that is what is happening here. No offense was intended.

Then find another word that better describes what you think. Bias is the wrong word. It is NEGATIVE in that context. Always is.

hagoth7 wrote:People can (and I believe do) exhibit a blend of both. Being happy doesn't necessarily mean you have no sadness in your life. Driving fast doesn't mean you're not going slow in comparison to others. Many such definitions are relative, and/or can be on a sliding scale.

Not in relation to bias. You can have a little or a lot, but it is still being unfairly prejudiced. There is no "I have to be a little unfairly prejudiced" because no one can ever be anything else. You might be a little unfairly prejudiced in all you do, but again, don’t put that on me. It is like saying that I can’t help myself, in everything I do, I’m only partially fair, I just can’t be fair because my nature compels me to be unfair to some degree no matter what I do. I am always in some way unfair, or greedy, or dishonest, etc. That is bunk. This is what you are claiming about bias, that I HAVE to be biased, because I can’t help myself. That’s crazy.

hagoth7 wrote:Sure. You said you had prior opinions. Or, in your own words, "I've had many discussions with Mormon Historians, and have changed my opinion about a lot of things I had theories about." Those prior opinions, by definition, are one form of bias. A synonym of bias, according to the dictionary is preconception. And also according to the dictionary, preconception = "an idea or opinion formed beforehand." Prior opinions are then, by their very definition, a form of bias. To be fair then, does your own testimony, combined with a dictionary of the English language, suffice for acceptable evidence to demonstrate that you were "previously biased"?

Totally and unequivocally wrong. Opinions are not all biased. You are making this crap up. Opinions are like a “best guess” based on what evidence you have. You are claiming that ALL opinions are in some way unfairly prejudiced. Where do you get that definition from? Please source that for me. The word bias is usually reserved for opinions that are not impartial. I never claimed to be previously biased. YOU DID. I said I changed my opinion, because I got MORE FACTS that enabled me to do so. Bias had nothing to do with any of it. You are comparing apples and oranges. You don’t seem to really understand what bias and opinion are. They are two different things, though an opinion CAN BE biased. But because you have one doesn’t mean that IT IS.

hagoth7 wrote:Again, you're choosing to use the word "unfairly." May we please remove that word from the discussion? If you could do that, we would be in general agreement. As I have said and demonstrated above, I don't typically equate bias with being unfair.

No we can't remove it because that is IN THE DEFINITION. Because THAT IS WHAT BIAS MEANS. It is in all the dictionary definitions of the word.

hagoth7 wrote:I respectfully beg to differ. As I have demonstrated by a simple appeal to the English language/dictionary, prior opinions or preconceptions are a form of bias.

No, they are not. You are 100% wrong as I’ve shown above. This is all about context, which seems to be totally lost on you.

hagoth7 wrote:I actually consider that I and everyone else deals with bias on an ongoing basis. Unless you think people are somehow blank slates without preconceptions or initial opinions of any kind.

This is silly. What is an “initial opinion”? After viewing some films on war in middle school, my initial opinion was that war was terrible. Is that biased? No. It is terrible. People die in wars. Now, if I were to claim that in all cases war is a mistake because it is terrible, that would be a bias in favor of no war. Get it? But how does that fit into a discussion about Joseph being rescued from the Nauvoo Legion? It doesn’t. Therefore to claim to have no bias is perfectly correct. (I do believe that in some cases war is justified, by the way, but still think war is terrible).

hagoth7 wrote:Whatever you think of the Prices, I happen to think the combined assertions of LDS, Strangeites, and other Mormon factions, (plus, as you mentioned, even Gov. Ford's assertions) provide a glimpse into Bennett's character. (If you think that I was instead attempting to defend the Prices, you've completely misunderstood the context of my statements.) Likewise, I believe the eyewitness testimony of various Mormon groups, plus that of the neighboring Swedish Bishop Hill settlement, to offer a corroborating glimpse into the character of Dr. Foster. When independent parties agree in general about the character of a person, it suggests a likely pattern for consideration.

Granted, there may be some truth to what the Price’s wrote about Bennett, but the link to their page and what is contained on that page is overall untrustworthy. Even though I’m a critic of Joseph Smith, I would never recommend Bennett’s 1842 book as something “for consideration” about the character of Joseph Smith. It is so full of errors and falsehoods that it is almost useless as a source. That was my point.

hagoth7 wrote:Perhaps, after considering the above, you might see that I had zero intention of smearing you. You just happen to see bias as an insult, where I don't. Your own selected definition said bias was "usually...unfair". "Usually" also means not always. So by definition, one can be biased without necessarily being unfair. For whatever reason, you seem to repeatedly prefer to emphasize the most negative possible meanings of the word bias. I didn't (and don't) have those negative connotations in mind when using that word. So please drop the bias or inclination towards assuming the worst in the word "bias".

I don’t see it that way. I think in THIS CONTEXT, accusing someone of having bias is smearing them, because it is always meant in a negative connotation. That is why you yourself said I had to “overcome” mine. Do you “overcome” good? No, you overcome bad. Usually means habitually, normally, routinely, ordinarily, commonly, typically. It would be the EXCEPTION to use bias in any other way, and from the context, you used it in a bad way. The evidence is in what you wrote. You still seem unable to grasp the true definition of the word.

hagoth7 wrote:You left out the following sentences in that paragraph, sentences which qualified the context of your preferred statement: "But this should not be understood to imply that there is one uniquely true interpretation of historical processes and events. Rather, there is a perfectly ordinary sense in which historical interpretations are underdetermined by the facts, and there are multiple legitimate historical questions to pose about the same body of evidence. Historical narratives have a substantial interpretive component, and involve substantial construction of the past."

(Underdertermined means not "having...enough constraints to specify a unique solution".) What this all means is that more than one supportable conclusion can be reached from examining the same evidence, and such an outcome is, as they say, "perfectly ordinary."

Not in all cases as I’ve explained over and over again. There are qualifiers to almost EVERYTHING. As an actual FACT, there was none of this in our discussion, because the facts spoke for themselves. Therefore NO BIAS. You are trying to win an argument you lost and are still losing.

hagoth7 wrote:Likewise, in this thread, we both appeal to the dictionary, and we have come out with more than one supportable conclusion, from that evidence, as to the definition for "bias". Your conclusion is skewed, or biased, towards a more negative connotation for that word. Mine is skewed, or biased, towards a more benign connotation. You're welcome to your own conclusion. I prefer mine.

I’m sure you do prefer your own. No, you don’t understand the meaning of the word, or what “usually” means, or what CONTEXT is. Bias is negative IN THIS CONTEXT. It usually always is. In YOUR case it DEFINITELY is, because you said so. (I had to “overcome” mine). That is in no way, shape, or form a positive thing I had to “overcome”, or there would be no reason at all to say I needed to overcome it.

hagoth7 wrote:I haven't nitpicked your approach to the evidence, if that's what you're thinking. I have simply both asserted, and then demonstrated with your own testimony, that you elsewhere actually admitted to having bias (previous opinions), without you even realizing it was a form of bias. Having bias is not necessarily the dreaded bugaboo you prefer to believe it is. Again, preconceptions and prior opinions are, by definition, bias. It's not that big of a deal. So please stop being offended where no offense was intended. It is neither slander nor an insult. But if you prefer to continue taking offense, where absolutely none was intended, there's not much more I can do. I sincerely hope that's not the outcome here.

Previous opinions ARE NOT a “form of bias”. You are mistaken, therefore your argument is flawed and wrong. You have demonstrated only that you do not understand the meaning of these words and how they are applied. You seem determined to push on me YOUR definition, which is incorrect. There is absolutely no dictionary ANYWHERE that claims that opinions are inherently biased or that they are the same word. They are different things. And “preconceptions” is YOUR word. I never said I had those in relation to my research, I said I had OPINIONS.

What you need to do is stop putting words in my mouth and seriously study what the actual words I am using really mean.

Grindael,

I am sorry that you were offended.

I know you believe the offense was intentional, but it certainly was not. To better illustrate that:

By way of context, if I had used "bias" as an intentional insult, slander, or smear, as you assert, why then would I have applied that word to myself and everyone else, as I did in my first reply to your first mention of the word? As I have said several times, I intended a much more benign connotation of that word. However, since the word can (and, more often than not, does) carry a more negative connotations, I can certainly see how you could initially take offense.

To further illustrate that none of this was intended an insult: Despite what you have asserted, my reference to "overcoming" bias was also not meant to imply something negative, or I also wouldn't have applied that word to myself.

1 )An astronaut and his ship achieving the escape velocity necessary to overcome the pull of earth's gravity doesn't imply anything negative about the earth, gravity, the ship, or the astronaut.

2) Pushing a stationary object hard enough to overcome its inertia implies nothing negative about the object, inertia, or the one applying the energy.

Like gravity and inertia, opinions, first impressions, notions, ideas, and the like all have a certain pull or attraction. That simple context is what I usually mean by bias. Overcoming the tendency to cling to such things can be a bit of a challenge at times. Most conversations and discussion boards attest to that simple reality. That, in context, is simply what I meant.

I wish you well, but I have no intention of continuing this line of discussion further. If, after all this, you choose to continue taking offense, I don't see what more I can do. I hope the outcome is more productive than that.

Best wishes.

hagoth7 wrote:
By way of context, if I had used "bias" as an intentional insult, slander, or smear, as you assert, why then would I have applied that word to myself and everyone else, as I did in my first reply to your first mention of the word?

Because you don't understand the meaning of the word, nor how to use it in proper context. Obviously, you still do not.

grindael wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:
By way of context, if I had used "bias" as an intentional insult, slander, or smear, as you assert, why then would I have applied that word to myself and everyone else, as I did in my first reply to your first mention of the word?

Because you don't understand the meaning of the word, nor how to use it in proper context. Obviously, you still do not.

Still wasting time with grindael hagoth7? Don't say I didn't warn you what he was like.