Logic and Dan Peterson arguments.

[Physics Guy]

I'd assume they must have been looking at a different animal and that neither saw a crow.

Heh. It kind of wrecks my little logic paradox, but you’re right, the assumption that we know that there was only one animal is another of these artificially constraining setups. As soon as you question it, the possibility that the experts saw two different animals does seem like a more likely alternative.

I’ll try to remember this the next time I tell someone about this scenario. How should I credit you?

[huckelberry]

I'd assume they must have been looking at a different animal and that neither saw a crow.

Heh. It kind of wrecks my little logic paradox, but you’re right, the assumption that we know that there was only one animal is another of these artificially constraining setups. As soon as you question it, the possibility that the experts saw two different animals does seem like a more likely alternative.

I’ll try to remember this the next time I tell someone about this scenario. How should I credit you?

I thought this could be a lighthearted addition to the thread on plagiarism. But with all the weight there it is best in this thread.

I can't resist adding a favourite example of how inference gets tricky with multiple options. As far as I know, I thought of it myself, but it may very well be well known, and I might even have read it somewhere and just forgotten the source.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I'd assume they must have been looking at a different animal and that neither saw a crow.

Heh. It kind of wrecks my little logic paradox, but you’re right, the assumption that we know that there was only one animal is another of these artificially constraining setups. As soon as you question it, the possibility that the experts saw two different animals does seem like a more likely alternative.

I’ll try to remember this the next time I tell someone about this scenario. How should I credit you?

Lol no credit needed.

[hauslern]

If Egyptologists show Smith's intereptations of the facsimiles are wrong then Joseph Smith is a fraud.
Egyptologists have shown Smith's interpretations are wrong (eg Tamas Mekis)
Therfore Joseph Smith is a fraud.

Facsimile 2 was not among the papyri found at the museum.
There was found in the LDS archives a sketch of the facsimile which showed parts were missing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7Y ... 4Sbbg/edit

Here is an example of a hypocephalus
See the figure in the upper right hand corner is a man standing in a boat with an insect.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit
I did a google search British Museum hypocephalus. All examples showed that same scene.
Where did Smith find his insertion?
Might be here. Check lower right hand corner of a figure in a boat.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87 ... Dge0E/edit

In the sketch there is missing what Smith inserted 22 and 23
Smith seems to have inserted a copy of the head of figure 2
Note the examples shows a a figure with multiple heads.

If you look at the sketch figure 7 just shows a head which one might think is he head of a bird. Smith "the signof the Holy Ghost unto Abraham in the form of a dove"
If you look at the example nothing like a dove. Tamas Mekis writes "The next figure is Nehebkau who offers the wedjat eye to the sitting deity before him" Note both the deity Min and Nehebkau display a penis.

See the British Museum collection. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 5hzRooFkQA

The rim of the hypocephalus in the sketch is missing on the right hand side. In the published version heiratic writing has been inserted.

One notes that Smith attempts to give an answer to the registers with pictures (registers) but makes no attempt to interpret the writing " Figures 12,13, 14,15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 willbw given in the own due time of the Lord"

[Imwashingmypirate]

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 5hzRooFkQA

Looks like monkeys worshiping a 4 headed snake.

[Res Ipsa]

I'd assume they must have been looking at a different animal and that neither saw a crow.

Heh. It kind of wrecks my little logic paradox, but you’re right, the assumption that we know that there was only one animal is another of these artificially constraining setups. As soon as you question it, the possibility that the experts saw two different animals does seem like a more likely alternative.

I’ll try to remember this the next time I tell someone about this scenario. How should I credit you?

This is exactly why I keep hanging out here.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Heh. It kind of wrecks my little logic paradox, but you’re right, the assumption that we know that there was only one animal is another of these artificially constraining setups. As soon as you question it, the possibility that the experts saw two different animals does seem like a more likely alternative.

I’ll try to remember this the next time I tell someone about this scenario. How should I credit you?

This is exactly why I keep hanging out here.

Not following. I think quite often with critics and apologists, they can often think they are arguing about the same thing but actually they might be looking at completely different things and or completely different perspectives.

[Res Ipsa]

This is exactly why I keep hanging out here.

Not following. I think quite often with critics and apologists, they can often think they are arguing about the same thing but actually they might be looking at completely different things and or completely different perspectives.

Sorry, the back and forth between you and PG is, in my opinion, an excellent example of sharing viewpoints and learning from each other. Just reading PG's hypothetical, I thought "crow," just assuming the two observers were looking at the same thing. You didn't assume, and gave a better answer. Now PG has has a great hypothetical that illustrates issues with both logic and assumptions. Which I intend to steal, adding the story of how the original hypothetical got better.

ETA: I also think you're right about apologists and critics.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Not following. I think quite often with critics and apologists, they can often think they are arguing about the same thing but actually they might be looking at completely different things and or completely different perspectives.

Sorry, the back and forth between you and PG is, in my opinion, an excellent example of sharing viewpoints and learning from each other. Just reading PG's hypothetical, I thought "crow," just assuming the two observers were looking at the same thing. You didn't assume, and gave a better answer. Now PG has has a great hypothetical that illustrates issues with both logic and assumptions. Which I intend to steal, adding the story of how the original hypothetical got better.

ETA: I also think you're right about apologists and critics.

Thanks for explaining. Cool.

ETA: I think the thing about the apologists and critical can also be applied to a lot of people who aren't seeing eye to eye. Quite often my family can be falling out and taking things personally and actually, they are just seeing it differently.

[hauslern]

A Facebook friend wrote me this response to the question would Abraham have had right to be mummified if he was treated as a a criminal.

"Muhelstein is intellectually dishonest. The only honest way to deal with it is to say, "this ancient Egyptian funerary image was used as a catalyst by Joseph Smith to receive revelation about the sacrifice of Abraham (which may not have happened in reality, but which is divine as it was inspired of God for our spiritual edification)
And no they wouldn't have mummified a heretical criminal.
In fact mutilating the body of an enemy so he COULDN'T have an afterlife was actually done. Also they would chip out carvings of kings that they didn't want to have a name that lived on. Like Images of Hatshepsut that have been defaced etc.
Mummification was an expensive, involved process. It took much labor and materials (natron,. canopic jars, linen strips etc.). It took 70 days to complete a mummification. They wouldn't expend that on anyone but someone Kerry they revered greatly, or someone who had paid for it."

Interestingly in the Bible it says that Jacob was embalmed and mourned for 70 days in Egypt after he died:

Genesis 50:2-3

"2 And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel.

3 And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten days."

"