An exotic new argument for eye-witness testimony

[Gadianton]

Over on a blog/discussion board that tends to anti-science, a main contributor levels a perplexing argument for the Three Witnesses. The good, is that rather than regurgitate the same points he made twenty years ago for the thirtieth time, this is brand new material. I take it that Patheos was successful in twisting the author's arm on the whole recycled article game.

I read a few short items on the limitations of eyewitness testimony in order to get myself into a proper frame of mind for interviewing a [devout TBM] former United States attorney and a former federal magistrate judge on the topic

I guess "a few short items" is a start, but wouldn't you generally want to do the thorough job, before wagering the family farm? (eh, Mr. Harris?) Anyway, his brief survey of witness criticism included:

Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts: Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate,” Scientific American (January 1, 2010)
“False Memory,” Skeptic’s Dictionary
Association for Psychological Science: “Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence”

And now the wheels churn; as the author summarizes material on false memories, confabulation, and hypnosis, he's working up a thoughtful dialectic, that while interesting, has nothing to do with what he's summarizing from the articles. And so totally unrelated to the new subject matter taken from the articles listed above that he's been summarizing, he goes into Cartesian introspection mode:

Plainly, the proper response to an eyewitness account isn’t uncritical acceptance. But neither is uncritical rejection the optimal reaction.

Okay sure, I don't disagree with that.

One important aspect, of course, is the nature of the claimed memory. If a friend remembers that she grew up in rural Arkansas or that she ate oatmeal for breakfast, we have little apparent reason to doubt her memory. Such things are commonplace and noncontroversial. If, however, she recalls playing Parcheesi with Miss Elizabeth Bennett and a talking unicorn named Mr. Darcy on Pandora, the lush habitable moon of a gas giant in the Alpha Centauri star system, we might be more resistant to her claim.

A fine point, and I do hope Gemli is looking on. Perhaps after all of these years he's gotten through a little bit?

So how would we go about evaluating the strength or weakness of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon? Obviously, their cumulative claim –involving divinely-supplied plates of gold and, in three cases, an angel, the voice of God, and other mysterious objects — is quite a bit more “out there” than a claim of having enjoyed a breakfast of blueberry pancakes, so our standard has to be rather high.

I really do hope Gemil shows up to give credit where it's due. It took a lot of courage to make this point.

Though disjointed, the author seems to be moving in the right direction. But then, a sudden swerve:

It’s helpful, though, that Arkowitz and Lilienfeld, writing for Scientific American, have provided a checklist for the possible weaknesses in forensic testimony:

Wait...why is that helpful?

What on earth does "forensic testimony" have to do with claims about "playing Parcheesi with Miss Elizebeth Bennett and a talking unicorn"? Is there an extensive legal literature on establishing the merits of fantastical claims?

But the accelerator is punched. He screeches back to pick up these points from Arkowitz and drives off into a mopologist's sunset:

Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.
Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).
Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.
A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as tattoos or extreme height.

He asks:

How do these apply to the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses?

Um, obviously they have no application. But his victory drive is to expand each of these points into a paragraph and explain how -- they have no application, therefore the witnesses are credible?!?!?!

He writes:

A person in whose face a pistol was brandished might well be unable to identify the brandisher of the pistol, but won’t likely be confused as to whether or not a gun

Right. So the hypothetical "friend from Arkansas" would well remember that she was on another planet playing a game with a woman and a talking Unicorn, but due to trauma and the usual problems with memory, does not recall the name of the planet (Pandora), the game (Parchisi), the woman (Ms. Bennett) or the Unicorn (Mr. Darci).

Please note, too, that neither the Three Witnesses nor the Eight Witnesses nor the informal witnesses to the Book of Mormon were children whose memory-forming capacity was still developing

The same goes for Rudy Giuliani and the President of the United States.

I think the author is conflating notions about "witnesses" and "crime scenes". The kind of witness testimony at issue here isn't the kind where three strangers (independent witnesses) are walking down the street and taken by surprise as a car rolls by with machine guns blasting through open windows. We're talking the kind of crime where three co-conspirators with a flare for the fanciful (treasure hunting, revivalism, talking deer deities) huddle together in a basement over the course of many meetings, and then sign a document attesting to a supernatural experience.

I would love for Mr. Lambert and Judge Warner to stop by our forum and school us on court room evidence, and how it gives credibility to the Three Witnesses.

The author needs to ditch crime psychology and judges, and talk to cult psychologists and exit counselors. Be that as it may, his article here, if read carefully, undermines his own project worse than anything else he's written to date.

[malkie]

I was holding my breath, waiting to find out what other objects were in the lineup with the gold plates.

Perhaps that will be revealed when we get to the next episode: where we will find out about the "much more to be said about this subject".

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is the blogger suggesting sensory overload from being visited by divine sorts was so overwhelming that it’s acceptable the details were murky while the event itself certainly happened? Or is he suggesting that as memory ‘reconstructs itself’ it becomes an ever more degraded image of the event, thus the details changed over time?

I’m not sure that argument helps Mormonism’s claims.

- Doc

[Doctor Scratch]

Thanks very much for that analysis, Dean Robbers. I couldn't stop laughing as I was reading that entry. One wonder's of the blogger's theory applies just as well to stories of alien abduction? Maybe it depends on whether or not the aliens in question had a zap gun pointed at the abductee?

[Dr Moore]

The witnesses never impressed me, for the same reason that the “blue wall” enables cops to get away with literal murder.

Once you’ve lied enough, the interpersonal web of consequences and benefits becomes incredibly tangled. When faced with opportunity, it all just becomes a matter of picking which next lie will optimize one’s personal outcome.

The strongest apologetic for the three witnesses would be a serious attempt to show that any of them had more to gain by exposing their original false testimony in order to stick it to Joseph. My belief is the evidence speaks strongly on that matter — personal outcomes were pareto optimized by mostly maintaining their “witness testimonies” and instead calling Joseph a fallen prophet, or lesser admissions and accusations.

[Res Ipsa]

It's a simple logical fallacy.

A=eyewitness testimony has characteristics in the article
B=eyewitness testimony is not trustworthy

So, what's Peterson's argument?

If A, then B.
Not A
Therefore, Not B

The argument is formally invalid. It's called denying the antecedent.

Here's the same fallacy:

If this person is Ted Bundy, then this person is a serial killer.
This person is not Ted Bundy
Therefore this person is not a serial killer.

John Wayne Gacy, anyone?

[Dr Exiled]

He's going to pivot to the same old arguments about the witnesses never denying their claims and perhaps that even though there is this literature against eye witnesses, with God all things are possible. God can certainly make his holy witnesses remember whatever is prudent, so have faith, blah, blah, blah.

[Philo Sofee]

We behold a master rhetorician at work in Mopologetics. Dean Robbers always has a way of keeping them working at it, since they can't pull the wool over Internet Mormon eyes nearly as well as they can the Chapel Mormon eyes... Dean Robbers slays another Mope argument with the simplest, most straight forward investigation.

[Gadianton]

...perhaps that even though there is this literature against eye witnesses, with God all things are possible. God can certainly make his holy witnesses remember whatever is prudent, so have faith, blah, blah, blah.

I can't say that in the future he won't argue this, but it's not the direction he's going here. What he's arguing today is that there is a respectable literature against eye witnesses, but when you look into it, none of it applies to the Three Witnesses, and so they are home free. More on particulars when I respond to Doctor Cam. He isn't saying their bad memories are understandable and God helped with the good parts, he's saying there is no reason to doubt their memories, such as in the case of other witness scenarios.

The Proprietor of the discussion board I linked to is heavily influenced by Josh McDowell and Christian authors who defend their religious beliefs by turning founding events into fictional courtroom dramas. The Proprietor is now taking it to the extreme, by roping in career lawyers and judges to legitimize these fictional scenarios. If I were a Mormon legal professional, I would be very careful about taking calls from Mopologists.

[Gadianton]

Is the blogger suggesting sensory overload from being visited by divine sorts was so overwhelming that it’s acceptable the details were murky while the event itself certainly happened?

No.

Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process. Not applicable. No “extreme witness stress” is on evidence. No obvious or violent crime occurred in connection with the experience of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and there is nothing comparable to a police line-up.

He's saying the opposite. He's saying we can believe their fantastical claims because they weren't under such stress.

Or is he suggesting that as memory ‘reconstructs itself’ it becomes an ever more degraded image of the event, thus the details changed over time?

No.

He's saying we can believe the details because the memory problems cited in his various sources don't apply.