Boyce: "Just You Wait!"

[_Mister Scratch]

I know I run the risk of being accused of "slavish praise," but I humbly felt the Spirit as I read this essay. I attest to you, my dear Brothers and Sisters, this essay was very insightful, and I felt touched as I read it.

Dr. Robbers:

I can sense that a very strong case is being built around the notion that the Mopologists' chief motivation is revenge. It seems that, in example after example, we find evidence that the apologists are looking to "stick it" to the critics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the Mopologists' chief motivation is revenge.

Not true. If I could get you the help I think you need, Scratch, I would do it, despite your three-year campaign to blacken my character.

[_harmony]

the Mopologists' chief motivation is revenge.

Not true. If I could get you the help I think you need, Scratch, I would do it, despite your three-year campaign to blacken my character.

Even if it involved Freud's psychonanalysis?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Even if it involved Freud's psychonanalysis?

If there were any evidence that Freudian psychoanalysis might help, I'd be happy to assist Scratch in getting it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Even if it involved Freud's psychonanalysis?

If there were any evidence that Freudian psychoanalysis might help, I'd be happy to assist Scratch in getting it.

Well, hey---I like you well enough. If I had access to a massive, multi-million-dollar budget like FARMS's, I would pay for the counseling sessions to help you get over your unquenchable thirst for revenge and vindication.

[_harmony]

Well, hey---I like you well enough. If I had access to a massive, multi-million-dollar budget like FARMS's, I would pay for the counseling sessions to help you get over your unquenchable thirst for revenge and vindication.

Bullshaloney. I doubt even BYU itself has a massive multi-million dollar budget. And FARMS doesn't exist. Try for a little more accuracy and a little less hyperbole.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, hey---I like you well enough. If I had access to a massive, multi-million-dollar budget like FARMS's, I would pay for the counseling sessions to help you get over your unquenchable thirst for revenge and vindication.

Bullshaloney. I doubt even BYU itself has a massive multi-million dollar budget. And FARMS doesn't exist. Try for a little more accuracy and a little less hyperbole.

Wait a second... You're joking, right?

[_harmony]

You're joking, right?

No.

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, he's definitely playing a variation on the "You'll see when God reveals all" stance so popular among religious people wanting to argue things there isn't enough support for today. Argument to counterfactual fantasy. An "I told you so" today for some evidence on Tuesday.

Anyway, what his essay is really doing is itself a variation on the old defensive skepticism via the problem of induction. There's more going on than this, but the core here is just pointing out science is a sociological process given to human faults and biases with commonly accepted ideas being open to refinement and in some cases upheaval. People often will point out variations of this to either 1) justify their skepticism in some commonly accepted piece of scientific knowledge or 2) defend their view explicitly contradicted by scientific knowledge. In his case, he's implicitly doing both. And while all scientific knowledge is tentative, to the point that saying so is trivial, that's not enough to justify skepticism in any idea. You aren't justified in rejecting the idea that the sun rises in the east because it's hypothetically possible some future discovery will overturn this or because knowledge is socially constructed. You must have some reason to think some piece of knowledge will be shown wrong, and that reason must outweigh the case that exists in favor of it. Needless to say, Boyce doesn't have that. The evolutionary ideas he's expressing skepticism in are some of the most well supported ideas out there. So, instead, we get argument by hint and innuendo and illicit comfort to those who think their skepticism in evolutionary ideas is Ok.

[_dartagnan]

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.

As if the thing that makes FARMS so valuable to the LDS testimony is that it doesn't do this exact thing. In fact, that's mostly what it does. It provides short reviews written by those with bulet-proof testimonies, so members don't have to read those nasty "anti-mormon" works themselves.