Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, but I see a difference when much is invested.

Obviously, preconceptions will vary along a spectrum according to their strength and depth.

I'm no expert on the scientific side for archaeology, etc., but it seems that when one is invested (a convicted believer) in any one faith, their results must be considered suspiciously biased.

I have no problem with people scanning such results for bias.

I think it's roughly equally foolish to assume, in advance, that no such bias exists as to assume, in advance, that such bias exists to a lethal degree. As with every other scholarly enterprise, things should be judged on the basis of the quality of the evidence adduced and the cogency of the reasoning with which it's analyzed. I seek no special privileges for Mormon scholarship. And, if I'm permitted to examine the evidence and the logic, I really don't care much what motivates the researcher. (Of course, it's helpful to know if s/he's a Catholic, or a Marxist, or a Jew, or whatever, when that's relevant, because it alerts me to areas where I should perhaps be unusually vigilant. But such loyalty doesn't discredit the researcher's work in advance.)

[_beastie]

Beastie: You can always construct reductio ad absurdum examples, but, in principle, there's no stark difference between ideological predispositions of various kinds, and scientists A and B still have to do conventional biochemistry, whatever their predispositions may be and whatever the origin of those predispositions may be.

My analogy wasn't extreme, given the topic. In fact, if you substitute the word "God" for alien, and the words "The Book of Mormon is a true ancient document" for "Vitamin C cures cancer", then it is quite accurate.

The difference is in degree of conviction. Scientist A has such a degree of conviction that his belief is correct that he is willing to disregard experiments that contradict his belief. Being biased towards a result, due to previous experience, does not normally result in the willingness to disregard information that directly contradict the belief.

The difference is in the willingness to allow data to influence one's position, and consider that one may be wrong.

I think it's roughly equally foolish to assume, in advance, that no such bias exists as to assume, in advance, that such bias exists to a lethal degree.

Since no one has made such an argument, perhaps you will understand why your continuing to argue this point looks like a strawman.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The difference is in the willingness to allow data to influence one's position, and consider that one may be wrong.

Which, again, isn't a stark either/or. It exists along a spectrum. There are no scientists or scholars anywhere, probably, who are utterly and completely open to the data without any preconceptions or prejudices -- I'm not even sure that scholarly or scientific work could be done with such a mindset -- and I'm not sure that there's any scientist or scholar, anywhere, who is absolutely impervious to facts. Everybody is distributed along the continuum between those extreme points.

I think it's roughly equally foolish to assume, in advance, that no such bias exists as to assume, in advance, that such bias exists to a lethal degree.

Since no one has made such an argument, perhaps you will understand why your continuing to argue this point looks like a strawman.

People have made that claim. Fairly often, in my experience. I'm warning in advance against anybody who might be tempted to make it here. I see that as a time-saver.

[_beastie]

Which, again, isn't a stark either/or. It exists along a spectrum. There are no scientists or scholars anywhere, probably, who are utterly and completely open to the data without any preconceptions or prejudices -- I'm not even sure that scholarly or scientific work could be done with such a mindset -- and I'm not sure that there's any scientist or scholar, anywhere, who is absolutely impervious to facts. Everybody is distributed along the continuum between those extreme points.

Of course it occurs along a spectrum. But the firm conviction that GOD himself has "told" you that X, Y, or Z is "true" is at the very high end of the spectrum.

People have made that claim. Fairly often, in my experience. I'm warning in advance against anybody who might be tempted to make it here. I see that as a time-saver.

Can you link to a thread wherein someone made this claim? I'm very curious, because it is a ridiculous claim to make, and one I've never seen anyone make, personally. I rate it along with the "all the discovering has been done" strawman. My suspicion is that, in these past conversations, you did exactly what you did with me in this conversation. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion about what I was asserting, despite the fact that nothing I wrote warranted such a conclusion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can you link to a thread wherein someone made this claim?

I probably could, but it would take more time than it's worth.

There is, for example, no single obvious term on the basis of which to conduct a search.

You can believe me or not, as you choose. I really don't much care. I've encountered the claim many times.

I'm very curious, because it is a ridiculous claim to make, and one I've never seen anyone make, personally. I rate it along with the "all the discovering has been done" strawman.

I agree that it's ridiculous. I've never failed to point that out when it has been made.

My suspicion is that, in these past conversations, you did exactly what you did with me in this conversation. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion about what I was asserting, despite the fact that nothing I wrote warranted such a conclusion.

I jumped to no erroneous conclusion. You're just as capable of misunderstanding me as I am of misunderstanding you, and, in this case, you've done so.

But I don't care enough to spend much time on it.

This isn't that important a venue. Suspect what you like.


.

[_beastie]

I probably could, but it would take more time than it's worth.

There is, for example, no single obvious term on the basis of which to conduct a search.

You can believe me or not, as you choose. I really don't much care. I've encountered the claim many times.

It's happened many times, and yet you can't remember enough of the context of a single one of those times to find it through a search?

I agree that it's ridiculous. I've never failed to point that out when it has been made.

Again, given how ridiculous the claim is, and what a lovely example of illogical anti-mormonism it would be (and I know how fond you are of those examples), it is surprising that you can't remember the context of a single thread to conduct a search for it.

I jumped to no erroneous conclusion. You're just as capable of misunderstanding me as I am of misunderstanding you, and, in this case, you've done so.

Really?

DCP's previous post:

beastie, your apparent notion that others come to their fields without preconceived notions, loyalties, preferences, ideology, tastes, enthusiasms, aversions, commitments, etc., or even that, if they have such, these play no significant role in what they do, is simply naïve.

I have no such apparent notion, and said nothing to justify drawing such a conclusion. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion about what I was saying. Are you really not able to just admit that?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Whoosh! Airball!

Have a great day, beastie.

[_Morrissey]

So, in other words, "having sure knowledge, due to a method outside logic or science, that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document and normal biases towards or against various theories" are equivalent?

I didn't say that. But they're functionally comparable, along a spectrum of strength and effect with no clear breaks.

No, but you implied it. How functionally comparable? Are the biases Mormons hold regarding their truth claims (e.g., about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) in any way, or inherently, more valid than the biases held by others in terms of their beliefs?

Sigh.

Sigh right back at you.

Not only capable of it, but inevitably disposed to it. And atheists aren't exempt.

I agree 100%. The only human frailty atheists are more exempt from than others is the human tendency to believe in religious superstitious nonsense.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

Scientist A has such a degree of conviction that his belief is correct that he is willing to disregard experiments that contradict his belief.

Your analogy breaks down if you cannot demonstrate, to any appreciable degree, that (placing the question explicitly within the context of the present discussion) John Clark and/or Richard Hansen have ever done precisely what you suggest: disregard experiments that contradict his belief.

I am reasonably confident that neither of them even thinks (consciously or otherwise) along those lines when it comes to the pursuit of his professional work. Hansen, for example, is working in a place that almost certainly was never a Nephite polity. (Some are beginning to see El Mirador as perhaps the single largest Mayan polity of its time.)

I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that Hansen believes El Mirador to be Zarahemla, or any other city mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

He most certainly would acknowledge that the Nephites, if historical, were never a dominant entity if one looks at the whole picture of ancient Mesoamerica during the time frame suggested.

So where is the evidence that he has permitted an LDS bias to infilrate and influence his studies and/or conclusions?

And if there is no such evidence, on what grounds can your assertion above have any relevance whatsoever?

You see, dear beastlie, any remotely objective observer of these things would never see such bias at work in the way you seem to suggest it must. Assuming such an observer was cognizant of his religious convictions, said observer (being a disbeliever in such things) might be mystified by the thought that Hansen apparently believes in the essential historicity of the Book of Mormon, but one would strain in futility to adduce any deleterious influence of those convictions in terms of his scientific achievements.

And yet you are certain that such deleterious influence must exist. Either that, or you must insist that—even in the absence of such deleterious influence—such a scientist must necessarily be accommodating a prodigious load of cognitive dissonance.

Your arrogance is stunning. Absolutely stunning.

You never once mention, nor would you even consider, the possibility that perhaps he has good scientific reasons to suppose the real plausibility of Nephites.

Nope. beastlie knows all that is necessary to know in order to definitively declare that there could never have been Nephites.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Will. It gets too tiresome for me.

Are the biases Mormons hold regarding their truth claims (e.g., about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) in any way, or inherently, more valid than the biases held by others in terms of their beliefs?

Obviously, all biases that are consistent with my biases are superior to all biases that are not.

Did you really have to ask?

The only human frailty atheists are more exempt from than others is the human tendency to believe in religious superstitious nonsense.

See above.