Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[Guest]

I quite liked this offering from Daniel Peterson on the distinction between proof and evidence, because it does irritate me that people so often confuse the two concepts. Critics of Mormonism often say that there is no evidence in favor of LDS claims, which I do not believe to be the case. The question has always been, "what is the value of the evidence, and is the case, when that evidence is evaluated fairly, convincing?"

Well, I don't believe that apologetic arguments generally are convincing, even though I would not dismiss the existence of evidence in favor of LDS claims. What makes all the difference to the believer is the witness of the Spirit. Once a person believes they have a witness, the rest flows from that, for most folks. Accepting a witness of the Spirit does not, in my mind, make a person an idiot or dupe. I once had a witness of the Spirit that Mormonism was true, a very powerful one. To this day I am not inclined to reject that utterly by saying it was all merely emotion and of no consequence or meaning.

On the other hand, it does not lead me, like it does Daniel Peterson and others, to say that the dots all connect neatly enough from there such that I have chosen my team in the debate and will now fight the good fight for the right cause. I happen to think things are a lot more complicated than that, and I have never been much of a joiner. It is, unfortunately, in the genes. My father is not a joiner; his father used to sit in Sunday School, when he bothered to go, and would say on occasion to the instructor, "I don't believe a word you just said," in a loud voice. Now, I don't support my grandfather's simple provocations, but I also understand the emotions and dissatisfaction with easy answers that prompted him to pipe up.

So, I actually do enjoy reading these kinds of thoughts from Daniel Peterson, as I genuinely do enjoy reading the better writings of apologists on a number of topics. They continue to give me food for thought that expands my vision and challenges me. Reading Louis Midgley's reminiscences about Hugh Nibley was an immensely enjoyable experience for me. I came to understand both men, and where they were coming from, quite a bit better, I thought.

While I feel I can understand the dissatisfaction that many feel with the LDS Church, and heaven knows I have my own criticisms of things, I also feel to say that I respect the learning and richness of thought that the LDS community produces, and I reject the notion that LDS scholars who engage in apologetics have nothing of value to say, but only weak defenses of bogus claims to forestall the inevitable conclusion that Mormonism is false.

I hate that way of thinking. Sorry, but I do. I get where it is coming from, and I do think these guys make their mistakes, but, while I disagree with some of what they do for my own reasons, I would say that on the whole the Church is really lucky to have men and women who take its claims seriously and think their thoughts through the lens of that worldview. Isolated quotes and board wars do not do justice to the full range of LDS thought. There are lots of interesting things going on in the Mormon world. I am happy they continue to develop.

But so many here will not see that, because they are mostly interested in whether Nephi really lived, or whether God told Joseph Smith to take many wives. It is also unfortunately the case that because these tend to be the kinds of questions that are the crucial ones in the apologetic enterprise, the discussion never goes far beyond that. How dull. It amazes me that these guys spend any time on either board. It seems like Louis Midgley finally got out of it for the most part, and it is no wonder to me why he did.

Anyway, those who know my vexing contradictions that drive everyone crazy will say, "there he goes again." I can't help myself though. There is something about the struggles, sufferings, joys, vulnerabilities, foolishness, wisdom, weakness, and strength of most people that makes it all fascinating to me. Just when I think I have had enough of some person, I am drawn back into a conversation with them again. I just can't write anybody off for good, though I am sure that I have said I have numerous times before.

I know the apologists view me as a silly minor enemy, but I want to thank them all the same for the many thoughts they have helped me think, the many challenges they have presented me, the wisdom I have encountered through them, and the opportunity to reflect on my own shortcomings and hypocrisies. I have, however, not changed my mind about the correctness of the NMI publishing biting criticisms of fellow LDS folk, with the support of BYU and under the name Neal A. Maxwell. It just seems so cosmically wrong and unchristian to me.

[_Morley]

Thanks, Kish. I'm never sorry I read your posts.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks, Kish. I'm never sorry I read your posts.

Thanks so much, Morley. It is kind of you to say so.

[_EAllusion]

As I've pointed out when DCP has brought this up before, it depends on your theory of evidence. There are ways to define what evidence is where it makes no sense to say there isn't evidence of Mormonism, but then there are ways where it does.

[_Kishkumen]

I particularly like this passage:

When a critic insists that there is absolutely no evidence in support of Mormon claims, I soon conclude that this critic isn't a serious discussion partner.

Does the evidence for the claims of Mormonism reach such a level that it should compel belief in the minds of the intellectually honest? I don't think so. I think there are legitimate grounds for doubt.

[_Kishkumen]

As I've pointed out when DCP has brought this up before, it depends on your theory of evidence. There are ways to define what evidence is where it makes no sense to say there isn't evidence of Mormonism, but then there are ways where it does.

I guess I am inclined toward his way of looking at it in some ways, but I would be interested in what you have to say.

[_EAllusion]

As I've pointed out when DCP has brought this up before, it depends on your theory of evidence. There are ways to define what evidence is where it makes no sense to say there isn't evidence of Mormonism, but then there are ways where it does.

I guess I am inclined toward his way of looking at it in some ways, but I would be interested in what you have to say.

Suppose you say that S is only evidence of P if S is best explained by P. For instance, suppose I assert that that ripple in the water I saw is evidence that the loch ness monster exists. After all, the observation is consistent with nessie's existence and its manifestation conforms to observational expections. You, however, point out that the ripple in the water is better explained by some other mechanical process. If you were to say that the ripple in the water really wasn't evidence then, you'd be on board with this idea.

This, mind you, is not some outlier idea. This comparative principle has the potential to cut off most, if not all, of the sorts of things DCP would propose as evidence of Mormonism in the mind of someone who thinks an alternative theory provides a better account. I don't think DCP thinks of evidence this way. He'd say that S is evidence of P even if it is better evidence of P2.

[Guest]

Suppose you say that S is only evidence of P if S is best explained by P. For instance, suppose I assert that that ripple in the water I saw is evidence that the loch ness monster exists. After all, the observation is consistent with nessie's existence and its manifestation conforms to observational expections. You, however, point out that the ripple in the water is better explained by some other mechanical process. If you were to say that the ripple in the water really wasn't evidence then, you'd be on board with this idea.

This, mind you, is not some outlier idea. This comparative principle has the potential to cut off most, if not all, of the sorts of things DCP would propose as evidence of Mormonism in the mind of someone who thinks an alternative theory provides a better account. I don't think DCP thinks of evidence this way. He'd say that S is evidence of P even if it is better evidence of P2.

Ahah! OK. Yes, very interesting. Indeed, when I am doing my work, I have to check against these possibilities all the time. You can really regret not thinking of these kinds of alternatives. It is very easy to give in to confirmation bias if you too eagerly accept that anything that looks like evidence for your case actually is, when it may actually fit another fact pattern much better.

I don't know if that is exactly what you are talking about, but this is what it made me think. Is it an alien spacecraft or a weather balloon?

Edited to add: so once you find the fact pattern that best fits, you would say that the evidence can no longer be evidence of P but only of P2, since logically speaking it cannot be evidence of both.

[_Gadianton]

I haven't read the post in question and I probably won't have time to so please do not take these comments as addressing your source material in any way. EA's observations are worth commenting on as we've both gone down this route with various apologists. I entirely agree with EA, but I have to expand on one matter. The Mopologists are obsessed with one, Thomas Kuhn, and this screws them in 99 ways for the one lonely way it helps them. Kuhn taught "theory laden evidence." Evidence does not exist in abstract outside of a theory. Apologists use this to attack the "love affair" critics have with objectivity. So while, sure, an apologist could probably find a way to argue that evidence is evidence, and that a rock with NHM written on it must be admitted by critics to be evidence for the Book of Mormon even if they do not agree it is conclusive, they can't argue for this while simultaneously worshiping Kuhn. A critic does not need to have examples of the sort EA is coming up with that settle the argument, but merely show that examples like EA's fit with Kuhn's idea of theory-laden evidence and the apologist is forced to either abandon his demands of the critics or jettison Kuhn.

Likely, the apologist will do neither, as they only care about what gets Joseph Smith off the hook in any given instance.

[Guest]

-