Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

Yes, Ray. "Dogma" means the failure to believe any story that anyone has to tell.

I don't believe most of what you have to say or righteously opine about.

The space aliens are probably more reliable sources of information than I am.

Word Story

At the turn of the 17th century, dogma entered English from the Latin term meaning “philosophical tenet.” The Greek word from which it is borrowed means “that which one thinks is true,” and comes ultimately from the Greek dokein which means “to seem good” or “think.”
The origin of the word dogma acts as a reminder to English speakers that now-established principals and doctrines were once simply thoughts and opinions of ordinary people that gained popularity and eventually found their way into the universal consciousness of society. 20th century American academic and aphorist Mason Cooley concisely observed that “Under attack, sentiments harden into dogma, suggesting that dogma is spawned as a defensive act. This idea implies that for every dogma that exists, there is a counter dogma. With so many “truths” out there, there is sure to be a dogma to conveniently fit every set of beliefs.

The bold suits you to a tee.

I know. The truthfulness of Mormonism is so patently obvious that my only recourse is skepticism as a desperate defense mechanism.

[_RayAgostini]

The space aliens are probably more reliable sources of information than I am.

Apparently even Dawkins has a more open mind than you do.

"...life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen."

All you do is mock. It's your trademark, and that's why you cannot be taken seriously.

I know. The truthfulness of Mormonism is so patently obvious that my only recourse is skepticism as a desperate defense mechanism.

That was the point of DCP's blog post - it's not "so patently obvious". What you are is a pseudoskeptic:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar.

Anyway, I've wasted enough valuable time on you for one day.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kish, Pahoran attacked you by saying that despite your phd in Classics, you were able to translate a basic Latin phrase. He said he was justified i and his attack because I made your scholarly credentials an issue ;)[/quote] I didn't.

The post was removed I guess

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think Darth J's post is dealing with a notion of evidence as it exists in a legal context rather than its more broad sense. There are perfectly respectable theories of what constitutes evidence that would count Book of Mormon witness testimony as evidence of the reality of ancient plates. It wouldn't be particularly good evidence for the reasons Darth points out, but it would be evidence.

Take a Bayesian definition of evidence:

P(h|e) = P(h) * ( P(e|h) / P(e) )

P(h) is the probability that the hypothesis is true given only the background information. This is often referred to as the prior probability. P(h|e) is the probability that h is true given the the observations under analysis. P(e|h) is the probability we'd see the observations given the hypothesis. And P(e) is the unconditional probability of the observations alone. Because P(h|e) is going to be > P(h) in this case, we can say it counts as evidence support. Evidence is any e where P(h|e) is > P(h).

Granted the witness testimony doesn't add all that much confirmation and the prior probability is quite low, but on this definition of evidential support it qualifies. Witnesses saying they had some sort of physical contact with something plate like is expected given the faithful version events moreso than if it were to occur just randomly. So the theory has received a little bit of confirmation.

Now suppose we add in the comparative principle I mentioned in my first post. Are their any other hypotheses that better account for the witness testimony? I bet you say yes.

See the issue?

It think this is all pretty trivial at the end of the day. The quality of the case of Mormonism doesn't really depend on technical distinctions in what constitutes evidence and it is no coup for the apologist or great fault for the critic to allow their to be some evidence for Mormonism. At the end of the day it's terribly uncompelling no matter the distinction.

This is worth reiterating. I was going to post something very similar, but you beat me to it, and said it better than I could have said it. Nice work.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, Pahoran attacked you by saying that despite your phd in Classics, you were able to translate a basic Latin phrase. He said he was justified i and his attack because I made your scholarly credentials an issue.) I didn't.

The post was removed I guess

Yeah, I saw that, but it made no sense. On what basis was he concluding that? MCB's writings?

The guy is an asshole with little of value to contribute to Mormonism except bile and venom.

My interpretation of Smith's review stands. He obviously had no substantive rebuttal.

[_Yoda]

Kish, Pahoran attacked you by saying that despite your phd in Classics, you were able to translate a basic Latin phrase. He said he was justified i and his attack because I made your scholarly credentials an issue.) I didn't.

The post was removed I guess

Yeah, I saw that, but it made no sense. On what basis was he concluding that? MCB's writings?

The guy is an asshole with little of value to contribute to Mormonism except bile and venom.

My interpretation of Smith's review stands. He obviously had no substantive rebuttal.

And he ironically calls this place a sty.

[_Kevin Graham]

I am lost here. Who is MCB?

[_Kishkumen]

And he ironically calls this place a sty.

Pigpen Pahoran should feel right at home here, if that's true!

[_Kishkumen]

I am lost here. Who is MCB?

You didn't see him attacking Cassius and me on the basis of MCB's Spalding theory genre writings? I thought it was in that context that he said something about my Latin.

[_Yoda]

And he ironically calls this place a sty.

Pigpen Pahoran should feel right at home here, if that's true!

LOL!