Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Sophocles]

But I'm having a hard time seeing how P(h) is not arbitrary. How are you determining a base rate for ancient Hebrew civilizations in the Americas that wrote scriptures on golden plates that were buried in a hill and shown to a Yankee money-digger by an angel? Do we have known instances of such things so we can get a feel for how likely it is that Joseph Smith experienced it, too?

I was never quite sure what to put in Field 1, either.

[_Darth J]

You left out a step here, stem. The step in which you criticized DJ's argument.

How awful of me! So did EA and Chris for that matter.

No, they proposed a different way of looking at what qualifies as evidence by talking about hypothetical probabilities. Bayesian analysis is not a "criticism;" it's an alternative. And Bayesian analyses are sort of finding their way into law, although it's not always explicit that that's what's happening.

I find it a silly little quibble, on your part for the reasons I've identified. You find it some gross blatant lie. At this point, i don't care, its more of a need to paint a picture on your end, it seems. There's nothing malicious in the testimony. YOu're reading into it.

No, that doesn't follow. You don't have to find a person's statement "malicious" to find it unpersuasive, unfounded, or irrelevant (or all three). You invariably frame every issue in terms of good and evil because that's how the Church has conditioned you to perceive any questioning of the faith-promoting narrative.

[_Darth J]

But I'm having a hard time seeing how P(h) is not arbitrary. How are you determining a base rate for ancient Hebrew civilizations in the Americas that wrote scriptures on golden plates that were buried in a hill and shown to a Yankee money-digger by an angel? Do we have known instances of such things so we can get a feel for how likely it is that Joseph Smith experienced it, too?

I was never quite sure what to put in Field 1, either.

I think you're supposed to put "100%" in that field.

[_stemelbow]

I never said you provoked attack, stem. I said that you intended to create the impression that DJ sideswiped you out of the blue and for no reason, when you clearly followed up your brief praise for our posts with a criticism that invited the exchange, as you now concede. Don't twist my words.

I'm not twisting words. You say there was reason for the personal attack. I say, I don't see criticism as a reason. What is the reason, then?

The document says that Joseph Smith translated those plates. He either did or he did not. Yet the men who signed the document had no way of knowing. Still, their signed statement is a testimony of that fact.

Please explain to me how the signed statement is a testimony of a fact many here would say is not a fact? Just because they said he translated it does not suggest they are saying they know he translated it. Its a matter of category here. They, in their minds, categorized Joseph as translator because that was his claim. They, in their minds, categorized the plates they saw as those which he translated, because that was his claim. They, in their minds, are not testifying that they are witness to the translation or whether the writings were authentically from an ancient source.

You can't choose which parts of the document their signature applies to. They were unable to as well. Of course saying Joseph Smith is "translator" is an identification. Duh. It is identification of Joseph Smith as the guy who translated the plates they touched--something that they were incapable of determining with their knowledge. So they signed it, and it is a misleading statement. I don't rake them over the coals for it.

Indeed, they thought, because he claimed it, they he translated them. They did not testify that he translated them. They simply don't know that.

Maybe Joseph actually did believe that he translated the plates that he had fabricated for the purposes of getting these witnesses to sign the statement. I don't know. Maybe the plates are real. Maybe lots of things.

That still doesn't change the fact that the testimony is misleading in that it gets these eight men to affirm something they could not possibly have known. I don't believe that you really think that detail is of little consequence.

Its of little consequence and I've explained why. Joseph and others, surely, told them Joseph translated the plates. They have no reason to doubt it, so when explaining their perspective they use the categorizing for clarity, it seems to me. No deceptive intent here at all.

If I recall correctly, there actually was some discussion of what these guys felt comfortable signing off on. Still, the statement as it stands makes a false representation of the reality, since they attest that Joseph Smith translated the plates and they had no ability to check the truth of that statement.

That is why their testimony is what they could verify--yes there are plates, yes they appear ancient and yes they have writings on them.

[_Darth J]

That is why their testimony is what they could verify--yes there are plates, yes they appear ancient and yes they have writings on them.

And this is meant to prove.........

[_stemelbow]

No, that doesn't follow. You don't have to find a person's statement "malicious" to find it unpersuasive, unfounded, or irrelevant (or all three). You invariably frame every issue in terms of good and evil because that's how the Church has conditioned you to perceive any questioning of the faith-promoting narrative.

I didn't say otherwise. But to be clear, do you also think the testimony of the 8 is testifying they know and have evidence that Joseph translated ancient writings into english? It appears to me they are testifying of the existence of the plates and that they appear to be ancient. The comments of translation don't seem to be anything more than clarification of what they are talking about.

[_stemelbow]

And this is meant to prove.........

This is clearly meant to supply evidence that Joseph Smith had plates, that appear ancient, at least as far as an untrained eye can tell, and that they had writings on them.

It's a start, as they say.

[_stemelbow]

No, they proposed a different way of looking at what qualifies as evidence by talking about hypothetical probabilities.

Since you offered no other way of looking at it, suggesting that your way was THE way, then offering a different way is indeed a criticism. I know you don't like that idea, but its true.

[_schreech]

And this is meant to prove.........

It further proves that Joe was adept at concocting a back story for whatever props he had on hand...Stone altars, bones, random rocks he found while digging, fake plates, Midwestern counties, etc...

[_Kishkumen]

I'm not twisting words. You say there was reason for the personal attack. I say, I don't see criticism as a reason. What is the reason, then?

Yes you are, stem. You are confusing the whole situation. There is clearly a difference between use of the word reason as "cause" and as "justification." Don't pretend that you don't understand that difference and did not know which sense I employed.

Please explain to me how the signed statement is a testimony of a fact many here would say is not a fact? Just because they said he translated it does not suggest they are saying they know he translated it. Its a matter of category here. They, in their minds, categorized Joseph as translator because that was his claim. They, in their minds, categorized the plates they saw as those which he translated, because that was his claim. They, in their minds, are not testifying that they are witness to the translation or whether the writings were authentically from an ancient source.

If they say they he is the guy that translated those leaves, and they sign their names to that statement, then they have affirmed in their signed statement that Joseph Smith translated the plates. It is that simple. I am not engaging in mind reading. I am reading the document. You want to make their purported mental state something that changes the facts of the document itself. Their intentions and mental state do not matter. They don't change what the document says.

Indeed, they thought, because he claimed it, they he translated them. They did not testify that he translated them. They simply don't know that.

What they actually thought and knew makes no difference. The document says what it says. It says what Joseph Smith intended it to say when he wrote their statement.

Its of little consequence and I've explained why. Joseph and others, surely, told them Joseph translated the plates. They have no reason to doubt it, so when explaining their perspective they use the categorizing for clarity, it seems to me. No deceptive intent here at all.

They are not explaining their perspective at all. Joseph is explaining it for them, and they signed their names to the document. No one is accusing these guys of intentionally deceiving others. Joseph's authoring of the testimony increases the likelihood that he intended to mislead others by having these men sign a document attesting to his ability to translate the plates that he showed them.

If there had been no interest in creating some kind of validation of Joseph Smith's ability to translate, we would not have the Anthon story or Chandler proclaiming that Joseph could translate the Egyptian on the papyri (another obvious misrepresentation). Consider also the Greek psalter incident, and the Kinderhook plates. It isn't necessary, nor is it desirable in historical terms, to take the Book of Mormon as an isolated incident.

That is why their testimony is what they could verify--yes there are plates, yes they appear ancient and yes they have writings on them.

And Joseph Smith translated these leaves we touched. So have we signed, and so let the world take notice.