Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

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.

Yes, you did. There is no reason to talk about not seeing anything "malicious" in their testimony and attributing to Kishkumen the belief that their testimony is a "lie" unless you are implying that these are the counter-position to your own.

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?

Yes. That is obviously what readers are meant to infer from their testimony.

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.

They would not know what ancient plates would look like. They would only have assumptions. But we are meant to infer that they look ancient because they were ancient---otherwise, their statement is irrelevant.

And you continue to misrepresent what the statement was:

"and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands"

They did make an affirmative statement that Smith had translated the plates. They were not merely identifying who Joseph Smith was.

[_Darth J]

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.

Which means you want to use the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, even though you've denied that in this thread.

[_Buffalo]

It's sad that Stem feels he needs to misrepresent the witnesses testimony just to further his arguments.

[_Darth J]

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.

No. A Bayesian analysis and problems with foundation and relevance are not mutually exclusive. You didn't understand either of the posts, or you wouldn't have said this.

[_stemelbow]

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.

uh...this can get tiring, Kishkumen. Either personal attacks are unprovoked or there is a reason for the, no? I don't see criticizing someone's point as a reason for personal attacks in response. You say that is reason. I do not mean to suggest you find justification in his attacks at all. But, to go after FAIR folks for doing as much and then cheering on DJ while he does the same thing, without any attempt to condemn makes your complaints seem hollow.

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.

Not really. They can say Joseph translated the plates and not really know if he did. They assume he did. That is not deception. Here goes. Let's say Kishkumen shows me he has underpants made of steel. But he doesn't want to show anyone else that he has underpants made of still. So he asks me to sign a statement that says he does have underpants made of steel for he showed them to me. Here's the statement, we'll say:

Kishkumen, a professor at an unnamed college or university, has underpants made of steel. He showed them to me. I sniffed them and the surely stink of Kishkumen. I poked them with a stick to make sure they were real and they surely seemed like steel to me. I pulled out a quarter and as I tossed it at them there was a distinct thing as if the quarter bounced off steel. Plus he pointed to me the band in which was engraven his name. I saw them. He certainly had underpants made of steel.

Signed,
Stemelbow

By signing this I do not suppose my testimony is to confirm he really is a professor at a school. I don't have anyway to confirm or deny. i was told that and accept it without making it an issue. Let's further proceed. Unbeknownst to me or you, a little later down the road of life, people also protest that Kishkumen is/was a professor at a school, "bona fide" as they say. Well my statement should not be used to verify your status of professor because even though I agree in part that you are a professor I do not have any verification. My statement is not evidence of the claim that you are a professor. Also, there is no reason to think you or I had attempted any deception in the signed statement, because neither of us really used your status as professor as the thrust of what I was to testify too.

[_stemelbow]

Which means you want to use the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, even though you've denied that in this thread.

No. It means I would want to use the testimony of the 8 to demonstrate there really were plates that appeared ancient and had writing on them in Joseph Smith's possession.

[_stemelbow]

It's sad that Stem feels he needs to misrepresent the witnesses testimony just to further his arguments.

But it was happy when you and Dehlin attempted to misrepresent the words of DCP--suggesting DCP was calling a writing in criticism of Dehlin as alleged rather than calling a "hit piece" or "smear" alleged. Don't worry I find your words here to be very disingenuous, not as anything to be helpful.

Do not fret, though. In the end, i'm not trying to do anything. I am clearly explaining what I see the testimony of the 8 beinga witness of--that there were plates. I am not suggesting the testimony of the 8 was somehow to suggest that the 8 are testifying that Joseph actually translated the plates. They clearly did not intend that.

[_Chap]

I don't think stemelbow is very familiar with the way evidence is extracted from texts.

But let's just leave him where he is, shall we? I don't think he has established any case apart from the fact that Mormon apologetics requires dialectical flexibility of a high order.

[_stemelbow]

I don't think stemelbow is very familiar with the way evidence is extracted from texts.

But let's just leave him where he is, shall we?

If I'm wrong, by all means, show me. no one has been able to demonstrate much of anything.

I don't think he has established any case apart from the fact that Mormon apologetics requires dialectical flexibility of a high order.

Oh brother....they whole discipline is bad, therefore everyone involved it in it bad--is that it? Oh brother.

[_Darth J]

Which means you want to use the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, even though you've denied that in this thread.

No. It means I would want to use the testimony of the 8 to demonstrate there really were plates that appeared ancient and had writing on them in Joseph Smith's possession.

You have conceded in this thread that nobody seriously disputes that claim. So what's the reason for trying to prove an undisputed claim?

(Noting, of course, that the plates "appeared ancient" according to the assumptions of 8 people unqualified to determine what ancient plates would have looked like.)