Sorry to keep harping on this, but Carmack's lack of logic is blatant. He posts:
...Yes, this is circular reasoning by Analytics. Joseph Smith's revelatory language, even derivative revelatory language, cannot be used as evidence for or against Joseph Smith's ability to produce a specific item of revelatory language in the Book of Mormon. Once again, Analytics shows a lack of insight and makes missteps.
The 'circular' reasoning is that Carmack takes Smith's 'revelatory language' as a fact, when it is not. It is an assumption he has not proved, which means he cannot use it as he has above.
Carmack also argues that if Smith doesn't write like authors of pseudo-biblical texts of his day, it means he didn't author the text. That is wrong. All he is showing (if that) is that Smith didn't write like the average pseudo-biblical author of his day.
Speaking of Carmack and pseudo-biblical texts, Carmack himself has given another reason why his comparison with pseudo-biblical authors and Smith not authoring the Book of Mormon holds no validity:
Carmack wrote:
..As far as syntax, "people who" was more likely than "people that," which was much more likely than "people which." Only one of 25 pseudo-archaic authors used "people which," three times, and he was an editor of Shakespeare. So he was highly literate and much more knowledgeable in nonbiblical Early Modern English than Joseph Smith. ("People that|who(m)" occur 63 times in 25 pseudo-archaic texts.)... https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... /#comments
How many of those published authors of pseudo-archaic works were literate and more knowledgeable than Smith? All of them?
Then why does Carmack compare Smith's writing to pseudo-archaic authors, and conclude that Smith not writing like the average such author supports his conclusion that Smith did not author the Book of Mormon? It's not a logical conclusion.
Retracting 80% of the claimed examples of "archaic" language is worse than just leaving the case at 20% of its original strength. Finding that many examples that turned out not to be so archaic, when one looked harder for more recent use examples, suggests that the remaining 20% of examples may not really be archaic either. It may just be harder to track down examples of them from Smith's time, searching now 200 years later. Losing 80% of the examples weakens the case qualitatively, not just quantitatively.
[...]
I think this excellent point of yours can't be understated.
If I have a theory, and then upon closer examination, I discover 80% of the evidence for my theory doesn't actually support it -- in any other scenario, that would be a default indication that the theory simply doesn't hold water. Just crossing the 50% threshold would make me think my theory in its current form was probably no better than chance.
At the very least, it would make me realize that my methodology for identifying "evidence" was incredibly problematic, and I was likely allowing the theory to drive the evidence, rather than the other way around.
Then why does Carmack compare Smith's writing to pseudo-archaic authors, and conclude that Smith not writing like the average such author supports his conclusion that Smith did not author the Book of Mormon? It's not a logical conclusion.
I dunno... Uneducated Smith didn't write like educated author X, therefore Jesus, seems pretty unassailable.
Retracting 80% of the claimed examples of "archaic" language is worse than just leaving the case at 20% of its original strength. Finding that many examples that turned out not to be so archaic, when one looked harder for more recent use examples, suggests that the remaining 20% of examples may not really be archaic either. It may just be harder to track down examples of them from Smith's time, searching now 200 years later. Losing 80% of the examples weakens the case qualitatively, not just quantitatively.
[...]
I think this excellent point of yours can't be understated.
If I have a theory, and then upon closer examination, I discover 80% of the evidence for my theory doesn't actually support it -- in any other scenario, that would be a default indication that the theory simply doesn't hold water. Just crossing the 50% threshold would make me think my theory in its current form was probably no better than chance.
At the very least, it would make me realize that my methodology for identifying "evidence" was incredibly problematic, and I was likely allowing the theory to drive the evidence, rather than the other way around.
Then why does Carmack compare Smith's writing to pseudo-archaic authors, and conclude that Smith not writing like the average such author supports his conclusion that Smith did not author the Book of Mormon? It's not a logical conclusion.
I dunno... Uneducated Smith didn't write like educated author X, therefore Jesus, seems pretty unassailable.
And your reiteration of PG's point deserves the weight you give it. "...Likely allowing the theory to drive the evidence..."? That's been an issue with Skousen and Carmack's work since the very beginning.
