I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_JustMe]

The Pal Joey Principle -- that "experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore," so that their failure to pay attention to something is a reliable indicator of its lack of merit -- is nicely illustrated in the history of the Nobel Prize for Literature after 1903, as well.

In 1904, the Nobel Prize for Literature was shared by Frédéric Mistral and the illustrious José Eschegaray. The hack writer Leo Tolstoy was passed over yet again, as were the pulp fiction writers Thomas Hardy and Joseph Conrad. Tolstoy would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1910. Conrad would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1924. Hardy would continue to be ignored by the Nobel Prize committee in every vote until his death in 1928.

In the meantime, though, the Nobel Prize for Literature would go to such giants as Giosuè Carducci (in 1906, by unanimous vote, wisely passing over George Meredith, Henry James, Mark Twain, and Rainer Maria Rilke), the immortal Rudolf C. Eucken (in 1908), Selma Lagerlöf (in 1909, when, for the ninth straight time, the pathetically bad Swedish dramatist August Strindberg went altogether unnominated), the never to be forgotten Paul J. L. Heyse (in 1910, of whom one of the Nobel committee declared "Germany has not had a greater literary genius since Goethe"), Verner von Heidenstam (in 1916), Karl A Gjellerup (in 1917, chosen over Sean O'Casey, Paul Valéry, Maxim Gorki, and Bertolt Brecht), Carl F. G. Spitteler (in 1919, chosen over Marcel Proust), and Jacinto Benavente y Martínez (in 1922, chosen over James Joyce).

We can be confident that the Nobel Prize was properly bestowed in each and every one of these cases because, as the critic and literary historian Pal Joey has explained, "experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. The mere fact that such work continue[d] to be ignored is about as obvious as it can get! . . . [A]ttempts to defer the judgement of such work to an infinite future chasm of time is [sic] idiotic!"

You know....... this really isn't fair on further thinking it through though Daniel....... you can't continue simply confusing pal joey principle with facts. We need to see a little creativity with embellishment or something ya know? Can you spice this stuff up for us? Thanks for your consideration. "What a madcap hath heaven lent us here!" (King John 1. 1. 84)

[_marg]

Note that DCP's examples were all examples of theories based on sound scientific principles being later validated by mainstream science.

He does not offer a single example of a theory based on pseudoscience being later validated by mainstream science.

Yes I noticed that Beastie. Joey is correct, experts do know that some claims should be ignored and the burden of proof left up to the claimants. Scientists can not take every crackpot's claim in this world seriously, and the Book of Mormon is an obvious example with supernatural claims to angels and dead men coming back to life centuries later.

Not one of DCP's examples, involved the supernatural. Joey did not claim that science is infallible, that is a strawman by DCP.

Most definitely experts and scientists should waste little to none of their time on Mormonism nonsense. Only idiots would believe such crap.

[_harmony]

Only idiots would believe such crap.

So... most of the world's population are idiots, right? Because virtually everyone believes in some sort of religion... all of which are crap, according to your evaluation.

[_JustMe]

Only idiots would believe such crap.

So... most of the world's population are idiots, right? Because virtually everyone believes in some sort of religion... all of which are crap, according to your evaluation.

That's the gist of what I get from Marg's comments. Religion? I don't believe in it, therefore, anyone else who does is an idiot. My, what intelligence.....

[_Daniel Peterson]

In 1931, the immortal Erik A. Karlfeldt, who had died six months before the voting and was thus actually ineligible for the award, won the Nobel Prize for Literature by defeating Maxim Gorki.

In 1939, Frans E. Sillanpää, a literary giant whose fame will never die, beat out F. Scott Fitzgerald and Virginia Woolf for the prize.

In 1944, literary history dodged three bullets when the Nobel Prize for Literature went to the illustrious Johannes V. Jensen rather than to H. G. Wells, Willa Cather, or W. Somerset Maugham.

In 1973, the internationally famous Australian writer Patrick White won the Nobel Prize for Literature over Graham Greene, André Malraux, and Vladimir Nabokov, who were also defeated the next year -- by the two titans Eyvind Johnson and Harry E. Martinson, who shared the 1974 award.

Fortunately, there can be no doubt that the Nobel Prize was fittingly awarded in each and every one of these cases and that writers of little or no value were properly ignored. Why? Because, as the critic and literary historian Pal Joey has discovered, "experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. The mere fact that such work continue[d] to be ignored is about as obvious as it can get! . . . [A]ttempts to defer the judgement of such work to an infinite future chasm of time is [sic] idiotic!"

[_marg]

Has anyone ever made claim to people able to come back from the dead centuries later as the Book of Mormon does re Jesus and it later proved to have occurred, has anyone ever claimed angels as J. Smith and his cronies did and later it was discovered that their supernatural extraordinary claims did actually happen? When you DCP, offer examples of claims to the religious supernatural that later are accepted by an objective scientific community, then you'll have a counter argument to Joey. In the meantime he is correct, an objective scientific community will not waste time with crackpot religious supernatural claims such as you believe in with regards to the Book of Mormon. The burden of proof is left up to the crackpots.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nice of you to drop by, Marg.

When the great Eyvind Johnson and the immortal Harry E. Martinson shared the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1974, the experts who ignored Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov, Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, J. D. Salinger, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez in order to choose them knew them well: Both Johnson and Martinson were Swedish, and both were Nobel judges.

The foolish Professor Sven Delblanc, who, like all academics, taught at Uppsala University because he was incapable of doing anything better and lacked even a trace of common sense or of connection with the real world (thus illustrating Pal Joey's Law of Academic Denigration), wrote in the Stockholm newspaper Expressen: "The choice reflects a lack of judgment by the Academy . . . this can only too easily be interpreted as corruption through comraderie. Mutual admiration is one thing, but this smells almost like embezzlement."

Fortunately, though, while Eyvind Johnson and Harry E. Martinson continue to bestride the world of literature like colossi, the already weak reputations of Greene, Nabokov, Bellow, Mailer, Salinger, and Garcia Marquez have dissipated yet further with the passage of time, thus demonstrating once more (as if further demonstration were needed!) the truth of the Pal Joey Principle: "Experts know what to pay attention to and what to ignore. The mere fact that such work continue[d] to be ignored is about as obvious as it can get! . . . [A]ttempts to defer the judgement of such work to an infinite future chasm of time is [sic] idiotic!"

[_ludwigm]

The more comment I read from DCP, the more understanding of the expression ad nauseam I have.

Ps. I am not a native english, as You know... That sentence above may not be correct but I hope You understand the nub.

My biggest weakness is that when I read the comments I want to understand them. All of them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The more comment I read from DCP, the more understanding of the expression ad nauseam I have.

That's rather the point, of course.

Pal Joey wants us to believe that we can reliably base our judgments of whether something has merit or not on whether or not experts are aware of it or have paid any attention to it.

But, historically, there are so many cases of experts ignoring things that have merit -- e.g., the works of Joyce, Van Gogh, Greene, James, Rilke, Wegener, Semmelweis, Austen, Gorki, Tolstoy, Bach, Twain, Mendel, Proust, Conrad, Hardy, Wordsworth, Shelley, etc., etc., etc. -- that rigid reliance on the Pal Joey Principle seems clearly unwise.

QED.

[_antishock8]

Ludwigm,

Mr. Peterson is, by choice, in the unevnviable position of defending an abject fraud. He has to be ridiculous, because only through absurdity is Mormonism understood and accepted. Rationality has no place within Mormonism, and so it's his paid duty to defend the organization that breads his butter in the only manner that he understands is applicable as evidenced by his posts on this forum.

-AS8