A Challenge to Smoot & Rappleye

[_Shulem]

for what it's worth, I attended a study group/ fireside where Bushman was speaking shortly after RSR came out, and during the Q&A someone asked him what he thought the biggest problem was for Joseph Smith, and Bushman quickly said "The Book of Abraham." The person tried to suggest that maybe polygamy was the biggest problem, but Bushman just said "Nope, it's the Book of Abraham."

Indeed. The Book of Abraham is the silver bullet and the greatest threat to Mormonism today. The Facsimile No. 3 is the single most damaging piece of evidence to prove Mormonism is a fraud. This is what they fear. It strikes fear in their hearts and they don't like talking about Facsimile No. 3 because it rips right into their very conscience and it sears.

Keep hammering with the Book of Abraham and hold up Facsimile No. 3 as the standard. They hate that above everything else and it's breaking them.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, I remember making this point to David Bokovoy years ago. I went ahead and adopted his argument and took it to its logical end by saying, "Holy crap, the Book of Mormon mentions Jesus. And the Bible mentions Jesus. The Bible is an ancient Book, therefore the Book of Mormon is an ancient book!" I gave a list of like 20 of these examples to prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient book.

"Holy crap, the Book of Mormon mentions the Holy Ghost. And the Bible mentions the Holy Ghost. The Bible is an ancient Book, therefore the Book of Mormon is an ancient book!"

etc etc

The point was to make these apologists understand that some parallels have more obvious explanations than just "it must be ancient too" argument.

That's part of the process of weighing the evidence. One notes, upon more thorough discussion, that certain evidence is not really very strong. If the more parsimonious explanation is the influence of the Bible on Joseph Smith, then that is the explanation I and most other non-Mormons will prefer. In my opinion the books of Nehemiah and Nahum provide a much more likely explanation for the Book of Mormon's Nahom than does NHM. That said, I would not dismiss utterly the small possibility of NHM. Nevertheless, if a judgment must be made, I will choose Biblical influence over NHM.

[_Kishkumen]

The problem with even trying to answer the question is that when a theory is so preposterous or fringe, that there is a disturbing leverage effect. A tiny bit of pressure against the really long handle of a wrench can loosen the tightest bolt, or snap the head off or strip it. The weirder the theory, the longer the handle.

Is the handle any longer, or is it just the case that the likelihood of persuading others is more remote, given the quality and quantity of the evidence? In other words, I don't think it is necessary to set higher bars for fringe theories. Such theories come nowhere close to clearing the same bar one expects of any theory.

[_Lemmie]

That said, I would not dismiss utterly the small possibility of NHM.

And reasonably so; there is a huge difference in the quality of a probability being zero-and therefore known with absolute certainty, and a non-zero probability- so close to zero as to be virtually indistinguishable from zero, but technically, NOT known with absolute certainty.

I think this technicality is over-exploited to the point of ridiculousness by many apologetic arguments related to Book of Mormon historicity, but in the end, academic integrity requires a formal admission of a non-zero probability. If that is where Smoot is sitting with his request for parity in considering non-zero probabilities on both sides, I would concede that point.

However, once non-zero probabilities are conceded on both sides, the best estimations of likelihood are so disparate between the fringe arguments and what is academically accepted that the argument becomes moot.

So in Gadianton's analogy, the length of the handle is inversely related to the likelihood of the event balanced at the end of the handle. "The weirder the theory, the longer the handle."

(ETA: Or like Kish says: "Such theories come nowhere close to clearing the same bar one expects of any theory." Can't argue with that. )

[_EAllusion]

There are multiple ways people intuitively think about evidence. This is mirrored in ongoing academic debate over what it means to say something constitutes evidence. If someone demands that I admit there is evidence of low probability things like the Book of Mormon being an ancient, divinely revealed document, sure I have no problem saying yes. It's just that the evidence is far from persuasive. But if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of it, I do question if that person is consistent.

Suppose we observe ripples on the water of Loch Ness. Is that evidence Nessie exists? If you say yes it is, I'm not going to begrudge you for claiming the Book of Mormon has evidence in its favor. But suppose you instead say it isn't because there are other, better reasons why we might've seen that ripple of water. If that's how you think of evidence, then no, there isn't a shred of evidence in the Book of Mormon's favor. Just some ripples on the water.

[_Lemmie]

There are multiple ways people intuitively think about evidence. This is mirrored in ongoing academic debate over what it means to say something constitutes evidence. If someone demands that I admit there is evidence of low probability things like the Book of Mormon being an ancient, divinely revealed document, sure I have no problem saying yes. It's just that the evidence is far from persuasive. But if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of it, I do question if that person is consistent.

Suppose we observe ripples on the water of Loch Ness. Is that evidence Nessie exists? If you say yes it is, I'm not going to begrudge you for claiming the Book of Mormon has evidence in its favor. But suppose you instead say it isn't because there are other, better reasons why we might've seen that ripple of water. If that's how you think of evidence, then no, there isn't a shred of evidence in the Book of Mormon's favor. Just some ripples on the water.

+1000.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't get the impression that these young Mopologists really care one way or the other about the quality of the evidence per se; whether NHM is on the same level of believability as that film of Bigfoot loping through the woods seems like it would be irrelevant to them. Instead, this seems strictly rhetorical: it's just about getting the critics to say, "Hey, yeah--okay. This is 'evidence.'" From there, they can always revert back and say, "Well, guess what? Critics have already conceded that NHM is 'evidence.'" NHM may very well be the worst evidence that anyone has ever dreamed up in favor of the Book of Mormon, but they don't seem to care. The important point here, per Smoot, is simply that critics acknowledge it *as* evidence.

Well, I for one am willing to do that, provided that they are willing to name things that count as evidence against the Book of Mormon. If they truly want to step up to the plate, then they can say which evidence against Mormonism rates as *good* or *excellent* evidence. Bear in mind that Cinepro has already provided an anecdotal account of Bushman openly admitting that the Book of Abraham is a strike against Joseph Smith. This shows--yet again--why Bushman is not a Mopologist: he seems to actually care about things like truth and honesty, rather than just scoring points.

[_Kishkumen]

There are multiple ways people intuitively think about evidence. This is mirrored in ongoing academic debate over what it means to say something constitutes evidence. If someone demands that I admit there is evidence of low probability things like the Book of Mormon being an ancient, divinely revealed document, sure I have no problem saying yes. It's just that the evidence is far from persuasive. But if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of it, I do question if that person is consistent.

Suppose we observe ripples on the water of Loch Ness. Is that evidence Nessie exists? If you say yes it is, I'm not going to begrudge you for claiming the Book of Mormon has evidence in its favor. But suppose you instead say it isn't because there are other, better reasons why we might've seen that ripple of water. If that's how you think of evidence, then no, there isn't a shred of evidence in the Book of Mormon's favor. Just some ripples on the water.

Yes. I see your point. And I have to say that I stand in the camp of "ripples on water are not evidence of Nessie when other explanations work much better." On the question of the Book of Mormon, 19th-century literature that reads somewhat like the KJV does not rise to the level of evidence for a lost ancient civilization in America. It is a set of ripples on a lake. Perhaps that sounds grudging, but, striving to be as honest and objective as possible, I do see it that way.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't get the impression that these young Mopologists really care one way or the other about the quality of the evidence per se; whether NHM is on the same level of believability as that film of Bigfoot loping through the woods seems like it would be irrelevant to them. Instead, this seems strictly rhetorical: it's just about getting the critics to say, "Hey, yeah--okay. This is 'evidence.'" From there, they can always revert back and say, "Well, guess what? Critics have already conceded that NHM is 'evidence.'" NHM may very well be the worst evidence that anyone has ever dreamed up in favor of the Book of Mormon, but they don't seem to care. The important point here, per Smoot, is simply that critics acknowledge it *as* evidence.

Well, I for one am willing to do that, provided that they are willing to name things that count as evidence against the Book of Mormon. If they truly want to step up to the plate, then they can say which evidence against Mormonism rates as *good* or *excellent* evidence. Bear in mind that Cinepro has already provided an anecdotal account of Bushman openly admitting that the Book of Abraham is a strike against Joseph Smith. This shows--yet again--why Bushman is not a Mopologist: he seems to actually care about things like truth and honesty, rather than just scoring points.

Very true, Doctor. Someone says, "well, huh, that is interesting," and suddenly the stock in Mormonism is rising--faith is warranted, for sure. But "huh" means very little in the measurement of historical fact. "Huh" is a placeholder that is treated as a victory. Mormonism lives to fight one more day. What of the mountain of evidence that the Book of Mormon is wholly a 19th-century reworking of material available in its time? Will apologists concede that this is evidence against the historical reality of Nephites? After all, what are the chances that Joseph Smith could fabricate such a book and get it right? I have yet to see much to persuade me he did.

[_Gadianton]

Is the handle any longer, or is it just the case that the likelihood of persuading others is more remote, given the quality and quantity of the evidence? In other words, I don't think it is necessary to set higher bars for fringe theories. Such theories come nowhere close to clearing the same bar one expects of any theory.

I think I see what you're saying. We don't want to allow the force of a pebble applied to the lever, and that's true. But whether that sets a higher bar or not is a matter of perspective, and goes back to defining evidence in the first place. Whether we're saying evidence is low quality or doesn't rise to evidence at all could be saying the same thing. In my example it doesn't rise to evidence at all, and so it's not setting the bar higher.

I think the lever model shows why the apologists want it to be considered evidence. A small but high quality discovery that lends credibility to the theory that Hitler is alive and building an empire on the moon has real paradigm shifting power compared to a big and high quality discovery confirming smoking causes cancer. In fact, it makes you step back and wonder, how is it possible to have a small but high quality discovery for a fringe theory in the first place? It may not make much sense.

Every apologist has cited Kuhn at some point to defend the Book of Mormon but Kuhn would block what Smoot is trying to get out of this. A scientific paradigm is highly resistant to change. For a "small" discover like NHM, you interpret within the reigning paradigm, meaning, you wouldn't be looking for NHM in the first place. If history as we know it can't possibly hold the discovery, then an alternative model necessarily arises. So in EAs example of the ripples, because you can account for ripples under the reigning paradigm -- in Kuhn -- there is no need for other suggestions.

The implicit point is Kuhn's framework is that evidence is "theory-laden", meaning, you can't really talk about evidence purely in the abstract and tally it up for one paradigm vs. another. When looked at this way, it helps when talking about small but high quality evidences for bizarre propositions.