153 replies to this topic

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 12 February 2010 - 08:23 PM, said:

Brian is not involved in any of this analysis.

It was I who requested and was authorized to measure the papyri for this study.  I am grateful to John Gee for having consented to assist me, as also George and Howard Fisher, whom you would not know, but whose material assistance was extremely valuable and generous.

Then I suppose I will have to be satisfied with the testimony of three or four witnesses, even if one or two of them do have a somewhat "visionary" reputation.  You did take these measurements with your natural eyes rather than your spiritual eyes, I hope.  

Edited by Chris Smith, 12 February 2010 - 11:18 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 12 February 2010 - 11:16 PM, said:

Then I suppose I will have to be satisfied with the testimony of three or four witnesses, even if one or two of them do have a somewhat "visionary" reputation.  You did take these measurements with your natural eyes rather than your spiritual eyes, I hope.  

A "visionary" reputation?  Mmmmm .......... let's see.  That is an indirect (albeit rather artless) way of suggesting to your readers that anything John Gee or William Schryver produce in the way of evidence and analysis should be considered suspect, by definition.  

It's a minor twist on the old logical fallacy of poisoning the well.  

"These guys have a long record of seeing things that aren't really there, so distrust as unreliable anything they claim."

Now, I'm sure you have, as a basis for this well-poisoning exercise, a fairly lengthy list of examples where Professor Gee and I have established our "visionary reputation."  Right?  Good.

Because I would hate to think that that your insinuation has no basis in the facts; that this whole thing has been nothing but a propaganda ploy, and that, in truth, you have no justification whatsoever for impugning (even in a veiled fashion) the competence and/or trustworthiness of your opponents in this controversy.  Resorting to something like that would seem to betray an underlying uncertainty of the strength of your own position.  And we know that can't be the case, right?  After all, you're the one who has suggested that it will require a miracle greater than the seagulls to disprove the air-tight analysis that our erstwhile Brother Cook is planning to serve up.

Of course, those who tend towards the "visionary" have historically been associated with such miracles ...

Edited by William Schryver, 13 February 2010 - 08:19 AM.

[Mortal Man]

It's called humor Will.

[Chris Smith]

Mortal Man, on 13 February 2010 - 02:08 PM, said:

It's called humor Will.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that a wicked anti-Mormon such as myself is capable of telling an honest joke.  My soul is much too twisted by the dark side for that!

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 13 February 2010 - 02:08 PM, said:

It's called humor Will.

Of course it is.  Some of the best propagandists of the 21st century use humor as their primary medium.  Witness Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.  (Not that Chris rises to their level of comedic competence, by any means.   )

That doesn't change the fact that the notion Chris seeks to plant in the minds of his readers is that anything reported by John Gee and William Schryver is not to be trusted, or should, at the very least, be viewed with considerable doubt and skepticism.  Why?  Well, because they are inclined to see things that just aren't there.  Everyone knows that!  Right?

Hey, I've been around the block a few times.  I know how things work.  Poisoning the well is probably the single most popular method employed in my particular case.  Witness the kinds of things that get said about me in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park.  Just the other day a poster characterized me as a prolific and extremely fluent "cusser."  Then several others following concurred that William Schryver cusses like a sailor.  Is there any evidence to support to support the allegation?  No.  And, of course, none is provided.  It's not even necessary.  It "goes without saying," as they say.  

Then Joseph Antley, a relative newcomer to the GSTP, was subjected to page after page of propaganda about me, provided by Agostini, Il Maledetto.  ( )  At first, Antley said he was not aware of the fact that I do all these bad, nasty things attributed to me by Agostini, Il Maledetto.  But after several people affirmed what Agostini, Il Maledetto was saying, Antley began to believe.  

Now, bear in mind, no one ever provided any evidence whatsoever to support the accusations.  It's not even necessary.  It "goes without saying," as they say.

And now, the last I looked, Antley has been more or less persuaded that I am more or less guilty of all these bad, nasty things attributed to me by Agostini, Il Maledetto.

It's freaking hilarious!  

But that doesn't mean it isn't propaganda.  

And it is not substantially different than what Chris seeks to accomplish with his comedic forays in this thread.

So carry on.  I'm not offended.  Not at all.  I'm just inclined to point these things out for the benefit of the less discerning.  That's all.  

Edited by William Schryver, 13 February 2010 - 03:21 PM.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 13 February 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

anything reported by John Gee and William Schryver ... should, at the very least, be viewed with considerable doubt and skepticism.

I'd advise doubt and skepticism when reading any work of scholarship, but it's true that I approach yours and Gee's with a greater degree of skepticism than, say, Brian Hauglid's or Kevin Barney's.  This is not because you're bad or unintelligent people.  It's simply because, in the past, you have failed to sufficiently guard against confirmation bias.  As you improve in this regard, my skepticism will decrease in due proportion.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 13 February 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

I'd advise doubt and skepticism when reading any work of scholarship, but it's true that I approach yours and Gee's with a greater degree of skepticism than, say, Brian Hauglid's or Kevin Barney's.  This is not because you're bad or unintelligent people.  It's simply because, in the past, you have failed to sufficiently guard against confirmation bias.  As you improve in this regard, my skepticism will decrease in due proportion.

You advance a bold denunciation.

I believe you are therefore obliged to present some evidence to support it.  

Two or three examples should suffice, I would think.  After all, "confirmation bias" is something that should routinely manifest itself in one so inclined.  

I will anxiously await your reply.

Edited by William Schryver, 13 February 2010 - 08:23 PM.

[Chris Smith]

Three from Gee:

"Known Contents . . . Papyrus of Hor . . . another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved." (Guide, 10)
"While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." (Guide, 4)
"The characters in the manuscripts are an enigma. . . . They are placed in the manuscripts at the beginning of every paragraph, but there is no pattern to the order in which they are taken from one of the papyri. They seem to be taken at random which completely undermines the theory that the English text (which in many cases is clearly written before the characters) represents a translation of them." (Gee letter posted online, Jan 16 2010)

There are many more, but these should suffice.  Note that you have at one time or another endorsed the first two claims, and continued to endorse the second even after overwhelming evidence was presented to the contrary.  I don't recall if you've ever made the third claim, but you certainly did try to argue that the characters are not aligned with the English text, a claim that I believe originated with Nibley and is equally problematic.  You have also tried to discredit an eyewitness account because it had Joseph Smith estimating Mormon membership at 100,000.  Again, you persisted in this line of reasoning even after I showed that this was a common Mormon claim, and had appeared in the Times and Seasons under Joseph's editorship.  These are just the examples the spring to mind.  I don't keep archives of your posts and don't intend to hunt them up to provide links.  And, I don't particularly expect you to agree with my assessment that these are cases of confirmation bias.  But that, too, is simply a symptom of the same.

I also don't intend to discuss these examples any further.  I provide them, in the first place, against my better judgment.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited by Chris Smith, 13 February 2010 - 11:57 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 13 February 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

Three from Gee:

"Known Contents . . . Papyrus of Hor . . . another text of which only the opening words ('Beginning of the Book of...') have been preserved." (Guide, 10)
"While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835." (Guide, 4)
"The characters in the manuscripts are an enigma. . . . They are placed in the manuscripts at the beginning of every paragraph, but there is no pattern to the order in which they are taken from one of the papyri. They seem to be taken at random which completely undermines the theory that the English text (which in many cases is clearly written before the characters) represents a translation of them." (Gee letter posted online, Jan 16 2010)

There are many more, but these should suffice.  Note that you have at one time or another endorsed the first two claims, and continued to endorse the second even after overwhelming evidence was presented to the contrary.  I don't recall if you've ever made the third claim, but you certainly did try to argue that the characters are not aligned with the English text, a claim that I believe originated with Nibley and is equally problematic.  You have also tried to discredit an eyewitness account because it had Joseph Smith estimating Mormon membership at 100,000.  Again, you persisted in this line of reasoning even after I showed that this was a common Mormon claim, and had appeared in the Times and Seasons under Joseph's editorship.  These are just the examples the spring to mind.  I don't keep archives of your posts and don't intend to hunt them up to provide links.  And, I don't particularly expect you to agree with my assessment that these are cases of confirmation bias.  But that, too, is simply a symptom of the same.

I also don't intend to discuss these examples any further.  I provide them, in the first place, against my better judgment.

Peace,

-Chris

So, I ask for evidence of my confirmation bias, and you cite examples from Professor Gee, and then try to tie me to them.  Classic.

While I am not inclined to enter into a protracted debate over these things, I think it is very worthwhile to note that you have apparently appropriated the phrase "confirmation bias" as a catch-all explanation for why someone disagrees with your point of view on any argument.

First of all, aside from noting Gee's advocacy of the first item, and expressing a willingness to believe him and his analysis in the matter, I have said very little about Gee's interpretation of the Seyffarth material.  I don't find it a particularly persuasive argument, and I never have.  But even if I did, how is it that you believe "confirmation bias" would have factored into the equation?  The whole thing boiled down to a question of interpretations, and I find none of them conclusively persuasive.  Therefore I have never incorporated Gee's argument into the case I attempt to defend.

As for your second point, again I don't see at all how it is that you believe "confirmation bias" factors into the equation!  Granted, I have argued, and will yet argue in my book, conclusively, I believe, that the entire body of the published text of the Book of Abraham was recorded before the end of 1835 or early 1836.  I have never disputed the argument that more translation may have followed.  It may have.  I think you misinterpret the 1842 "translation" reference you cite, but no matter.  I am confident I can demonstrate that the portion of the BoA that was eventually published was received in Kirtland, as well as much more that was never published.

Now, how do you believe "confirmation bias" factors into my conclusion on this point?  Frankly, you have no idea.  You have no way or means to know the basis for my conclusions.  You have no idea what I have been doing; what source materials I have been analyzing.  You have never seen nor assessed the evidence I will marshal to support my arguments.  You're not even aware of what that evidence might be!  

All you know is that you believe you have good reason to disagree with my conclusions!  And since it is axiomatic with you that Abr. 2:19 to the end of the published text was originally authored in Nauvoo in March 1842, therefore, by definition, (apparently) anyone who disagrees with you must not be seeing things clearly; they're not viewing the evidence objectively; they must be yielding to a "confirmation bias."  

How can you tell they suffer from "confirmation bias"?  Well, because they disagree with you.  

It is nothing but a tautology.  And quite a silly one at that.

Finally, I have much to say concerning the relationship of characters to text, but this is not the time or place.  Suffice it to say that I am convinced you are not in a position to adequately assess the evidence nor draw informed conclusions when it comes to such questions.  When the day comes that you have adequate access to the source materials in order to assess the evidence, then we shall see what conclusions you draw.  

No doubt they will be greatly influenced by your overwhelming confirmation bias.  




`

Edited by William Schryver, 14 February 2010 - 09:17 AM.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will, I went back and re-read the thread on the translation timeline and it appears that you were only arguing for chapter 3 dating to 1835, rather than supporting Gee's conclusion that "there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835."  So, scratch that off my list.  Your argument about chapter 3 is quite wrong, but not willfully wrong enough to qualify for this list.  My apologies for including it.

I stand by the rest, however.

Peace,

-Chris

EDIT: I just re-read the post above this one and it seems you are supporting Gee's view on that, after all.  By the way, there are actually four 1842 translation references-- conservatively counted-- not just one.  If you don't recall the others, then I suppose I still can't accuse you of confirmation bias in this case.

Edited by Chris Smith, 09 August 2010 - 02:18 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 14 February 2010 - 02:47 PM, said:

Hi Will, I went back and re-read the thread on the translation timeline and it appears that you were only arguing for chapter 3 dating to 1842, rather than supporting Gee's conclusion that "there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the existing Book of Abraham after 1835."  So, scratch that off my list.  Your argument about chapter 3 is quite wrong, but not willfully wrong enough to qualify for this list.  My apologies for including it.

I stand by the rest, however.

Peace,

-Chris

EDIT: Never mind.  I just re-read the post above this one and it seems you are supporting Gee's view on that, after all.  (By the way, there are actually three 1842 translation references, not just one.)

Chris,

As for the 1842 references to "translation" of the papyri, I acknowledge them.  I simply believe the evidence is such that, whatever they refer to, they cannot be referencing any of the text of the Book of Abraham that was published in 1842.  Most likely, they refer to the explanations given for the facsimiles.  




Edit: changed my mind.

Edited by William Schryver, 15 February 2010 - 08:30 AM.

[Joseph Antley]

William Schryver, on 13 February 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

Then Joseph Antley, a relative newcomer to the GSTP, was subjected to page after page of propaganda about me, provided by Agostini, Il Maledetto.  ( )  At first, Antley said he was not aware of the fact that I do all these bad, nasty things attributed to me by Agostini, Il Maledetto.  But after several people affirmed what Agostini, Il Maledetto was saying, Antley began to believe.  

Hi William. I don't want to clutter a thread in the Pundit forum with personal posts like these, but I figured this was worth responding to. As I stated at the Other Board, I don't know you, and the two of us have never had any significant interaction together, that I can recall.  I don't necessarily "believe" the things they claim; frankly, I don't care.  It doesn't concern me.  Considering the treatment I was subjected to there, it's not as if they carry an extraordinary amount of credibility with me.

[William Schryver]

Joseph Antley, on 15 February 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

Hi William. I don't want to clutter a thread in the Pundit forum with personal posts like these, but I figured this was worth responding to. As I stated at the Other Board, I don't know you, and the two of us have never had any significant interaction together, that I can recall.  I don't necessarily "believe" the things they claim; frankly, I don't care.  It doesn't concern me.  Considering the treatment I was subjected to there, it's not as if they carry an extraordinary amount of credibility with me.

I'll reply to you via PM.



Edit: I tried, but your PM box is full.

Edited by William Schryver, 15 February 2010 - 04:14 PM.

[Joseph Antley]

William Schryver, on 15 February 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

I'll reply to you via PM.



Edit: I tried, but your PM box is full.

Deleted some messages, try again.

[Joseph Antley]

Apparently the admins lowered the inbox storage capacity down to 50, which I didn't realize.  PM's should work now.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 11 February 2010 - 09:45 PM, said:

I've also now learned that John has completed crunching the numbers of his winding length measurements.  Although his selection of measurement points differs slightly from mine (by a few millimeters, but anchored in the same segment of lacuna) his results parallel my own within a millimeter or less on each measured winding.

I'm curious Will.
Since you're now determined that the BoA was received entirely by revelation, independent of the papyri, are you still planning to publish your "Interminable Roll" paper?
Is John still planning to publish his paper?
Do either you or John still care how long the Hor scroll was?

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 23 September 2010 - 01:28 PM, said:

Those of certain individuals, more qualified than I to make such an assessment.

If you are referring to Prof. William V. Smith of the BYU Math Department, I should inform you that he appears to agree with our assessment.

Quote

As to their identities, all will reveal itself in good time.

Your frequent allusions to anonymous informants reminds me of someone else. Now, who could that be?

Quote

Notwithstanding your having consigned the scroll length question to  the depths of Mt. Doom,

?

Quote

and your enthusiastic confidence in the  methodology you employed to predict the measurement points for the  winding lengths (a methodology, as I have indicated previously, I had  [completely independently] considered myself and judged to be inherently  incapable of producing reliable results), you certainly couldn't have  thought your arguments would go unchallenged, could you?

"measurement points"???? I really think you should read the paper before spouting off again.

BTW, I look forward to reading your recently completed paper, "The Intolerable Roll – Fabricating the Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr," which, I understand, will be published later this year in The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, having been approved by the First Presidency.

Edited by Mortal Man, 23 September 2010 - 03:29 PM.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

If you are referring to Prof. William V. Smith of the BYU Math Department, I should inform you that he appears to agree with our assessment.

I think you should, perhaps, be a bit more cautious when speaking about Bill's conclusions concerning your paper, especially when his concluding statement in the comment to which you link above was:

Quote

"I can’t personally vouch for the measurements of course. But I assume they are good."

In the first place, his conclusion is based on an unproven assumption.  And since the measurements of the winding lengths is the key to the accuracy of any estimate of the length of the scroll, whether or not Bill "appears to agree" with your conclusions would seem to be an open question at present, don't you think?

Mortal Man, continued:

Quote

I look forward to reading your recently completed paper, "The Intolerable Roll – Fabricating the Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr" ...

Your insinuation, ex-ante, that my paper constitutes a deliberate attempt to fabricate something--in other words, to lie, is duly noted.

Edited by William Schryver, 23 September 2010 - 03:54 PM.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 23 September 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Your insinuation, ex-ante, that my paper constitutes a deliberate attempt to fabricate something--in other words, to lie, is duly noted.

Just a little gentle ribbing, William, because we're such good friends.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 23 September 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

In the first place, his conclusion is based on an unproven assumption.  And since the measurements of the winding lengths is the key to the accuracy of any estimate of the length of the scroll, whether or not Bill "appears to agree" with your conclusions would seem to be an open question at present, don't you think?

Our "measurements" were produced using an automated methodology that produced roughly equivalent results based on both the top and bottom edges. Our automated results also agree closely with the distance between subsequent matching vertical "cracks" in the papyrus as shown in figures 24 and 25. Thus while our measurements are not "proven" in the sense of achieving 100% certainty, they are well-supported by academic standards.