Hot from the Press!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Quinn's footnotes contain many, and I mean many, attacks without substance against what he pejoratively labels "apologists." The second edition's footnotes are silly.

[Chris Smith]

Quinn's footnotes contain many, and I mean many, attacks without substance against what he pejoratively labels "apologists." The second edition's footnotes are silly.

In fairness, he makes a distinction between apologists and polemicists and saves his most pejorative remarks for the latter. He actually labels himself an apologist. But it's not just the footnotes. The whole book, including the text, is full of swipes at various polemicists, among whom Peterson and Hamblin feature prominently. I admit to having found some humor in it (as I do in DCP's writing, for that matter), but it wasn't especially professional.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In fairness, he makes a distinction between apologists and polemicists and saves his most pejorative remarks for the latter. He actually labels himself an apologist. But it's not just the footnotes. The whole book, including the text, is full of swipes at various polemicists, among whom Peterson and Hamblin feature prominently. I admit to having found some humor in it (as I do in DCP's writing, for that matter), but it wasn't especially professional.

That's right, I had forgotten his creative distinction (though his labels aren't consistent or responsible, and seem entirely self-serving). I wouldn't expect that sort of squabbling in a published book of that type, it seems really out of place. Also, Quinn didn't take the chance to correct some of the really poor stuff for the second edition, instead he took offense and took swipes back at his critics. In effect, he did to the "polemicists" what he accused the polemicists of doing to him. Odd stuff.

[Daniel Peterson]

You've hardly demonstrated an ability to recognize unfair treatment when you see it, at least when it comes from your side of the fence.

You've hardly demonstrated an ability to recognize unjust charges when you see them, at least when such charges are made by ideological allies of yours. This is a case in point.

Not to say that Quinn was innocent of either methodological problems or some unfair treatment of his own, or that I really even particularly care. I've just been reading his book, so it was fresh in my mind.

Quinn was not treated unfairly. His accusations were overwrought and unmerited, and his editors should have tried harder than they evidently did to prevent him from embarrassing himself in print.

[Dan Vogel]

Chris,

Thanks for your comments. I havn't read this new edition of Goff's criticisms of my work, but I have read others, but I think you accurately describe his methodology. I'm trying to finish my study of the DHC by year's end, so I write here in haste. I might respond both of his reviews sometime next year. I hesitate only because most readers probably don?t understand what he?s talking about, only that it sounds bad. Vogel?s biased so we don?t have to pay attention to him. Some conclude that anyone who isn?t biased would reach the same conclusions they do about the BOM, or at least concede that BOM historicity is JUST AS valid a position as those who are skeptical, and thus slip out of the burden of proof.

Goff wastes lots of ink on what is essentially ad hominem. His argument is a question-begging definition of positivism that, in my opinion, anyone but a relativist cannot escape. One could take his definition of positivism and turn it around as a definition of relativism and then argue that Goff is a relativist, which of course he would try to deny. At any rate, he commits a logical fallacy when he tries to make his definition do all the work.

Am I positivist? By the traditional definition?that is, those who allow only the use of deductive evidence?I?m not. Anyone who uses more than math and hard science won?t fit this definition. By Goff?s definition, anyone who isn?t a relativist will have elements of positivism, even Goff. Do I think history can be recovered? No. We can only talk about one?s warrant for holding a certain interpretation of the past. That doesn?t sound positivistic to me.

Not all interpretations are equal. Nor do they have to account for all elements?some are bound to be unique. An interpretation just has to account for the most important elements. The problem is, since direct evidence supporting BOM historicity is missing, some think it?s a matter of competing interpretations. True, interpretations tend to be question-begging by nature. That?s why the interpretations in my bio of JS were not for the most part offered as proof the BOM is modern. I assume the BOM is not ancient because of the lack of direct evidence and the presence of historical and literary anachronisms. (I add here that one cannot use the question-begging assumption of antiquity to answer the historical and literary anachronisms, or argue that if we knew how the BOM was translated such evidence would be answered?thus committing the fallacy of possible proof.) My interpretation starts with that conclusion. Nor am I particularly concerned with proving JS intended what I interpreted. They are only suggestive and indirectly apply to JS. I was more concerned with the text?s dialogue with the nineteenth-century culture.

So Goff wastes our time with such manipulations, but he does it to strengthen the weak and question-begging evidence he offers in support of the BOM. This usually involves broad and questionable motifs drawn Nibley-like from all over the ancient world and across thousands of years, as if there was some kind of generic motif. The underlying problem is how these different cultures got the motif. Was it something culturally borrowed or reinvented? Personally, I think much of these motifs are so broadly constructed that one cannot but help find similarities across cultures, and the human drama is so repetitious anyway.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I hesitate only because most readers probably don?t understand what he?s talking about, only that it sounds bad. Vogel?s biased so we don?t have to pay attention to him.

I didn't get this impression from reading Goff at all.

Some conclude that anyone who isn?t biased would reach the same conclusions they do about the BOM, or at least concede that BOM historicity is JUST AS valid a position as those who are skeptical, and thus slip out of the burden of proof.

I didn't get this impression from reading Goff at all.

(I add here that one cannot use the question-begging assumption of antiquity to answer the historical and literary anachronisms, or argue that if we knew how the BOM was translated such evidence would be answered?thus committing the fallacy of possible proof.) My interpretation starts with that conclusion.

ie, begs the question...?

[Chris Smith]

Dan,

I don't have much to add, but I will say that when you talk about supernaturalists having the "burden of proof" you do come across as positivistic. "Proof" is a much stronger term than "evidence" or "warrant", which are the criteria by which you judge your own interpretations.

I'm also actually a little uncomfortable with discussions that start from a natural/supernatural distinction and argue that the two must be treated differently in terms of evaluating evidence for their existence. The problem is that the distinction is not self-evident. If the supernatural existed and was part of our everyday experience then we would think of it as natural, not supernatural. The distinction exists because of a difference in evidence, not the other way around. Moreover, there are myths and urban legends (like Bigfoot and UFO phenomena) that we do not think of as "supernatural", but that we do treat with the same skepticism as supernatural claims. Part of the reason we treat them skeptically is because, like supernatural phenomena, they are outside our normal experience. But other things that are outside our normal experience-- like the existence of atoms and subatomic particles-- we treat with less skepticism because they are supported by evidence that is convincing to us. Bigfoot, UFOs, and Mormon supernaturalism are not. Thus I think that in a methodological discussion one should move from the evidence to the natural/supernatural distinction rather than the other way around. I suspect this is what you did in your personal life, but you didn't consistently frame the discussion in your book this way.

But having said all that, you're exactly right in all that you said about positivism and relativism and ad hominem. I don't think you're a positivist, and if there are positivistic elements in your thinking then Goff and all the rest of us are as guilty.

Peace,

Chris

[Droopy]

Duane Boyce reflects on the law of consecration, and questions whether a particular contemporary political ideology can truly be seen as its modern, secular equivalent or demand our loyalty as Latter-day Saints.

I may now have to pony up and actually subscribe to the Maxwell Institute just so I can read this essay.

(Disclaimer: this is probably LOCKED THREAD material and should not be handled without adult supervision or while operating heavy machinery.)

I'd like to see how he handles this question, and the complexities and problems inherent in sifting through the major strains of modern political philosophy and comparing/contrasting their principles to the gospel.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think you're a positivist, and if there are positivistic elements in your thinking then Goff and all the rest of us are as guilty.

Peace,

Chris

Goff is saying something like that himself, though. He's calling for an acknowledgement of it and making comparisons as to what results come from what expectations.

[Chris Smith]

He's calling for an acknowledgement of it and making comparisons as to what results come from what expectations.

There's a difference between saying "let's read a text with different expectations and see what happens" and saying "Dan Vogel is a positivist and therefore his philosophy and methodology are discredited and we don't have to listen to him." I'm all for the former. The latter, however, is wrong and annoying.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There's a difference between saying "let's read a text with different expectations and see what happens" and saying "Dan Vogel is a positivist and therefore his philosophy and methodology are discredited and we don't have to listen to him." I'm all for the former. The latter, however, is wrong and annoying.

Where's that quote from?

[Chris Smith]

Where's that quote from?

Those aren't quotes, those are summaries.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, I disagree with your summaries then.

[cksalmon]

Get yours while supplies last!

Sweet! An unattributed homage to Doctor Scratch, right in the pages of the FARMS Review!

I'm sure it's too late for corrections, but surely the anonymous Scratchian quotation you failed to cite dates to mid-May 2009, rather than mid-March, as you published in your Editor's Introduction?

Or, did I miss its earlier appearance on the board that must not be named (which was heretofore assumed to be, but now apparently is not, beneath your scholarly attentions)?

(I can look into how you should cite Internet sources, if you're interested, by the way, but you'll have to send me the relevant Style Guide.)

Best.

cks

[Chris Smith]

Well, I disagree with your summaries then.

Then you probably haven't read the essay in question very carefully. Just take a look at the last paragraph and then tell me that Goff isn't using Vogel's supposed positivism to argue that his biography is "crude" and "simplistic" and unworthy of being taken seriously by believers.

[Daniel Peterson]

Feeling oddly belligerent today, cks? Go ahead. I don't mind.

Sweet! An unattributed homage to Doctor Scratch, right in the pages of the FARMS Review!

It was a quotation from the poor fellow, not an homage to the poor fellow, poor fellow.

I'm sure it's too late for corrections, but surely the anonymous Scratchian quotation you failed to cite dates to mid-May 2009, rather than mid-March, as you published in your Editor's Introduction?

Don't know. Don't much care. Neither its precise date nor the precise anonymous "identity" of its very secretive author make any difference at all to anything I wrote.

Or, did I miss its earlier appearance on the board that must not be named (which was heretofore assumed to be, but now apparently is not, beneath your scholarly attentions)?

Who said that it's "beneath [my] scholarly attentions"? Are you still in the straw man manufacturing business?

I've lost any and all interest in participating on it, but it remains an inexhaustible gold mine of bizarre assertions and peculiar behavior. A psychiatrist studies mental illness. S/he doesn't have to be mentally ill.

I can look into how you should cite Internet sources, if you're interested, by the way, but you'll have to send me the relevant Style Guide.

I know how to cite internet sources. Had I wanted to cite this one, I would have.

I saw (and see) no purpose in doing so. I realize that my Malevolent Stalker affects righteous indignation over this. You're welcome to join him in his protests. I couldn't possibly care less. My decision is entirely defensible, though nobody I take seriously has asked that I defend it.

[Pahoran]

I doubt I'll read his new one.

That's right. Now that your mind is made up, why would you need data?

Goff wastes lots of ink on what is essentially ad hominem.

While your writing is as perfectly free from ad hominem as--what, exactly? Chris's sneering dismissals?

I shall take your and Chris's hissy fits about Goff as a recommendation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

Feeling oddly belligerent today, cks? Go ahead. I don't mind.

Oh, goodness, no, Dan. Not at all. Were you feeling oddly non-attributive in your writing?

Don't know. Don't much care. Neither its precise date nor the precise anonymous "identity" of its very secretive author make any difference at all to anything I wrote.

I get that, my friend: "Don't know. Don't much care." I would submit, as an independent witness, and purely in your defense, that you really have no idea when the material you quoted was posted to Dr. Shades's board. And, knowing what I do about your general "style," I can also vouch for the fact that you "don't care much."

Who said that it's "beneath [my] scholarly attentions"?

Well, I said that, Dan. But, I must stand corrected, I presume. link removed is, I'd now have to assume, not at all beneath your scholarly attentions. Since you publish for "our Reader" your most salient gleanings from it it in the FARMS Review. I was wrong.

Are you still in the straw man manufacturing business?

Ah, ye olde complex question. Are you, Dan, still in the the wife-beating business?

I know how to cite internet sources. Had I wanted to cite this one, I would have.

That was, in fact, rather my point, of course, Dan. It's not exactly an inexact science. I'm not averse to it, personally: so, here it would be; if MADB didn't preclude links to that place. I can only ask, without any expectation of fulfillment, that you will vociferously deny any involvement in my probable future banning. You--than which none Niblier can be conceived.

Now, c'mon. That was funny.

cks

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then you probably haven't read the essay in question very carefully. Just take a look at the last paragraph and then tell me that Goff isn't using Vogel's supposed positivism to argue that his biography is "crude" and "simplistic" and unworthy of being taken seriously by believers.

I largely agree with his conclusions, I don't think you accurately represent them, Chris.

[cksalmon]

Oh. I forgot to mention that the newest FARMS Review contains an Editor's Introduction by yours truly, entitled "Where Ideas Won't Face Serious Challenge."

That title represents something of a minor homage to one of the most ridiculous of the very many ridiculous things posted by my Malevolent Stalker on his home message board.

Wanna know what I find really funny, Dan? It's that my response was utterly bereft of, this, your important insight, quoted supra!

When I mentioned that you'd done an homage to Scratch, I actually had no idea that you'd already admitted that you'd done an homage to Scratch, yes, in the quoted material, supra. I should get out more.

At this point, I don't even know when my suppositions might mesh with your actual mindset. One can forgive me for oversight, I suppose; but, not for relevant "second sight."

"Weird"

cks

[LifeOnaPlate]

I shall take your and Chris's hissy fits about Goff as a recommendation.

Regards,

Pahoran

You should. I'm starting to wonder if we're talking about the same articles. Goff has some suggestions as to why that is the case, too.

[LifeOnaPlate]

CK: he said the title is a minor homage. The article itself and the quoted excerpts aren't a homage.

[Chris Smith]

I shall take your and Chris's hissy fits about Goff as a recommendation.

LoaP's right; you should. You'll love the guy.

[Chris Smith]

I'm starting to wonder if we're talking about the same articles.

It occurs to me we might not be. I'm talking about "Dan Vogel's Family Romance".

Goff has some suggestions as to why that is the case, too.

Because I'm a naive, crude, unsophisticated positivist?

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh, goodness, no, Dan. Not at all. Were you feeling oddly non-attributive in your writing?

Nope. I gave attribution for every quotation and every point on which anything of substance hinged.

Illustrative anecdotes that don't function as evidence in an argument can be fully referenced or not. It depends. This one didn't need referencing. It's not important.

I get that, my friend:

I don't think you really regard yourself as my "friend."

"Don't know. Don't much care." I would submit, as an independent witness, and purely in your defense, that you really have no idea when the material you quoted was posted to Dr. Shades's board.

It's very possible that, in typing, I mixed March and May. That's certainly possible. Does it matter? Does anything rise or fall on the date? Does it make any substantial difference at all?

And, knowing what I do about your general "style," I can also vouch for the fact that you "don't care much."

If you're trying to make me embarrassed or angry, you're failing.

I had 1/3 of my singles ward over tonight for Family Home Evening. We played basketball and nerf soccer on my neighbors' sport court, had a brief lesson, and enjoyed chicken salad on croissants. I get a kick out of the kids.

But you can continue to try, if you like. It's a free country.

Since you publish for "our Reader" your most salient gleanings from it it in the FARMS Review. I was wrong.

You're wrong, of course, but for innumerable other reasons, not for that one.

Four or five particularly amusing or absurd passages from your home board have made brief guest appearances in the FARMS Review between a couple of my Introductions now, but no more than that. I like to entertain our reader, and this stuff is, frankly, priceless.

I can only ask, without any expectation of fulfillment, that you will vociferously deny any involvement in my probable future banning.

I will play precisely the role in your future banning, should it occur, that I've played in past bannings of others. None.

When I mentioned that you'd done an homage to Scratch, I actually had no idea that you'd already admitted that you'd done an homage to Scratch, yes, in the quoted material, supra.

You should make a serious attempt to write more coherently.

Your initial attack spoke of "an unattributed homage to Doctor Scratch." But there is none. There is a quote from my Malevolent Stalker that appears without attribution. But it's not an homage. (Rather, it's a specimen of idiocy.) And there is a title that, I said, represented an homage to my Malevolent Stalker. But the title, just like the rest of the article, is attributed -- to me. I chose it, just as I chose all the words of the article.

At this point, I don't even know when my suppositions might mesh with your actual mindset. One can forgive me for oversight, I suppose; but, not for relevant "second sight."

Sorry. I don't know Esperanto well enough to parse this last passage.