Hot from the Press!

[Lars Umlaut]

Four or five particularly amusing or absurd passages from your home board....

Why are you referring to link removed as cksalmon's "home board"? He has been a member of this community longer and has over four times as many posts here than there.

[Dan Vogel]

Chris,

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.

Of course I don't mean 'prove' in absolute terms'that's one of those postmodern sophistries. If, for example, a vault of authentic Nephite documents written in Hebrew were found, wouldn?t you say BOM historicity would be proved? However, the stress is on who has the greater responsibility--those with potentially positive or negative evidence?

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.

I'm arguing that they should be treated the same. For example, establishing BOM historicity would go a long way towards proving the supernatural. I?m less concerned with faith claims, than with those claims that can be tested. The BOM is one of those situations. JS's revelations can't be tested in the same way.

Regardless, even Evangelicals will probably try to explain JS in naturalistic terms, that is, if they don't ascribe JS's abilities to satanic powers. They are of course free to reject my naturalistic bias while at the same time accepting my conclusions about JS.

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.

While the supernatural isn't part of our everyday lives, CLAIMS of the paranormal are. Many of these claims can be tested. The supernatural is such because it goes against nature--like walking on water--not because it's rare. But your argument here is one that's contrary to fact and includes assumptions about the nature of the supernatural not demonstrated. You have concluded that the supernatural isn?t supernatural before your argument started.

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.

We don't treat them with skepticism ONLY because they are infrequent. Many things are infrequent--like the northern lights or albino squirrels--but they do not necessarily rouse skepticism. We treat Bigfoot and UFOs skeptically because the evidence supporting the claims is not compelling. Also, the claims in and of themselves are of such a nature as to evoke skepticism--like gold plates from angels, seeing treasures under the ground through use of a stone in a hat, remote viewing, perpetual motion machines, alien abductions, psychic surgery, etc. No one should be accused of being overly skeptical when confronted with such claims.

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.

Exactly. I feel this way about all claims of the paranormal.

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.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. However, in my youth, I compartmentalized my belief in Mormonism. In my mind, it was the exception to the rule. Evidence led me to conclude otherwise.

[Daniel Peterson]

Why are you referring to link removed as cksalmon's "home board"? He has been a member of this community longer and has over four times as many posts here than there.

He expects (seeks?) to be banned from this board. (Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. I'm simply paraphrasing what he's said here.) By contrast, he'll never be banned at that board. He's permanently at home there.

And what a lovely place it is.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems there is an objection here to various articles or reviews published by FARMS, in that they incorrectly paint Vogel as nothing but a positivist and thus something to be ignored. If I understand correctly, Chris and Dan are trying to show Dan's position is more nuanced than various reviews allow. Perhaps you guys are saying that though Dan holds some positions that a positivist or whatever might hold, it does not mean he has to embrace everything a certain branch of positivism holds, and thus objections in various FARMS articles are misplaced, right?

[Chris Smith]

Hi Dan,

I like most of what you said, and I hope that in the future you'll frame your methodology that way. It will leave you less vulnerable to accusations like Goff's. I do still disagree with you about this:

While the supernatural isn't part of our everyday lives, CLAIMS of the paranormal are. Many of these claims can be tested. The supernatural is such because it goes against nature--like walking on water--not because it's rare. But your argument here is one that's contrary to fact and includes assumptions about the nature of the supernatural not demonstrated. You have concluded that the supernatural isn?t supernatural before your argument started.

How do we decide what's natural if not by observation and experience of the world? If magic really worked, then we would think of it as natural rather than supernatural. Many of its adherents, in fact, worked out a whole "science" of magic. We only distinguish magic as "supernatural" because we've observed that as far as we can see it does not work.

Yes, there are claims that are obviously on one side of the divide or another, like walking on water. Fair enough. But there's also some ambiguity about where we draw the line between the two. Things we don't understand might indeed be "natural", even though we haven't figured them out yet. Gravity being a good example. Many in previous centuries assumed that gravity was a supernatural force.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I think any argument that argues that supernatural claims have to meet a higher standard of evidence ought to make it clear that the distinction and the standard are not simply arbitrary. It should first explain that these kinds of claims have been falsified by scientific and historical tests before, and thus we have good reason to be suspicious of the category. And it should acknowledge that the category is constructed based on these kinds of tests rather than being strictly self-evident. You did some of this in your JS biography, so I'm not criticizing you or saying you're a positivist. I'm just saying that if you make this clearer (and avoid the dubious phrase "burden of proof") then you will better insulate yourself from criticism.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

By contrast, he'll never be banned at that board. He's permanently at home there.

Since you will never be banned at that board either, I suppose you must be permanently at home there as well.

Perhaps you guys are saying that though Dan holds some positions that a positivist or whatever might hold, it does not mean he has to embrace everything a certain branch of positivism holds, and thus objections in various FARMS articles are misplaced, right?

Not exactly. More like, Dan is not a positivist except in the sense that we are all a little positivistic, and Goff classes him as such only by warping the definition of the word so that it becomes more or less empty of content.

[Daniel Peterson]

Since you will never be banned at that board either, I suppose you must be permanently at home there as well.

Yes. Except in the sense that I'm not there at all, and in the sense that I'm highly unlikely to be banned here. (And this is so not because the moderators are in my hip pocket but because, whereas cks expects and perhaps seeks such banning, I don't do the sorts of things that would result in my being banned.)

If cks posts on two boards, one of which is (at least in his view) likely to cast him out and the other of which welcomes him with open arms, which of these two can most justly be described as his "home board"? If I post on one board, which of two boards -- one on which I post, and one on which I don't post and which is hostile to me personally and to all of my fundamental beliefs -- can most reasonably be considered my "home board"?

Nice try, though!

This is an extraordinarily important issue, and my hat is off to you and Lars Umlaut for raising it and for attempting to keep it before the attention of the public.

[Dan Vogel]

It seems there is an objection here to various articles or reviews published by FARMS, in that they incorrectly paint Vogel as nothing but a positivist and thus something to be ignored. If I understand correctly, Chris and Dan are trying to show Dan's position is more nuanced than various reviews allow. Perhaps you guys are saying that though Dan holds some positions that a positivist or whatever might hold, it does not mean he has to embrace everything a certain branch of positivism holds, and thus objections in various FARMS articles are misplaced, right?

I?m saying Goff needs to pay more attention to the actual presentation of evidence, arguments, and interpretations, and less on the author. The author has biases, but these do not automatically make his arguments fallacious. In my view, Goff?s approach is merely an elaborate and subtle form of ad hominem circumstantial. It would be like saying any argument an apologist offers can be safely ignored since they are always bound to support the faith no matter the evidence. That wouldn?t be fair, right? It?s best to skip the ad hominem and confine one?s comments to arguments and evidence. After all is said and done, even postmodernists like Goff end up presenting their case as any scholar would, which leaves one wondering why all the fuss about positivism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I?m saying Goff needs to pay more attention to the actual presentation of evidence, arguments, and interpretations, and less on the author. The author has biases, but these do not automatically make his arguments fallacious. In my view, Goff?s approach is merely an elaborate and subtle form of ad hominem circumstantial. It would be like saying any argument an apologist offers can be safely ignored since they are always bound to support the faith no matter the evidence. That wouldn?t be fair, right? It?s best to skip the ad hominem and confine one?s comments to arguments and evidence. After all is said and done, even postmodernists like Goff end up presenting their case as any scholar would, which leaves one wondering why all the fuss about positivism.

Where does Goff say "any argument Dan Vogel offers can be safely ignored"? I see a critique of presuppositions and arguments, etc., but I don;t see any unfounded ad hominem. Method, IMO, matters, and if critiquing a method is an ad hominem then we're in sad shape.

[Dan Vogel]

Chris,

I pursue this subject a little more because I think this kind of thing needs some exposure. It?s important to keep in mind, as you have previously noted here, that I?m not arguing that the supernatural doesn?t exist, only that the evidence upon which the claim rests is insufficient to me.

How do we decide what's natural if not by observation and experience of the world? If magic really worked, then we would think of it as natural rather than supernatural. Many of its adherents, in fact, worked out a whole "science" of magic. We only distinguish magic as "supernatural" because we've observed that as far as we can see it does not work.

Magic and science were once the same. The development of the scientific method began the narrowing of the field. Those who forget this methodology invariably veer off into the outer darkness of pseudoscience, where people get hurt, dead, or taken. Nevertheless, you keep assuming the supernatural has been mislabeled, that it?s really natural but less frequent. Well, you have the wrong definition of the word. If you insisted on using this definition in every case, there would be no such thing as supernatural. If you concede that it exists in some cases, then your point about frequency is lost. Since we are talking about instances where you cannot say which category they belong, you commit the fallacy of possible proof. No matter which way you look at it, it?s a non-starter. In my opinion, this issue is a red herring. The real issue is on what grounds are such claims being made.

Yes, there are claims that are obviously on one side of the divide or another, like walking on water. Fair enough. But there's also some ambiguity about where we draw the line between the two. Things we don't understand might indeed be "natural", even though we haven't figured them out yet. Gravity being a good example. Many in previous centuries assumed that gravity was a supernatural force.

This is an analogy, which helps me understand what you mean. But it?s not an argument. This is still an appeal to possible proof. If we knew more, then ESP could be explained naturally. This without proving ESP is real in the first place. If it?s not a real phenomenon, it doesn?t need explaining. If water dowsers can?t perform under double-blind testing, there?s no need for the pseudoscience supporting it.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I think any argument that argues that supernatural claims have to meet a higher standard of evidence ought to make it clear that the distinction and the standard are not simply arbitrary. It should first explain that these kinds of claims have been falsified by scientific and historical tests before, and thus we have good reason to be suspicious of the category. And it should acknowledge that the category is constructed based on these kinds of tests rather than being strictly self-evident. You did some of this in your JS biography, so I'm not criticizing you or saying you're a positivist. I'm just saying that if you make this clearer (and avoid the dubious phrase "burden of proof") then you will better insulate yourself from criticism.

Sounds like good advice!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Magic and science were once the same.

According to which theory of magic? What theorist, etc.? If you mean magic and science weren't viewed as dichotomously as many see them today I would agree. Butthere were still important differences according to people like Malinowski iirc.

[Dan Vogel]

Where does Goff say "any argument Dan Vogel offers can be safely ignored"? I see a critique of presuppositions and arguments, etc., but I don;t see any unfounded ad hominem. Method, IMO, matters, and if critiquing a method is an ad hominem then we're in sad shape.

As I stated previously, I haven?t read Goff?s new essay, but it sounds much like his previous writings. Of course the position I describe is not explicitly stated. It?s the implied argument as I see it. You don?t see unfounded ad hominem perhaps because you are looking for abusive forms. I?m referring to circumstantial ad hominem, which is an attempt to divert attention away from evidence and arguments to the person given them. I realize that he also tries to deal with arguments and evidence, but that does not change the use of ad hominem. Moreover, this ad hominem is often woven into his critique of arguments, evidence, and interpretations. I?m sure you would see the problem with this right away if in my writings I spent fifteen pages discussing the biases of Mormon apologists and why their habit of taking leaps of faith taints everything they say about evidence and arguments.

[Chris Smith]

Nevertheless, you keep assuming the supernatural has been mislabeled, that it?s really natural but less frequent. Well, you have the wrong definition of the word. If you insisted on using this definition in every case, there would be no such thing as supernatural.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, Dan. I'm not arguing that the phenomena we think of as "supernatural" are really natural, or that they actually exist. I actually tend not to believe in such things. I'm just pointing out that the categories are constructed rather than self-evident, and so to even seem to treat them as self-evident opens one to criticism.

By the way, something weird's happening with your apostrophes. They all show up as question marks.

Peace,

-Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

As I stated previously, I haven?t read Goff?s new essay, but it sounds much like his previous writings. Of course the position I describe is not explicitly stated. It?s the implied argument as I see it. You don?t see unfounded ad hominem perhaps because you are looking for abusive forms. I?m referring to circumstantial ad hominem, which is an attempt to divert attention away from evidence and arguments to the person given them. I realize that he also tries to deal with arguments and evidence, but that does not change the use of ad hominem. Moreover, this ad hominem is often woven into his critique of arguments, evidence, and interpretations. I?m sure you would see the problem with this right away if in my writings I spent fifteen pages discussing the biases of Mormon apologists and why their habit of taking leaps of faith taints everything they say about evidence and arguments.

Dan, you're more than free to write such a piece, but as I said, (and I see your distinction and have taken it into consideration regarding "abusive forms") I don't believe it is out of bounds to talk about a writer's presuppositions, method, outlook, etc. and don't see that as being ad hominem in any fallacious way. Disregarding the critique as ad hominem isn't very engaging, either.

But as you say, you haven't even read Goff's latest so we can forgo any more talk of it until Chris and you have read it, if you want to read it.

[Greg Smith]

As I stated previously, I haven?t read Goff?s new essay, but it sounds much like his previous writings. Of course the position I describe is not explicitly stated. It?s the implied argument as I see it. You don?t see unfounded ad hominem perhaps because you are looking for abusive forms. I?m referring to circumstantial ad hominem, which is an attempt to divert attention away from evidence and arguments to the person given them. I realize that he also tries to deal with arguments and evidence, but that does not change the use of ad hominem. Moreover, this ad hominem is often woven into his critique of arguments, evidence, and interpretations. I?m sure you would see the problem with this right away if in my writings I spent fifteen pages discussing the biases of Mormon apologists and why their habit of taking leaps of faith taints everything they say about evidence and arguments.

You know, sort of like labeling someone as "ad hominem" as a way to diminish their critique without actually demonstrating said ad hominem. :-)

For the uninitiated, how would "circumstantial ad hominem" be distinguished, from (say) speculating about and dismissing the content of an essay that one has yet to read based purely upon who wrote it and potential naive summaries of it by others?

[Kevin Christensen]

FYI

Some of the essays are now online at the FARMS Website. Not Alan Goff as yet. But Daniel's introduction, two reviews of Margaret's Temple Themes in Christian Worship, essays by Louis Midgely and Martin Marty.

Tasty. Yum.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Lars Umlaut]

This is an extraordinarily important issue, and my hat is off to you and Lars Umlaut for raising it and for attempting to keep it before the attention of the public.

Please don't take your hat off on my account, Sir. I simply asked your reasoning for making what was, to me, an odd comment. You have since answered my question, and I appreciate the time you took to do so.

May the rest of your day be hatted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

His day be hatted? I can help with that:

[i was in a hurry though]

[Dan Vogel]

Dan, you're more than free to write such a piece, but as I said, (and I see your distinction and have taken it into consideration regarding "abusive forms") I don't believe it is out of bounds to talk about a writer's presuppositions, method, outlook, etc. and don't see that as being ad hominem in any fallacious way. Disregarding the critique as ad hominem isn't very engaging, either.

But as you say, you haven't even read Goff's latest so we can forgo any more talk of it until Chris and you have read it, if you want to read it.

I doubt Goff's treatment is any different than the other two times he elaborated at length on positivism and my writings. Last time I checked the newest FARMS Review wasn't available for purchase yet. I'm only writing informally here. Here is an example of ad hominem circumstantial:

I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Dan Vogel]

You know, sort of like labeling someone as "ad hominem" as a way to diminish their critique without actually demonstrating said ad hominem. :-)

For the uninitiated, how would "circumstantial ad hominem" be distinguished, from (say) speculating about and dismissing the content of an essay that one has yet to read based purely upon who wrote it and potential naive summaries of it by others?

The summaries are similar to the other two times Goff has written on this topic. Plus I had an on-line exchange with him on the same topic. So I think I know his arguments well, depite not having read the yet-to-be released publication under discussion. Do you have reason to conclude that the "potential naive summaries" are actually wrong? Goff's attempt to label naturalistic critics of the BOM as positivists is no secret. Do you have reason to doubt this?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I doubt Goff's treatment is any different than the other two times he elaborated at length on positivism and my writings. Last time I checked the newest FARMS Review wasn't available for purchase yet. I'm only writing informally here. Here is an example of ad hominem circumstantial:

I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

I don't really need of a brief brush-up on "ad hominem circumstantial." Your example would have been more persuasive (and relevant and responsive) had it been written by Goff about you.

[Dan Vogel]

I don't really need of a brief brush-up on "ad hominem circumstantial." Your example would have been more persuasive (and relevant and responsive) had it been written by Goff about you.

So anyone who raises the issue of ad hominem is committing ad hominem?

[William Schryver]

Dan has long struggled in his understanding of this most basic of logical fallacies.

I think it would be best, at this juncture, to simply permit him to remain, without further correction, firmly ensconced in his misconceptions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So anyone who raises the issue of ad hominem is committing ad hominem?

Not "anyone" in the sense of "everyone," but "anyone" in the sense of "anyone raising the issue of ad hominem in a way that commits the fallacy is arguing ad hominem."

It seems to me the conversation has gone something like this:

Dan says Goff's reviews and writings on Vogel are little more than ad hominem attacks rather than substantive or accurate analysis. Based on some Internet conversations and so forth Dan feels Goff does not accurately represent his position based on the labels Goff has chosen to employ, rather than the ideas and examples and analysis Goff provides. Further, he feels Goff essentially encourages people to dismiss Vogel outright based on using a methodology Goff feels is inadequate. When asked for examples he gives a few generalizations and then includes a link to a wikipedia article and a comment about Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. This is supposed to clarify a fallacy that doesn't need clarifying, and in the process, it seems Dan is essentially encouraging people to dismiss Goff outright based on using a methodology Vogel feels is inadequate, which is the methodology of ad hominem, though Vogel has not demonstrated such is actually the case, or even demonstrated he understands Goff's position.

Now like you I am busy, so I understand brevity especially on a message board. However, I would prefer substantive analysis of material to brushing asides, and if your response to Goff would be anything like your response to Kevin Christensen's materials I wouldn't have much faith in them really confronting Goff's actual arguments. (Is my saying that ad hominem?)

[Dan Vogel]

Not "anyone" in the sense of "everyone," but "anyone" in the sense of "anyone raising the issue of ad hominem in a way that commits the fallacy is arguing ad hominem."

It seems to me the conversation has gone something like this:

Dan says Goff's reviews and writings on Vogel are little more than ad hominem attacks rather than substantive or accurate analysis. Based on some Internet conversations and so forth Dan feels Goff does not accurately represent his position based on the labels Goff has chosen to employ, rather than the ideas and examples and analysis Goff provides. Further, he feels Goff essentially encourages people to dismiss Vogel outright based on using a methodology Goff feels is inadequate. When asked for examples he gives a few generalizations and then includes a link to a wikipedia article and a comment about Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. This is supposed to clarify a fallacy that doesn't need clarifying, and in the process, it seems Dan is essentially encouraging people to dismiss Goff outright based on using a methodology Vogel feels is inadequate, which is the methodology of ad hominem, though Vogel has not demonstrated such is actually the case, or even demonstrated he understands Goff's position.

Now like you I am busy, so I understand brevity especially on a message board. However, I would prefer substantive analysis of material to brushing asides, and if your response to Goff would be anything like your response to Kevin Christensen's materials I wouldn't have much faith in them really confronting Goff's actual arguments. (Is my saying that ad hominem?)

Ironic how you end doing just what you criticize me doing?

Just to clarify, I'm not attempting to critique Goff's entire essay, just the beginning 15 pages of his calling me a positivist and building arguments based on that, which he has done at other times. I say this is ad hominem, but you have done nothing to show otherwise.