In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[DanGB]

Great post, and I want to go on record as agreeing with you 110%

Glad to see you are still my fan and not "outta here" again!

[Calm]

I livein the San Antonio area and I admit that I have never seen a Deseret Bookstore outside of Utah.

Not all LDS related bookstores are Deseretbooks. The one I worked at in Calgary was called Beehive Books and was owned by the owner of Cardston Books.

Since you can access Desertbook from pretty much anywhere in the US (and they may ship out of the country for all I know, what does having a brick and board store nearby change?

but do field a lot of questions from non members and members on his topic.

And what material in the past have you used to answer these questions?

I just assumed, after being here for thebshort time I have, that there was a plethora of convincing evidence on BOM history I could use w non member questions.

I am now beginning to conclude that merely asking that question can be more toxic than the response here.

It would depend a great deal on how you choose to define "convincing". There is a huge amount of material available for study just on the internet, especially at the Maxwell Institute site. FAIR wiki has a nice collection of summaries of questions and answers with links for further studies on specifics as well as talks from past FAIR conferences and other articles.

[volgadon]

Dr. Sorenson does not. Dr. Hamblin does on occasion.

I do not understand why Dr. Hamblin's article is not sufficient info to establish the credentials of the material he used in that article. If that is not enough, then why would anything additional from him convince you differently?

Dr. Hamblin is in Jerusalem right nw with the BYU center. My parents had a brief visit a few weeks ago when they were there for conference.

[Calm]

A previous discussion of the Watson letters from 4+ years ago:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8079

Some things never change.

add-on: and yet another one from the previous year...

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/7476

earlier that year..... http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/6196

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just assumed, after being here for thebshort time I have, that there was a plethora of convincing evidence on BOM history I could use w non member questions.

Considering that the vast majority of Jews who were personal witnesses of His ministry, His miracles, and His teaching did not find Jesus terribly convincing, I'm not sure what kind of evidence you were hoping for.

[Jeff K.]

Side note:

Have they proved the existence through archeological evidence of King David and King Solomon yet?

[Ceeboo]

First time in a long time I have agreed with Ceeboo!

Well it's about time

I knew you would come around.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mfbukowski]

Well it's about time

I knew you would come around.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Actually with all this sitting at the keyboard, I am BE-coming a-round PERSON.

[cksalmon]

Dr. Peterson wrote:

I assume it's real, but have no real evidence one way or the other.

From his comment, it appears that the Watson letter may well be a hoax. He assumes that it is real, but is aware of no "real" evidence pointing one way or the other. What would constitute "real" evidence? Simple clarification from the Office of the First Presidency, perhaps?

One would think that perhaps this issue just might have come up before among LDS academics. Surely, someone--at some point in the last 19 years-- has contacted the Office of the First Presidency to verify the legitimacy of the letter in question.

Are we really to believe that, two decades out, we must be content merely to "assume" the letter's authenticity? That we cannot know one way or the other? That no one has bothered to confirm its authenticity--or, at least, no one with which Dr. Peterson has conversed in the past 19 years--with the Office of the First Presidency?

That there really just isn't any evidence one way or the other that might inform us as to whether the Watson letter is actually genuine or a complete and utter fabricated hoax?

After all, there's "no real evidence one way or the other."

I've strained my credulity; I need an ice pack.

[DanGB]

Side note:

Have they proved the existence through archeological evidence of King David and King Solomon yet?

Candidly I find this typeof response or logic the weakest way for us to rationalize the the history question dealing with what we can't support w the BOM. The one thing we can establish w the Bible is the exisitence of many of it's cultures, places and peoples or nations. No question that most of the individual people or incidents cannot be proven. But there is a huge provenance of documents and ancient records or artifacts to get us back to the existence of civilizations. We know the history existed without having to rely on 100% on faith.

Our challenge w the BOM is we just don't have provenance of anything before the printing and binding of the BOM in 1830. Right or wrong, I am concluding at this point, the claim of history is 100% based on faith.

[mfbukowski]

Right or wrong, I am concluding at this point, the claim of history is 100% based on faith.

Gosh, I am surprised. You came in here with that question, didn't listen to the answers, and now you are leaving with the same questions. How could that be?

[Calm]

I am not an anthropologist PR geographist, but do field a lot of questions from non members and members on his topic.

DGB, perhaps I missed it but did you respond to my question of how you've responded to these questions from nonmembers and members alike on this topic in the past?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Gosh, I am surprised. You came in here with that question, didn't listen to the answers, and now you are leaving with the same questions. How could that be?

Let's look on the bright side, my spinach-eating friend. At least Dan seems to have got exactly what he was looking for.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 04 December 2009 - 01:00 PM, said:

Side note:

Have they proved the existence through archeological evidence of King David and King Solomon yet?

Candidly I find this typeof response or logic the weakest way for us to rationalize the the history question dealing with what we can't support w the BOM. The one thing we can establish w the Bible is the exisitence of many of it's cultures, places and peoples or nations. No question that most of the individual people or incidents cannot be proven. But there is a huge provenance of documents and ancient records or artifacts to get us back to the existence of civilizations. We know the history existed without having to rely on 100% on faith.

Our challenge w the BOM is we just don't have provenance of anything before the printing and binding of the BOM in 1830. Right or wrong, I am concluding at this point, the claim of history is 100% based on faith.

Hmmmm.... I take it then the answer is a resounding "no".

I did not ask it as a counter argument, but you do an excellent job in raising my query to the level of a counter argument against your own position. It deserves high praise in the halls of "shot myself in the foot".

But that does raise an interesting query. If the Eurasian continent had been found by Aztec Conquistadores who felt the various monotheistic religions were of the "false god" and destroyed most of which was written. And an Old and New Testament were found near Hadrians wall in England..... How would you trace it back to Israel, using only the information you find in the Old and New Testament, no maps, no known cultural paradigms (those have long since died out). How difficult would it be to find the relatively small nation of Israel, mixed in with all the other cultures? Could you find your way back to Israel from Hadrians wall using only the Old and New Testament?

If you cannot, then why hold a different standard for other religious works as proof?

[cksalmon]

Dr. Peterson wrote:

From his comment, it appears that the Watson letter may well be a hoax. He assumes that it is real, but is aware of no "real" evidence pointing one way or the other. What would constitute "real" evidence? Simple clarification from the Office of the First Presidency, perhaps?

One would think that perhaps this issue just might have come up before among LDS academics. Surely, someone--at some point in the last 19 years-- has contacted the Office of the First Presidency to verify the legitimacy of the letter in question.

Are we really to believe that, two decades out, we must be content merely to "assume" the letter's authenticity? That we cannot know one way or the other? That no one has bothered to confirm its authenticity--or, at least, no one with which Dr. Peterson has conversed in the past 19 years--with the Office of the First Presidency?

That there really just isn't any evidence one way or the other that might inform us as to whether the Watson letter is actually genuine or a complete and utter fabricated hoax?

After all, there's "no real evidence one way or the other."

I've strained my credulity; I need an ice pack.

Dr. Peterson's personal lack of knowledge regarding the authenticity of the first Watson letter (as he writes, "I assume it's real, but have no real evidence one way or the other") has piqued my curiosity about his current state of knowledge regarding the Second Watson letter. Does he also merely "assume" that the Second Watson Letter is authentic, while having "no real evidence one way or the other?" Or, is the Second Watson Letter to be regarded as authentic on more sure epistemic grounds? What are said grounds?

I'm not even sure how one might approach the verification of the proposition "The Second Watson Letter is authentic" while, per Dr. Peterson, the authenticity of the First Watson Letter has not yet even been confirmed--19 years on. Is the purported 1990 Watson letter authentic? There is, per Dr. Peterson, "no real evidence one way or the other."

Can anyone here solve this conundrum? Can anyone affiliated with this board find out if the First Watson Letter is authentic? Can anyone provide "real evidence" for Dr. Peterson one way or the other?

[mfbukowski]

Can anyone here solve this conundrum? Can anyone affiliated with this board find out if the First Watson Letter is authentic? Can anyone provide "real evidence" for Dr. Peterson one way or the other?

I have a very important question.

Who cares?

Who cares if a secretary wrote a form letter how many years ago? The second letter was not even considered important enough to take special care of, and was just filed with some other stuff, if I read it correctly.

[Daniel Peterson]

From his comment, it appears that the Watson letter may well be a hoax.

??????????

This entire manufactured pseudo-controversy about the Watson letters is an exercise in melodrama.

He [i.e., dcp] assumes that it is real, but is aware of no "real" evidence pointing one way or the other.

I don't even think the genuineness of the letter is controversial. Why on earth should I be seeking "evidence," one way or the other. If somebody seriously disputes its authenticity, maybe I'll be interested.

This appears to be your "conundrum." I wish you much joy of it.

What would constitute "real" evidence? Simple clarification from the Office of the First Presidency, perhaps?

That would count. Any perhaps, if I ever get into the habit of seeking evidence to corroborate uncontested propositions, I'll seek such clarification.

One would think that perhaps this issue just might have come up before among LDS academics. Surely, someone--at some point in the last 19 years-- has contacted the Office of the First Presidency to verify the legitimacy of the letter in question.

Why do you think so? As far as I'm aware, nobody doubts the letter's "legitimacy."

Are we really to believe that, two decades out, we must be content merely to "assume" the letter's authenticity?

I wouldn't say that we must be content to assume its authenticity. But I do assume it. I'm unaware of anybody who doesn't.

Barring reasons to the contrary, I also typically assume the honesty of people with whom I speak, the basic accuracy of textbooks, the authenticity of photographs, and the genuineness of currency.

That we cannot know one way or the other?

I suppose that it's your prerogative to indulge yourself in such radical skepticism. I have no idea, though, why you would choose to do so.

That no one has bothered to confirm its authenticity--or, at least, no one with which Dr. Peterson has conversed in the past 19 years--with the Office of the First Presidency?

As I type, three Australian coins sit to the right of my computer. The largest and oldest of them was minted -- or so it claims -- in 1982. Yet, so far as I'm aware, nobody has ever tested the authenticity of any of these three coins. I know of no data that will conclusively prove them either genuine or counterfeit. I'm left simply to assume their authenticity. This is a manifest scandal, and it can be replicated with respect to tens of millions of other coins across this continent, and to potentially billions beyond.

That there really just isn't any evidence one way or the other that might inform us as to whether the Watson letter is actually genuine or a complete and utter fabricated hoax?

After all, there's "no real evidence one way or the other."

Are you actually intending to claim that no such evidence exists? Wow. That's astonishing.

I can't even begin to fathom why you would assert such a claim, since it seems transparently false, and would appear to be easily demonstrated false.

I've strained my credulity; I need an ice pack.

You've plainly strained something. I'll grant you that.

Dr. Peterson's personal lack of knowledge regarding the authenticity of the first Watson letter (as he writes, "I assume it's real, but have no real evidence one way or the other") has piqued my curiosity about his current state of knowledge regarding the Second Watson letter. Does he also merely "assume" that the Second Watson Letter is authentic, while having "no real evidence one way or the other?"

Yes. It's possible, while extraordinarily unlikely, that I'm simply a brain in a vat, being manipulated by an evil scientist via electrodes. It's possible that either Bill Hamblin or a team of malicious leprechauns manufactured the Famous Second Letter. It's possible that my eyes deceived me. There are a host of improbable alternative explanations, and absolutely no empirical tests have been conducted to rule any of them out.

Or, is the Second Watson Letter to be regarded as authentic on more sure epistemic grounds? What are said grounds?

Well, for one, I saw, or think I saw, and held, or think I held, what purported to be the actual Famous Second Letter. Even following you down the path of extreme epistemological paranoia that you seem to be imputing to me (or commending to me), that would seem to put the Famous Second Letter on at least slightly firmer evidentiary grounds. Of course, I actually assume both to be authentic, as I have utterly no reason to assume otherwise. But we seem to be talking -- for reasons that, frankly, strike me as more than little opaque -- about a straw man caricature, not about me.

I'm not even sure how one might approach the verification of the proposition "The Second Watson Letter is authentic" while, per Dr. Peterson, the authenticity of the First Watson Letter has not yet even been confirmed--19 years on. Is the purported 1990 Watson letter authentic? There is, per Dr. Peterson, "no real evidence one way or the other."

Nope. Your "per Dr. Peterson" is utterly and far too obviously bogus. Try again.

Can anyone here solve this conundrum? Can anyone affiliated with this board find out if the First Watson Letter is authentic? Can anyone provide "real evidence" for Dr. Peterson one way or the other?

And, while you're at it, can you provide evidence that there is a Paris in France, that the sky is blue, that fish have gills, that some plants are flowers, that four is a bigger number than three, that the stars shine in thenight sky, and that critics are very often ridiculous?

Right or wrong, I am concluding at this point, the claim of history is 100% based on faith.

That's obviously what you're concluding. And it's just as obvious that you're wrong. I have no idea why you seem to imagine that what's been posted here validates your conclusion.

Are there any intellectually serious critics left on this board?

[John Williams]

Are there any intellectually serious critics left on this board?

Obviously not. But then there aren't too many intellectually serious apologists, either.

[volgadon]

Candidly I find this typeof response or logic the weakest way for us to rationalize the the history question dealing with what we can't support w the BOM. The one thing we can establish w the Bible is the exisitence of many of it's cultures, places and peoples or nations. No question that most of the individual people or incidents cannot be proven. But there is a huge provenance of documents and ancient records or artifacts to get us back to the existence of civilizations. We know the history existed without having to rely on 100% on faith.

Our challenge w the BOM is we just don't have provenance of anything before the printing and binding of the BOM in 1830. Right or wrong, I am concluding at this point, the claim of history is 100% based on faith.

Ok, please tell me where I can find a Perizite town.

[cksalmon]

(1) I don't even think the genuineness of the letter is controversial. (2) Why on earth should I be seeking "evidence," one way or the other. (3) If somebody seriously disputes its authenticity, maybe I'll be interested.

(1) Nor I. But, of course, you stated that there exists no "real evidence" that the first Watson Letter is "real" in the first place.

(2) If you don't believe said evidence exists, no, I can't think of a reason for you to seek it.

(3) But, of course, no one does. That's rather my point. Why does no one seriously dispute its authenticity, in your view? My assumption is that it is because there does exist historical evidence that strongly points to its authenticity.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally hold out the possibility that the letter is a hoax, I just want to know why you would state that you "have no real evidence one way or the other" and are consigned to merely "assume" its genuineness.

In stating that there is no real evidence for the letter's authenticity, you've introduced a measure of doubt (unintentionally perhaps) as to the letter's authenticity.

Your reply to my query, coupled with your initial statement, yields something like the following:

(4) You assume the genuineness of the letter and are aware of no one who doesn't.

(5) You are aware of no evidence one way or the other that the letter is actually authentic.

(6) You don't need to seek evidence as to the genuineness of the letter, because you already assume that it is authentic.

You wrote:

Are you actually intending to claim that no such evidence exists? Wow. That's astonishing.

Obviously not. My interest is in (5). Why did you state that you "have no real evidence one way or the other?" Is it your position that the evidence does exist, and yet you are unaware of it? I'm not the one who posited that you personally "have no real evidence one way or the other." You are.

Help me understand your position: You personally have no "real evidence" that the letter is authentic, but you find it astonishing that I might read into your comment the potential position that the evidence of which you have no personal knowledge doesn't actually exist? Is it your position, then, that the evidence exists, yet heretofore you just have no personal knowledge of it?

The content of the rather insignificant (in my view) letter is irrelevant to that question. I personally don't care one way or the other what Watson had to say about Hill Cumorah. My question is methodological in nature.

Do you really maintain that you have no personal knowledge of any evidence that would confirm the letter's historical authenticity beyond reasonable doubt? I think you do and I don't think you were lying when you said you didn't. Personally, I think you just misspoke. But, it does raise a methodological question regarding the confirmation of historical texts.

You wrote:

Well, for one, I saw, or think I saw, and held, or think I held, what purported to be the actual Famous Second Letter.

I, for one, don't dispute its historical genuineness, either--as I, like you, "...typically assume the honesty of people with whom I speak." Your narrative regarding the Second Watson Letter, I think, counts as good--if not absolutely definitive--historical evidence for its authenticity. The fact that the Office of the First Presidency has not denied the authenticity of the Second Watson Letter also constitutes historical evidence, albeit of a weaker variety.

What would, for you, constitute "real evidence" that the First Watson Letter is authentic? Or, to ask another way, what "real evidence" do you currently lack that would confirm the authenticity of the First Watson Letter?

Or, again, why you would state that you "have no real evidence one way or the other?" What is the "real evidence" you state that you don't have?

[cksalmon]

I have a very important question.

Who cares?

Who cares if a secretary wrote a form letter how many years ago? The second letter was not even considered important enough to take special care of, and was just filed with some other stuff, if I read it correctly.

I don't really care what Watson wrote, either, mfb. My interest lies elsewhere in this instance.

[Daniel Peterson]

But, of course, you stated that there exists no "real evidence" that the first Watson Letter is "real" in the first place.

No I didn't. And therein, in that careless misreading of what I actually wrote, lies your fundamental mistake.

I just want to know why you would state that you "have no real evidence one way or the other" and are consigned to merely "assume" its genuineness.

I said absolutely nothing about being "consigned" to such an assumption, and never used the word "merely" in describing my assumption.

These are contributions of yours. They misrepresent what I said, and they are solely responsible for this ridiculous "conundrum" that you've invented and attempted to foist off on me.

I've got to meet somebody right now, and then I'm headed out. If you're still "methodologically" baffled in this unaccountable way over a non-issue about an unimportant item when I get back to the computer in 12-18 hours, maybe another intervention will be warranted.

[cksalmon]

No I didn't. And therein, in that careless misreading of what I actually wrote, lies your fundamental mistake.

Pardon. Let me rephrase: "But, of course, you stated that you have no 'real evidence' that the first Watson Letter is 'real' in the first place." As this is all but a direct quotation, I trust I've now accurately represented your position.

Just so no one thinks I'm pulling a fast one, however, here's the direct quotation: "I assume it [the First Watson Letter]'s real, but have no real evidence one way or the other."

I'm very interested in how the words "real" and "evidence" are being used here. I wouldn't say that I'm methodologically baffled, but I am attempting to ascertain how you approach the verification of historical texts neither the production of which nor the "autograph" produced you have personally witnessed. But, you can clear that up, if you're so inclined, by answering my questions below. They are fairly straightforward.

As Doug Geivett, a Christian philosopher whose main area of interest is in epistemology, recently stated at the 2008 Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint forum on religious pluralism:

In epistemology, we're concerned about the value of our beliefs. Not just whether they're true or not, but whether we should believe them. We should like to believe what's true, and disbelieve what's false. But, what have we got to go on? And, on my view, all that we've got go on is evidence. Everything that grounds your belief for anything you believe, if it's grounded at all, is evidence of one kind or another.

Now, leaving aside the intricacies of presuppositional apologetics for now (as I don't believe you are suggesting as presuppositional your belief in the authenticity of the First Watson Letter), I think he's spot on. I don't see how one can credibly maintain the truth of the proposition "The First Watson Letter is authentic" while, at the same time, maintaining " have no real evidence one way or the other [that the First Watson Letter is authentic]."

You wrote:

I said absolutely nothing about being "consigned" to such an assumption, and never used the word "merely" in describing my assumption.

Fair enough. What descriptor would be more accurate? You "robustly assume," or, you "unquestioningly assume," or, you "assume for obvious reasons," or, you "justifiably assume?" Something else? You apparently don't just "merely assume" (or, at least you never used that word to describe your assumption and have implied that I was incorrect to employ it), so there must be some other adverb that would fit the bill. I'm trying to get at how your assumptive reasoning is functioning here, given that you have "no real evidence one way or the other."

You wrote:

I said absolutely nothing about being "consigned" to such an assumption, and never used the word "merely" in describing my assumption.

These are contributions of yours. They misrepresent what I said, and they are solely responsible for this ridiculous "conundrum" that you've invented and attempted to foist off on me.

I've got to meet somebody right now, and then I'm headed out. If you're still "methodologically" baffled in this unaccountable way over a non-issue about an unimportant item when I get back to the computer in 12-18 hours, maybe another intervention will be warranted.

Indeed, please. I'll repost my questions.

(1) Do you really maintain that you have no personal knowledge of any evidence that would confirm the letter's historical authenticity beyond reasonable doubt?

(2) What would, for you, constitute "real evidence" that the First Watson Letter is authentic? Or, to ask another way, what "real evidence" do you currently lack that would confirm the authenticity of the First Watson Letter?

(3) Why did you would state that you "have no real evidence one way or the other?" [(4) What might the "real evidence" be that you state you don't have?]

And:

Help me understand your position: (5) You personally have no "real evidence" that the letter is authentic, but you find it astonishing that I might read into your comment the potential position that the evidence of which you have no personal knowledge doesn't actually exist? [NOTE: Let's leave this question aside, as you've already expressed your incredulity that I would even suggest such a thing. But...] (6) Is it your position, then, that the evidence exists, yet heretofore you just have no personal knowledge of it?

Thanks.

[DanGB]

That's obviously what you're concluding. And it's just as obvious that you're wrong. I have no idea why you seem to imagine that what's been posted here validates your conclusion.

Let me clarify, and let me be honest w myself without being accused of either being an apostate or an unworthy member.

My personal conclusion that you refer to is not based on what has been posted here, but by what has not been posted here. My original request was:

I have seen reference to works by LDS authors who seem extreamely well credentialed and qualified to speak and address such ares of academic research and field work.

But my question, for my own needs is: has any of their works convinced the a academic world outside of what we might read in Ensign and other church sponsored publications?

I understand and accept that this area of scholarship may seem quite compelling to those within the LDS academic circles but it seems, without debating the reasons, these works are ignored by the academic community at large. Just trying to be honest here. We simply do not find such "history" being taught, discussed or accepted on our secular academic circles.

[handys003]

??????????

This entire manufactured pseudo-controversy about the Watson letters is an exercise in melodrama.

I don't even think the genuineness of the letter is controversial. Why on earth should I be seeking "evidence," one way or the other. If somebody seriously disputes its authenticity, maybe I'll be interested.

This appears to be your "conundrum." I wish you much joy of it.

That would count. Any perhaps, if I ever get into the habit of seeking evidence to corroborate uncontested propositions, I'll seek such clarification.

Why do you think so? As far as I'm aware, nobody doubts the letter's "legitimacy."

I wouldn't say that we must be content to assume its authenticity. But I do assume it. I'm unaware of anybody who doesn't.

Barring reasons to the contrary, I also typically assume the honesty of people with whom I speak, the basic accuracy of textbooks, the authenticity of photographs, and the genuineness of currency.

I suppose that it's your prerogative to indulge yourself in such radical skepticism. I have no idea, though, why you would choose to do so.

As I type, three Australian coins sit to the right of my computer. The largest and oldest of them was minted -- or so it claims -- in 1982. Yet, so far as I'm aware, nobody has ever tested the authenticity of any of these three coins. I know of no data that will conclusively prove them either genuine or counterfeit. I'm left simply to assume their authenticity. This is a manifest scandal, and it can be replicated with respect to tens of millions of other coins across this continent, and to potentially billions beyond.

Are you actually intending to claim that no such evidence exists? Wow. That's astonishing.

I can't even begin to fathom why you would assert such a claim, since it seems transparently false, and would appear to be easily demonstrated false.

You've plainly strained something. I'll grant you that.

Yes. It's possible, while extraordinarily unlikely, that I'm simply a brain in a vat, being manipulated by an evil scientist via electrodes. It's possible that either Bill Hamblin or a team of malicious leprechauns manufactured the Famous Second Letter. It's possible that my eyes deceived me. There are a host of improbable alternative explanations, and absolutely no empirical tests have been conducted to rule any of them out.

Well, for one, I saw, or think I saw, and held, or think I held, what purported to be the actual Famous Second Letter. Even following you down the path of extreme epistemological paranoia that you seem to be imputing to me (or commending to me), that would seem to put the Famous Second Letter on at least slightly firmer evidentiary grounds. Of course, I actually assume both to be authentic, as I have utterly no reason to assume otherwise. But we seem to be talking -- for reasons that, frankly, strike me as more than little opaque -- about a straw man caricature, not about me.

Nope. Your "per Dr. Peterson" is utterly and far too obviously bogus. Try again.

And, while you're at it, can you provide evidence that there is a Paris in France, that the sky is blue, that fish have gills, that some plants are flowers, that four is a bigger number than three, that the stars shine in thenight sky, and that critics are very often ridiculous?

That's obviously what you're concluding. And it's just as obvious that you're wrong. I have no idea why you seem to imagine that what's been posted here validates your conclusion.

Are there any intellectually serious critics left on this board?

What's an intellectual?