the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[mfbukowski]

As we have been warned. Let's get back on topic.

Well, you know, a little saber rattling just makes things interesting. I dunno, I guess it rubbed me the wrong way. Definitely should eat breakfast before posting. Gotta watch that blood sugar.

[charity]

An unusual point of view.

And what kind if facts are there, if scientific facts don't exist? Most people would think that H20 is water, but I guess it is not a fact then?

And Mars is not a planet?

Coming from a scientific background, anyone with a brain knows that while "facts" may not change, the interpretation of what those facts means often does. You ask if Mars is not a planet? Just a few years ago, Pluto was considered a planet. And now it isn't. Same facts. Same little piece of rock. Different interpretation. That is really what science is all about.

[mfbukowski]

Coming from a scientific background, anyone with a brain knows that while "facts" may not change, the interpretation of what those facts means often does. You ask if Mars is not a planet? Just a few years ago, Pluto was considered a planet. And now it isn't. Same facts. Same little piece of rock. Different interpretation. That is really what science is all about.

Yes I know this well- that was not my point. My point was about the ordinary usage of the word "fact" which clearly includes empirically established truths, or the truths of science.

Shall I list a dozen or so things we call "facts" which are established by empirical observation, or do you get the point? Would you dispute that the speed of light is a "fact"?

I do not know what the word "fact" could possibly mean without including propositions verified through empirical observation, do you?

If so, could you give me an example of a "fact" which is not verifiable though empirical observation? Unless one restricts oneself to a priori "facts" I don't think it is possible, and then obviously in ordinary discourse we use the word much more widely than to apply to a priori propositions.

Legally, findings by a judge or jury might be called "facts" even when quite disputable- in "fact", that is what courts do all the time- dispute to determine what they will find to be the "facts" of the case- which are subject to change with new evidence.

So is the statement "Mars is a planet" a "fact" or not? How about the statement "Pluto is a planet?" Is that a fact? Are the "facts" the diameter and mass of the planet or it's classification AS a planet? Are you trying to tell me that calculations about the diameter and mass of a planet cannot change?

Where is the unchangeable "fact" in your assertion?

The reality of the usage is that "facts" change all the time.

[charity]

Yes I know this well- that was not my point. My point was about the ordinary usage of the word "fact" which clearly includes empirically established truths, or the truths of science.

Shall I list a dozen or so things we call "facts" which are established by empirical observation, or do you get the point? Would you dispute that the speed of light is a "fact"?

I do not know what the word "fact" could possibly mean without including propositions verified through empirical observation, do you?

If so, could you give me an example of a "fact" which is not verifiable though empirical observation? Unless one restricts oneself to a priori "facts" I don't think it is possible, and then obviously in ordinary discourse we use the word much more widely than to apply to a priori propositions.

Legally, findings by a judge or jury might be called "facts" even when quite disputable- in "fact", that is what courts do all the time- dispute to determine what they will find to be the "facts" of the case- which are subject to change with new evidence.

So is the statement "Mars is a planet" a "fact" or not? How about the statement "Pluto is a planet?" Is that a fact? Are the "facts" the diameter and mass of the planet or it's classification AS a planet? Are you trying to tell me that calculations about the diameter and mass of a planet cannot change? Where is the "fact" in your assertion?

You can dance around it, but the truth is that little pieces of factoids, mass, diameter, or anything else, are really not all that important in what we think. Pluto's diameter and mass didn't change (well, yes, but not in the way we think of or at least for this discussion) but our determination that Pluto was a planet and now is not, is not based on fact. It is based on interpretation. Soemnbody made up rules about what constituted a planet.

The op of this thread says "shrinking, expanding, etc." as though the interpretations and assumptions about the Lehite population were facts and not assumptions from interpretations. Now, did that help?

[cdowis]

Coming from a scientific background, anyone with a brain knows that while "facts" may not change, the interpretation of what those facts means often does.

You understand the difference between

• data/observations/"facts" and
  interpretation/opinion/speculation/scientific consensus.

That will make you very unpopular among some of our critics. The DNA research used against the BOM was touted as "fact" until it was pointed out some of the flaws in interpretation, as well as methodology. It's pretty much a dead argument, as, I suspect, this thread will soon be.

[charity]

You understand the difference between

• data/observations/"facts" and
  interpretation/opinion/speculation/scientific consensus.

That will make you very unpopular among some of our critics. The DNA research used against the BOM was touted as "fact" until it was pointed out some of the flaws in interpretation, as well as methodology. It's pretty much a dead argument, as, I suspect, this thread will soon be.

I don't mind that a bit. Have you read about William Schryer's upcoming presentation at the FAIR conference? Talk about unpopular with critics!

[LeSellers]

I do not know what the word "fact" could possibly mean without including propositions verified through empirical observation, do you?

If so, could you give me an example of a "fact" which is not verifiable though empirical observation?

I believe the Atonement is a fact, but no one can observe it, measure it, or takes its temperature. Unless it falls into your category of "a priori facts", I believe it would be found on the list of facts that are not empirically observable.

Lehi

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Out of curiosity, how exactly did we get to this point?

I thought the thread had to do with the question of the ever shrinking Lamanites...

[ERayR]

Out of curiosity, how exactly did we get to this point?

I thought the thread had to do with the question of the ever shrinking Lamanites...

Evolution

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Evolution

Ah, great! Evolution!

There has been quite a bit of conflict on the subject, looking at our past leaders...

Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines and Salvation said it was of the devil, and yet President Eyring's father as well as Elder Talmage accepted it.

Personally looking at everything that we know right now evolution seems to be the best THEORY, as we don't know all the facts behind it.

[mfbukowski]

You can dance around it, but the truth is that little pieces of factoids, mass, diameter, or anything else, are really not all that important in what we think. Pluto's diameter and mass didn't change (well, yes, but not in the way we think of or at least for this discussion) but our determination that Pluto was a planet and now is not, is not based on fact. It is based on interpretation. Soemnbody made up rules about what constituted a planet.

The op of this thread says "shrinking, expanding, etc." as though the interpretations and assumptions about the Lehite population were facts and not assumptions from interpretations. Now, did that help?

Hmmmmm

Not really. The question was do "facts" change? That is what you got after me for saying, so that is the answer I was looking for. I know what you are saying and I agree, I am just getting after you for getting after me, that's all. Yes, it is semantics. But you brought it up.

It was that "anyone with a brain" bit. Mine usually doesn't work too well, but it's there.

[mfbukowski]

I believe the Atonement is a fact, but no one can observe it, measure it, or takes its temperature. Unless it falls into your category of "a priori facts", I believe it would be found on the list of facts that are not empirically observable.

Lehi

I believe that too.

Ok. But I would tend to think what makes it a "fact" is the fact that we believe it. It cannot be proven historically, but the difference it makes in our lives is what makes it a "fact". It's effects are a fact of my life.

But I could be wrong on that. All we are discussing here is the common usage of the word "fact", not whether or not the "atonement is true" in some sense.

It really is not a very important point, but it seems that there are enough willing to battle for it. Yes it's a derail, but no one is discussing the OP any more anyway

[mfbukowski]

It's pretty much a dead argument, as, I suspect, this thread will soon be.

We can only hope.

[semlogo]

I have reviewed the fossil record AND THERE ARE GAPS. Any researcher worth his salt would have to admit that there are significant gaps. I sure hope that your theories are based on a little more than visiting the children's science museum.

Very small gaps. Unfortunately, every time a gap is filled, it technically creates two more gaps on either side. But creation scientologists will never be satisfied, no matter how much evidence there is.

[semlogo]

And H2O is not water it is a water molecule.

Wait, is that a fact?

[Craig Paxton]

Out of curiosity, how exactly did we get to this point?

I thought the thread had to do with the question of the ever shrinking Lamanites...

I

[Deborah]

To support my position I quoted Boyd K. Packer

[Jason]

There are facts and there are facts, and archaeology is not a "hard" science. The stories it comes up with to explain the how and why of ancient civilizations are not testable the way the speed of light or the make up of a water molecule are.

[steelyray]

This old canard has been discussed and refuted, as you critics love to take it out of context. Plus a testimony involves both the mind and the heart so your view that "feelings" trump anything else is false. Testimony of the Book of Mormon is far more than mere "feelings" and until critics understand that they will never understand why LDS continue to read and love the BOM.

I would love to hear of a testimony which actually consisted of verifiable facts that pointed to the BOM in a testable way. That would truly be a first.

[Jason]

I would love to hear of a testimony which actually consisted of verifiable facts that pointed to the BOM in a testable way. That would truly be a first.

Every testimony is based on verifiable facts, and usually in a testable way as well.

If I say that God told me the BoM is true and that it has changed my life, and that God can tell you as well and that it can change your life, those are verifiable facts and they are testable.

[fatherofone]

how are those facts verifiable or testable?

[steelyray]

Every testimony is based on verifiable facts, and usually in a testable way as well.

If I say that God told me the BoM is true and that it has changed my life, and that God can tell you as well and that it can change your life, those are verifiable facts and they are testable.

So says every non-Mormon Christian, JW, Wiccan, atheist, Scientologist, and Muslim. All can claim and show clear evidence of change in their lives as a result of conversion. I fail to see how the test proposed here provides conclusive evidence of scriptural truth.

To do so you would need to generate a clear cause-effect relationship in order to eliminate the strong possibility of psychological confirmation bias, the higher probabilities of 19th century fakery, and show how such evidence could not be affected by other outside influences.

[mfbukowski]

I repeat my earlier advice to Steelyray

[mfbukowski]

I would love to hear of a testimony which actually consisted of verifiable facts that pointed to the BOM in a testable way. That would truly be a first.

You just don't get this at all.

[mfbukowski]

how are those facts verifiable or testable?

They have been verified and tested by millions of others.