Critical Thinking And The Bom

[sjdawg]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/705373944/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-A-better-methodology.html?pg=2

when examining the Book of Mormon, we must begin by assuming that it was really written by ancient authors.

Nothing like going in with an open mind.

[Calm]

http://www.mormondia...o=new_post&f=11

Nothing like going in with an open mind.

Your link does not work.

An analogy---I have a beaker full of a solution of chemicals. I am given a list of what chemicals are supposedly in it. To test that this is an accurate description, is it more effective to test for chemicals that are on the list or ones that are off it?

Assuming that the work is ancient, we can then test it against other ancient works to see if it matches significantly well enough to be what it claims to be or not.

If we use tests on it to determine if it matches more modern productions this does not tell us whether or not it is an ancient production because there may be shared qualities between the two, etc.

[sjdawg]

Your link does not work.

An analogy---I have a beaker full of a solution of chemicals. I am given a list of what chemicals are supposedly in it. To test that this is an accurate description, is it more effective to test for chemicals that are on the list or ones that are off it?

Assuming that the work is ancient, we can then test it against other ancient works to see if it matches significantly well enough to be what it claims to be or not.

If we use tests on it to determine if it matches more modern productions this does not tell us whether or not it is an ancient production because there may be shared qualities between the two, etc.

Sorry about that. I corrected the link.

Would you consider Ash's theory to be correct if we approached the BOM with the assumption it was false until proven otherwise?

[Calm]

Would you consider Ash's theory to be correct if we approached the BOM with the assumption it was false until proven otherwise?

I trust those who work with ancient documents to tell me how one goes about proving something is what it says it is or not. If they say starting with the assumption that it is false until proven otherwise is the standard methodology, I'm fine with it. So far that is not what experts have said that I've studied.

[sjdawg]

I trust those who work with ancient documents to tell me how one goes about proving something is what it says it is or not. If they say starting with the assumption that it is false until proven otherwise is the standard methodology, I'm fine with it. So far that is not what experts have said that I've studied.

I think the difference is that he starts with the assumption the BOM is true and then moves on to say

we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be

So we have started with an assumption and stuck with it even though there is no proof the assumption is warranted. Generally, if we start out with an assumption we better be able to support it or it will soon be discarded. I have no issue with people saying they believe because of spiritual experiences or faith. It is when we wade into this murky area of "proof" that Ash opens himself up to criticism.

[Brant Gardner]

Would you consider Ash's theory to be correct if we approached the BOM with the assumption it was false until proven otherwise?

If you assume that it is what is says it is, you can test it to see if it fits into an appropriate historical context. That is a test that can have either a positive or negative outcome, judged against a known standard.

If you assume that it is false, what test can you make that will falsify the assumption?

[sjdawg]

If you assume that it is what is says it is, you can test it to see if it fits into an appropriate historical context. That is a test that can have either a positive or negative outcome, judged against a known standard.

If you assume that it is false, what test can you make that will falsify the assumption?

Well, if I assume it is false and someone showed me archeological evidence proving it to be true I would be proven false. I get that the BOM isn't that easy. However, if you assume something is true and further assume that it impossible to prove it is true you aren't being very objective. I understand the concept of testing a hypothesis but when using science you have to have a test capable of conclusively proving or disproving your theory. Ash is asking us to start with an assumption that can't be proven or disproven. Not much of a process.

[Kenngo1969]

Well, if I assume it is false and someone showed me archeological evidence proving it to be true I would be proven false. I get that the BOM isn't that easy. However, if you assume something is true and further assume that it impossible to prove it is true you aren't being very objective. I understand the concept of testing a hypothesis but when using science you have to have a test capable of conclusively proving or disproving your theory. Ash is asking us to start with an assumption that can't be proven or disproven. Not much of a process.

Funny. I thought hypotheses are either tenable or untenable on the basis of the evidence available at the time the determination is made. I didn't know I'm supposed to hold my breath until I die waiting for definitive proof.

(By the way, given my experience with you on another thread [your hasty judgment, formed after reading every other word of a story on the recent shootings in Arizona in which a woman is quoted as to the LDS faith of one of the victims which you then attributed to the shooter in your apparent eagerness to smear the Church] I'm inclined to view all of your contributions on this Board with a much more jaundiced eye.)

Have a nice day.

[poulsenll]

If you assume that it is what is says it is, you can test it to see if it fits into an appropriate historical context. That is a test that can have either a positive or negative outcome, judged against a known standard.

If you assume that it is false, what test can you make that will falsify the assumption?

The "scientific method requires that a theory or hypotesis be assumed to be true". Only with his assumption can one design experiments to test the ability of the hypothesis to predict experimental results. In addition, the experiment must be designed such that a positive result negates the hypothesis. Negative results or abscense of results could result from factors other than those used to propose the hypthesis. If we assume the hypothesis is false, there is no way to design an experiment to prove it to be true.

Larry P

[sjdawg]

Funny. I thought hypotheses are either tenable or untenable on the basis of the evidence available at the time the determination is made. I didn't know I'm supposed to hold my breath until I die waiting for definitive proof.

(By the way, given my experience with you on another thread [your hasty judgment, formed after reading every other word of a story on the recent shootings in Arizona in which a woman is quoted as to the LDS faith of one of the victims which you then attributed to the shooter in your apparent eagerness to smear the Church] I'm inclined to view all of your contributions on this Board with a much more jaundiced eye.)

Have a nice day.

What was my judgement in the other thread? I made a mistake when reading the article and assumed the shooter was LDS when in reality the victim was LDS but I believe my comment was something about his religion being irrelevant to the article.

[sjdawg]

(By the way, given my experience with you on another thread [your hasty judgment, formed after reading every other word of a story on the recent shootings in Arizona in which a woman is quoted as to the LDS faith of one of the victims which you then attributed to the shooter in your apparent eagerness to smear the Church] I'm inclined to view all of your contributions on this Board with a much more jaundiced eye.)

Have a nice day.

Went and looked it up to make sure my memory wasn't wrong. Here is my comment.

Sad situation but I'm not sure his Mormonism was relevant.

I'm not sure if that qualifies as an attempt to smear the Church (to use your words) but I readily admit to misreading the article.

[Palerider]

The "scientific method requires that a theory or hypotesis be assumed to be true". Only with his assumption can one design experiments to test the ability of the hypothesis to predict experimental results. In addition, the experiment must be designed such that a positive result negates the hypothesis. Negative results or abscense of results could result from factors other than those used to propose the hypthesis. If we assume the hypothesis is false, there is no way to design an experiment to prove it to be true.

Larry P

I'm not much of a scientist but I always kind of assumed in experimentation, one would take available "facts" (if that's a correct term) and then extrapolate from "known" facts, a hypothesis for something that is unknown and then test to see if it (the hypothesis) can be verified.

I guess the next step would be "What can we verify in an independent way from the BofM that lends to it's credibility?"

[cinepro]

A few years ago, I was asked to review a short documentary for a DVD for a well known film. On the DVD, the documentary was entitled "Original 1968 Production Featurette".

The studio claimed it had been made when the original film had been produced in 1968, and it consisted of behind the scenes footage and interviews with cast and crew members. Everything was very grainy and "aged"; it certainly looked like it was from 1968. But during one of the interviews, one of the crew members made reference to "Star Wars", and in the context, he seemed to be talking about the 1977 movie.

In spite of that fact, I compared the featurette with many other similar productions from the late 1960s. I examined the credits and technical specifications, and even tried to determine what kind of film stock it had been produced on. I approached this problem with the conviction that it had been produced in 1968, just as it claimed to be, and was determined to find every sort of evidence to support that claim.

From my investigation, I concluded, based on the similarities, that it had been produced in 1968, and the reference to "Star Wars" was probably a result of this crew member and George Lucas both having access to an earlier, original source for the name (I called this unknown source "SW"). I also suggested the possibility that the crew member had some sort of clairvoyance or supernatural ability to see the future and was referring to the as-yet unproduced "Star Wars" film knowing that future audiences would know what he was talking about. My client didn't buy either of these theories, so I suggested they "put their doubts on a shelf", firm in the knowledge that things would be cleared up at some later date. They simply had to believe in their paperwork that this documentary was, in fact, produced in 1968, even if it didn't seem to make sense at this time.

(Actually, based on the "Star Wars" comment, the client investigated further and determined the documentary had actually been made in 1978, and the title on the DVD was changed to reflect this).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/705373944/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-A-better-methodology.html?pg=2

Nothing like going in with an open mind.

So..... let me get this straight, when you test to see if something is true or not you start off by saying that it is false? That sure is open.

The BoM claims to be of ancient date. Why not assume that to be the case?

[sjdawg]

So..... let me get this straight, when you test to see if something is true or not you start off by saying that it is false? That sure is open.

The BoM claims to be of ancient date. Why not assume that to be the case?

I have no real issue starting with the assumption of truth as long as that assumption is testable. You can't start with an assumption of truth and then go on to say that the "truth" can't be proven.

[Mordecai]

...Well, if I assume it is false and someone showed me archeological evidence proving it to be true I would be proven false...

Archeological evidence like this? That said, "We begin by assuming it is ancient," is a proven methodology. You begin with the assumption and then test it out.

[Brant Gardner]

I have no real issue starting with the assumption of truth as long as that assumption is testable. You can't start with an assumption of truth and then go on to say that the "truth" can't be proven.

Just to clarify, there are two different issues at work here. One is historicity and one is "truth." The historicity of the Book of Mormon is open to testability through secular means. The "truth" is not, for the same reason that the truth of the Bible is accessible only through spiritual means.

Having said that, beginning with the assumption of historicity gives you a context in which to test that historicity. Very simply, an ancient text ought not respond to the same cultural understandings and assumptions as a modern text (even in the same language, but compounded with different languages and cultures). Therefore, if you don't begin with the assumption of historicity, you have nothing to test it against. If you begin with a modern text, and the text behaves contrary to expectations, is that because it is actually ancient, or simply the result of a poor novelist? Without checking the text against history, you have no adequate control.

[sjdawg]

Archeological evidence like this? That said, "We begin by assuming it is ancient," is a proven methodology. You begin with the assumption and then test it out.

Its a start.

[Mordecai]

Its a start.

It's practically the equivalent of finding Nephi's name inscribed on a rock on the American continent. It's exactly where the BoMormon predicts, and we find a place that matches the detailed description of Bountiful almost directly east of Nahom. We might also consider the myriad of ancient names found in the BoMormon, particular the list of previously unknown Asian names.

[cinepro]

Therefore, if you don't begin with the assumption of historicity, you have nothing to test it against.

Why must an assumption be made in the first place?

If someone sent you a copy of "The Sorry Tale", but you didn't know the story of its origin and the cover was missing, would you be required to make an assumption of its historicity before you could examine it?

If you said "I don't know if this is ancient or modern, historical or historical fiction, but I'm going to examine it and use every internal and external method possible to find out", would you not be able to use the same tools?

People solve mysteries and answer questions all the time without starting out with an assumption. I can't imagine why it is better to start with an assumption.

[poulsenll]

Why must an assumption be made in the first place?

If someone sent you a copy of "The Sorry Tale", but you didn't know the story of its origin and the cover was missing, would you be required to make an assumption of its historicity before you could examine it?

If you said "I don't know if this is ancient or modern, historical or historical fiction, but I'm going to examine it and use every internal and external method possible to find out", would you not be able to use the same tools?

People solve mysteries and answer questions all the time without starting out with an assumption. I can't imagine why it is better to start with an assumption.

What do you think a hypthesis is?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1

a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2

: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3

: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Merriam-Webster on Facebook

You might also want to brush up on logical thinking.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

Pay particular attention to the list od logical fallacies.

Larry P

[zerinus]

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/705373944/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-A-better-methodology.html?pg=2

when examining the Book of Mormon, we must begin by assuming that it was really written by ancient authors.

Nothing like going in with an open mind.

I wouldn't put is quite that way. I would say that you must approach the Book of Mormon with the assumption that it might be true, if you have the hope of obtaining the answer (by revelation) that it is. If you don't start with that assumption, you have closed the door to personal revelation that it is true.

Well, if I assume it is false and someone showed me archeological evidence proving it to be true I would be proven false. I get that the BOM isn't that easy. However, if you assume something is true and further assume that it impossible to prove it is true you aren't being very objective. I understand the concept of testing a hypothesis but when using science you have to have a test capable of conclusively proving or disproving your theory. Ash is asking us to start with an assumption that can't be proven or disproven. Not much of a process.

You cannot “prove” that the Book of Mormon is true, but you can know that it is. Those are two different things. “Proof” is something that is demonstrable to someone else. “Knowledge” isn’t. I can know that there is a leaning tower of Pisa in Italy by going there and seeing it for myself. But I cannot “prove” to you that it exists without taking you there to see it for yourself. But if the Italian Government will not issue a visa to visit the country to see it for yourself, then you have a problem. You need to find out why you are being denied access, and sort that out. A testimony is like that. I can’t obtain a testimony for you. I can only obtain it for myself. And if you are being denied access, then you need to find out what the cause of that is, and put it right.

I have no real issue starting with the assumption of truth as long as that assumption is testable. You can't start with an assumption of truth and then go on to say that the "truth" can't be proven.

As I said, it can't be "proven," but it can be "known". Those are two different things.

[cinepro]

What do you think a hypthesis is?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

You're right. I forgot the difference between an assumption and a conviction.

The FARMS Mission statement explained it best:

The work of the Foundation rests on the premise that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were written by prophets of God. Belief in this premise in the divinity of scripture is a matter of faith. Religious truths require divine witness to establish the faith of the believer. While scholarly research cannot replace that witness, such studies may reinforce and encourage individual testimonies by fostering understanding and appreciation of the scriptures.

Critical thinking indeed.

[Brant Gardner]

I can't imagine why it is better to start with an assumption.

Because it really cannot be done. Peter Novick, Professor Emeritus of Modern History and the University of Chicago, a 1989 presentation to a Sunstone Symposium:

To an ever increasing number of historians in recent decades, [objectivity] has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal—not impossible in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue)--but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian. That, after all, we can struggle against. Not because of irresistible outside pressures; these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success. No, the principal problem is different and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. . . .

Neutrality, value freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, but would result in no account at all--because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral--without values, free of preconceptions--would be paralyzed; wouldn’t have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians are More Objective than the New,” Lecture given at the Sunstone Symposium, August 26, 1989. The quotation begins at approximately the twenty-fourth minute.

Because there is really no way to approach anything without some influencing assumption, it is best to recognize and make explicit that assumption. If you have to choose between two possible alternatives for testing the historicity of a document, the choice will be made to assume that it is authentic--that allows it to be checked against an appropriate background. Without that assumption, it could be tested against the wrong context. It could very well be just the kind of forgery a modern reader expects, but inappropriate from a historical point of view.

The assumption that it should be tested against the correct time period is not a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a methodologically sound way of making an appropriate comparison to available evidence.

[ERayR]

Sorry about that. I corrected the link.

Would you consider Ash's theory to be correct if we approached the BOM with the assumption it was false until proven otherwise?

Scientific method. Present the assumption then try to falsify it. Not that I am much of a fan of using the scientific method for religion. I think that for religion one must also be open to divine evidence.