Vogel Responds To Apologist Brian Hales

[mfbukowski]

I hate to inject a note of reality into this erudite discussion about the nature of evidence, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to history.

Everyone has an "axe to grind" and especially in an area as sensitive as this one, one can pretend this is about evidence when in fact of course it is more like intellectual war than anything else.

Each side will defend their sides to the death, and to think anything else is just naive.

[wenglund]

Wade,

What you are describing here is fictitious. No one, not even faithful historians apply this standard you are defending consistently as a methodology. Apologists only invoke it as a defense against testimony they don’t like.

Wow. You are really having problems today correctly comprehending what I said. I am not defending any methodology. I am simply pointing out Chris' ironic fallacy. And, I have yet to speak to the consistency of anyone's adherence to more strict rules of evidence or not--though I have spoken to your apparent consistency on this thread in unwittingly substantiating Brian's essential claim. So, being the funny guy that you are, the fantasy is ironically in your mind. LOL

And no serious critic is going to prefer second-hand testimony over reliable first-hand testimony. It’s situational and depends on the kinds of available evidence and how they play off one another.

I suppose it depends upon who one considers a "serious critic."

The objection raised here is to your implied assertion that there is a legitimate methodology that systematically excludes hearsay testimony. There isn’t.

Again, I haven't explicitly or implicitly suggested that the adherence was systematic or otherwise. There you go fantasizing again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Will,

We know that you don’t like critical works about JS and that you are predisposed to side with Hales because of your “indiscriminate receptivity of his target audience”. But your “judgment” isn’t of such universal acclaim—even here on this board—that you don’t have to be specific about why you think Hales’ criticism is “extremely accurate”. So, feel free to elaborate without going off topic.

I would highly recommend that the interested reader consult this link for a number of reviews of Vogel's work: Vogel Reviews

If you can only read one of the reviews, I suppose I would recommend Larry Morris's review of The Making of a Prophet.

[William Schryver]

I hate to inject a note of reality into this erudite discussion about the nature of evidence, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to history.

Everyone has an "axe to grind" and especially in an area as sensitive as this one, one can pretend this is about evidence when in fact of course it is more like intellectual war than anything else.

Each side will defend their sides to the death, and to think anything else is just naive.

I hate to inject a note of reality into this erudite discussion about the nature of evidence, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to history.

Everyone has an "axe to grind" and especially in an area as sensitive as this one, one can pretend this is about evidence when in fact of course it is more like intellectual war than anything else.

Each side will defend their sides to the death, and to think anything else is just naive.

That Noble Dream - The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Were I challenging standard historical standards, then your request for credentials may be appropriate. But, I clearly am not. If you think I am, then this (along with the several other false conclusions you jumped to on this brief thread) doesn't speak well for your abiltities to accurately comprehend and/or interpret, and by extension your abilities as a hobbyist historian.

Note how you don’t take responsibility for your statements, but since you give no defense for your position we’ll just regard it as an uninformed “opinion” and move on. And, Wade, it is only an example of your folly, not mine.

No, again you jumped to yet another false conclusion (are you going for a record?) If Chris is right (I don't believe he is), then by extension jurisprudence is fallacious. And, yes, his suggesting that may be, as you say, shockingly arrogant. LOL

Wade, despite your repeated attempts at ad hominem, you were the one who made the ridiculous statement—“It is fallacious to assume that it is somehow fallacious for one to adhere to stricter rules of evidence than required by historiography. It isn't. It simply marks a difference of opinion. Otherwise, one must absurdly conclude that the rules of evidence in jurisprudence are fallacious.” So, can I disagree with you without believing the rules of evidence in jurisprudence are fallacious? If you say I can, then your statement is false. If you say I can’t, then my statement is true. You choose.

For my part, I am rather enjoying how you repeated and unwittingly substantiate on this thread the very claim from Brian you intended to negate. You're a funny guy!

Sorry, Wade, your fallacious ad hominal attempts to escape your own misstatements isn’t going to work. In defending Brian, you did claim that hearsay testimony (although off topic) was not correct historiographical procedure. After that, it has been you trying to justify this misstatement.

Also, Wade, I hope you realize that your repeated argument that if I’m wrong about interpreting you here, I’m also wrong about everything else is a hasty generalization and fallacious. Think about it!

Edited September 21, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

I would highly recommend that the interested reader consult this link for a number of reviews of Vogel's work: Vogel Reviews

If you can only read one of the reviews, I suppose I would recommend Larry Morris's review of The Making of a Prophet.

This is how you respond to my call for you to be specific about why you think Hales’ criticisms are valid? You use what I call the fallacy of apologetics by bibliography. Of course, we are not going to deal with every criticism of my writings here. IF you haven’t noticed, this thread is my response to Hales. If you can deal with that, fine, but if you can’t and you only want to bash me, then perhaps you should consider starting your own thread. Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

I have no problem holding to legal standards of evidence since the real issue here- the contrived attempt at an appearance of impartiality aside- is whether or not Joseph was "guilty as charged".

Of course even with that standard, it's going to prove just a tad difficult to cross-examine the alleged "witnesses".

There's a reason we don't try to convict people in courts of law after they and all the witnesses are dead. So one wonders what the worth of this entire enterprise really is.

[wenglund]

I would suggest that if one's objective is to provide a faith-promoting account, then one is doing something other than what we normally mean by "historical scholarship."

I see this as an overly-narrow, if not naive view of "historical scholarship." I, personally, can't see that there is anything about differing objectives, like faith-promotion, that would preclude them from qualifying as "historical scholarship." Rather, I would think that as long as the historian adhered to the so-called methodological norms of the historian community, that would qualify the work as "historical scholarship" regardless of the objectives.

Be that as it may, my comment wasn't specific to "historical scholarship," but to historians in general--not all of whom produce "historical scholarship," the faith-demoting histories of certain critics not excluded.

There's nothing preventing one from claiming that label, but in doing so, one should be aware that the community of historians will jealously guard the term. Our marketability comes from our cultural authority, and our cultural authority comes from the perception that history is a sort of scientific enterprise-- that we're trying to discover what really happened in the past rather than just telling the most comforting stories the evidence will allow.

That, theoretically, is certainly the ideal that some may strive towards. However, in my experience, theory seems to be lagging way behind practice, even perhaps among those portending to guard jealously.

Besides, as previously intimated, the scientific enterprise isn't averse to differing objectives, including faith promotion. In fact, it is quite adept at promoting faith in medicine, psychology, and even history.

The community of historians has developed certain methodological norms which seem to facilitate the creation of true narratives about the past. While some degree of debate about those norms is perfectly healthy, clearly some methods are better than others. This is why the community has embraced the most seemingly reliable methods as norms.

I agree. I just don't view the "community" as necessarily homogenous in their objectives and their application of the so-called methodological norm.

Whatever the case, this debate on historiography, historical scholarship and methodologies, and historian objectives, etc., is tangential to the topic of this thread, and so I will say no more on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

That Noble Dream - The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession

As I have said before, there is a reason that in many many languages, the word for "story" and "history" are the same. You know, "story"- that often used synonym for words like "myth", "fable", "yarn" etc.

Edited September 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Wow. You are really having problems today correctly comprehending what I said. I am not defending any methodology. I am simply pointing out Chris' ironic fallacy. And, I have yet to speak to the consistency of anyone's adherence to more strict rules of evidence or not--though I have spoken to your apparent consistency on this thread in unwittingly substantiating Brian's essential claim. So, being the funny guy that you are, the fantasy is ironically in your mind. LOL

Yes, Wade, you are so misunderstood. I can’t count the times I’ve seen you pull this complaint out when you get yourself into trouble.

I admit that you have unwittingly provided yet another example in support of Brian's claim that your assertions tend to go beyond the evidence. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the apt descriptor was ad hominem, let alone meant to be ad hominem, and now I have provided firsthand evidence to confirm it was not. Someone correctly schooled in historical methodology would likely have know this.

This line of fallacious reasoning is getting boring. It’s obvious that your calling me a “hobbyist historian” was ad hominal.

[Dan Vogel]

As I have said before, there is a reason that in many many languages, the word for "story" and "history" are the same. You know, "story"- that often used synonym for words like "myth", "fable", "yarn" etc.

Bukowski,

As I have said before, there is a reason that in many many languages, the word for "story" and "history" are the same. You know, "story"- that famous synonym for words like "myth", "fable", "yarn" etc.

No one is claiming to have direct access to historical events. We are talking about the justification or warrant for having a particular interpretation. Specifically, this thread is about Hales’ accusations that I have gone beyond the evidence. My argument is that he has manufactured objections against my use of sources without really dealing with the sources himself. That’s what this thread is about.

[William Schryver]

Will,

This is how you respond to my call for you to be specific about why you think Hales’ criticisms are valid? You use what I call the fallacy of apologetics by bibliography. Of course, we are not going to deal with every criticism of my writings here. IF you haven’t noticed, this thread is my response to Hales. If you can deal with that, fine, but if you can’t and you only want to bash me, then perhaps you should consider starting your own thread. Thanks!

No bashing of "you" at all. Just valid criticisms of your attempts at writing history. Sorry, but you're just not very not good at it.

But you are a good propagandist. That's something to be proud of.

At any rate, I'm not interested in trying to improve upon Larry Morris' critique of The Making of a Prophet. At least not at present. Maybe when I'm done with BoA/KEP research ... but I doubt it. You'd probably have to write something new in order for me to be sufficiently interested in critiquing you more than has already been done by others.

[Chris Smith]

I hate to inject a note of reality into this erudite discussion about the nature of evidence, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to history.

There is no objective viewpoint, but there are "objective" constraints on our experience in the sense we discussed in the thread on Pragmatism. (Even you, in the above quote, acknowledge the existence of such a "reality".) The impossibility of finding an objective viewpoint doesn't give us license to make stuff up. That would be nihilism, not pragmatism.

Everyone has an "axe to grind" and especially in an area as sensitive as this one, one can pretend this is about evidence when in fact of course it is more like intellectual war than anything else.

Each side will defend their sides to the death, and to think anything else is just naive.

I started my studies as an apologist, but lost my faith because I found it to be falsified by reason and evidence. Contrary to your implication, for some of us this actually is about evidence and truth.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited September 21, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Contrary to your implication, for some of us this actually is about evidence and truth.

x10.

ETA: On the other hand, I will be reviewing things you have written. I'm sure you can't wait ...

Edited September 21, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Wade, Note how you don’t take responsibility for your statements, but since you give no defense for your position we’ll just regard it as an uninformed “opinion” and move on.

Note, in regards to uninformed opinions, that you are ascribing to me a statement that I clearly did not make, as well as an interpretation that has been negated by the ultimate authority on what I say and mean (i.e. me). Note, that while I am willing to take responsibility for and defend the statements I do make and the things I do mean, no reasonable person would consider it folly for me not to hold myself responsible for and defend statements I didn't make nor meant to make. But, you, in your famed dogmatic fashion, have chosen to do otherwise, ironically thinking the folly is mine. See what I mean about you being the funny guy?

And, Wade, it is only an example of your folly, not mine. Wade, despite your repeated attempts at ad hominem, you were the one who made the ridiculous statement—“It is fallacious to assume that it is somehow fallacious for one to adhere to stricter rules of evidence than required by historiography. It isn't. It simply marks a difference of opinion. Otherwise, one must absurdly conclude that the rules of evidence in jurisprudence are fallacious.” So, can I disagree with you without believing the rules of evidence in jurisprudence are fallacious? If you say I can, then your statement is false. If you say I can’t, then my statement is true. You choose.

What will it take for you to finally comprehend that the "statement" (i.e. "Otherwise, one must absurdly conclude that the rules of evidence in jurisprudence are fallacious") isn't mine? I am calling it absurd. Rather, the "statement" is an extrapolation (via argumentum absurdem) of what Chris had said. Why is this so difficult for you to get?

Sorry, Wade, your fallacious ad hominal attempts to escape your own misstatements isn’t going to work.

The imaginary ad hominems and the mistatement that isn't mine, but implicitly Chris', don't need to work--at least not for men. And, they don't seem to be working very well for you either (straw men can be that way at times).

In defending Brian, you did claim that hearsay testimony (although off topic) was not correct historiographical procedure. After that, it has been you trying to justify this misstatement.

Que up the Twilight Zone theme song.

Also, Wade, I hope you realize that your repeated argument that if I’m wrong about interpreting you here, I’m also wrong about everything else is a hasty generalization and fallacious. Think about it!

Sigh!!! All I have been saying is that your repeated misinterpretations, or rather your mistaken assertions about what I said, go beyond the evidence, and in fact conflict with the evidence, and thus underscore what Brian has said. Please, try this once not to read way more into my statements than what I have actually said or meant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I started my studies as an apologist, but lost my faith because I found it to be falsified by reason and evidence. Contrary to your implication, for some of us this actually is about evidence and truth. To think anything else is just naive.

Right.

You know, if it's any consolation, I do believe you're a better propagandist than Vogel is. And that's really saying something.

You've got a real knack for it.

Of course, you live in a time when you've got a significant number of very gifted fifth-columnist types to help reinforce the myth of your objectivity.

"Evidence and truth ..." That's rich.

[Chris Smith]

ETA: On the other hand, I will be reviewing things you have written. I'm sure you can't wait ...

Review away, but don't count on a response. The atmosphere of discourse in the BoA debate-- to which you've amply contributed-- is such that I've decided to withdraw and pursue other things, at least for the time being.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

Our marketability comes from our cultural authority, and our cultural authority comes from the perception that history is a sort of scientific enterprise-- that we're trying to discover what really happened in the past rather than just telling the most comforting stories the evidence will allow.

A very honest statement.

After all, one must maintain one's "marketability" mustn't one? Gotta keep that perception going!

(You know I love you Chris!)

[William Schryver]

Review away, but don't count on a response. The atmosphere of discourse in the BoA debate-- to which you've amply contributed-- is such that I've decided to withdraw and pursue other things, at least for the time being.

Well, for some of us this actually is about evidence and truth.

To think anything else is just naïve.

[Chris Smith]

After all, one must maintain one's "marketability" mustn't one?

Yes. That's one of those constraints on our experience I was discussing earlier. One might even go so far as to call it economic "reality".

Gotta keep that perception going!

I wouldn't have chosen this discipline if I didn't think the perception was basically accurate.

(You know I love you Chris!)

I love you too.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

No one is claiming to have direct access to historical events. We are talking about the justification or warrant for having a particular interpretation.

As am I !

"Warranted assertibility" is exactly the question! And of course you have your right to assert what you think is warranted also.

I'm glad we are no longer worried about what "really happened".

[Chris Smith]

The contest between "warranted assertability" and "what really happened," IMO, is a wash. Ironically, those who talk about "what really happened" justify such realistic language as a warranted assertion, and those who reject it do so because the correspondence of phenomena to some external reality cannot be proven. One wonders who are the real positivists, here?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

There is no objective viewpoint, but there are "objective" constraints on our experience in the sense we discussed in the thread on Pragmatism. (Even you, in the above quote, acknowledge the existence of such a "reality".) The impossibility of finding an objective viewpoint doesn't give us license to make stuff up. That would be nihilism, not pragmatism.

I started my studies as an apologist, but lost my faith because I found it to be falsified by reason and evidence. Contrary to your implication, for some of us this actually is about evidence and truth.

Peace,

-Chris

I just got to this quote- this thread is moving quickly and unfortunately I have other commitments for the rest of the day- but I want to give you a quick reply.

If you read the last few posts on that thread we never really got into what you call "objective constraints on experience"- I think my view differed from yours considerably.

I certainly agree that it is about "evidence and truth" - I would suggest that perhaps when you left the church you were operating under a different paradigm than I certainly do at this point in my life.

Nevertheless, I think we would agree that it does come down to what we would ACCEPT as "evidence" coming from different paradigms, and how we would INTERPRET that alleged "evidence".

In my view, religion cannot be shown to be "false" by science, and if that is true, and we both acknowledge that history is ultimately "less scientific" than say, chemistry- clearly history is in a distant third place as far as it's ability to present "evidence" which could possibly falsify religion.

Religion is not about science, nor is it really about history. It may appear to be, but it's not. What historical evidence can we show to prove that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God, and savior of the world?

And what historical evidence would disprove it? None!

[Chris Smith]

Unlike William James, I think religion's propositional content is an essential aspect of it. As the propositions that constitute a religious system are falsified, the religion itself is falsified-- robbed of its pragmatic power. This is what happened to my religious system over the course of many years of study.

[Xander]

The accusation of going “beyond available evidence” is one of Hales’ favorite apologetic strategies. For example, he thinks historians go beyond the evidence when they use secondhand or hearsay testimony or make reasonable inferences from the evidence. He believes that he is not obligated to deal with evidence unless it’s both firsthand and explicit. This has lead Hales to adopt the extreme apologetic position that Joseph Smith didn’t have sex with any of the twelve married women he polyandrously married because he personally thinks Joseph Smith wouldn’t have done that, and he defends his position by accusing those who believe otherwise of “going beyond available evidence”. However, because there was no stated restriction on such marriages, shouldn’t Hales see his own theory as going beyond the evidence? He thinks he is simply demanding that his opponents produce explicit evidence of Joseph Smith having sexual relations with married women, but he is doing more than that. He is asserting a position as well, based on an inference--which is that these marriages were for eternity only. The problem is which inference is more reasonable?

Precisely Dan!

This is a common theme in apologetic rhetoric. They demand absolute "proof" for said arguments, and if you cannot provide explicit proof from "first hand" accounts, then they think they are on solid ground for dismissing it as gossip, unfounded rumor or at the very least they can chalk it up to a biased interpretation from an "anti-Mormon." Case in point, Joseph Smith didn't have sex with women because there is no DNA proof that he did. All the historical testimony from those women who claimed he did, mean nothing to them. When the Church published a talk around the turn of a century, by one of Joseph Smith's wives who said she knew he had children by other women, all this is tossed aside as her own "opinion"and "second-hand" accounting. When one marries a multiplicity of women, you don't get to just insist sex wasn't involved or at the very least intended. That's precisely what married couples do! You wouldn't assume that childless couples today don't have sex, would you? Of course not. But if it helps you maintain faith in a religion, well then you just might.

You see this silly tactic from all the rank and file apologists. Dan Peterson once said something to the effect that the burden of proof is on the critics for virtually everything they say, implying how easy the apologist's job really was. Meaning, all the apologist has to do is demand absolute proof, and when it isn't provided, the apologist wins because the LDS truth claim remains "plausible." They don't seem to understand the beauty of inductive logic or how plausibility is rationally ascertained. They seem to think plausibility is the default position for LDS claims, unless the critics can disprove it with absolute proof.

Last month I ran into this problem in a number of threads while posting on this forum. It isn't just the amateurs who think this way either. You'll see some of their scholars who have presumably been trained as historians. Amazing.

Anyway, good stuff Dan. Keep it coming. We need to hear more from you.