Mahonri's Watercraft

[mfbukowski]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

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

"The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published in 1896,^[1] which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.

James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for the truth of one's religious belief.

[mfbukowski]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

Now I'll give YOU a CFR.

Show me anywhere where Elder Holland was doing that- where he was discussing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10, 000 years ago.

I'm waiting.

[mfbukowski]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

Susan Haack

http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/haack-six-signs-of-scientism-october-17-2009.pdf

But by the early decades of the twentieth century “scientism” had

begun to take on a negative tone – initially, it seems, primarily in response to

over-ambitious ideas about how profoundly our understanding of human

behavior would be transformed if only we were to apply the methods that had

proven so successful in the physical sciences. And by the mid-twentieth

century, scientism had come to be seen as a “prejudice,” a “superstition,” an

“aberration” of science. By now this negative tone is predominant; in fact, the

pejorative connotations of “scientism” are now so thoroughly entrenched that

defenders of the autonomy of ethics, or of the legitimacy of religious

knowledge, etc., sometimes think it sufficient, instead of actually engaging with

their critics’ arguments, to dismiss them in a word: “scientistic.”

So, as the term “scientism” is usually currently used, and as I shall use it,

it is a trivial verbal truth that scientism should be avoided. It is, however, a

substantial question exactly what it is that is to be avoided – when, and why,

deference to the sciences is appropriate and when, and why, it is inappropriate

or exaggerated. My primary purpose here is to suggest some ways to recognize

when this line has been crossed, when respect for the achievements of the

sciences has transmuted into the kind of exaggerated deference characteristic of

scientism. These are the “six signs of scientism” to which my title alludes.

Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”

etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,

of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line

between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”

imposters.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific

method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of

inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than

inquiry, such as poetry or art.

But by the early decades of the twentieth century “scientism” had

begun to take on a negative tone – initially, it seems, primarily in response to

over-ambitious ideas about how profoundly our understanding of human

behavior would be transformed if only we were to apply the methods that had

proven so successful in the physical sciences. And by the mid-twentieth

century, scientism had come to be seen as a “prejudice,” a “superstition,” an

“aberration” of science. By now this negative tone is predominant; in fact, the

pejorative connotations of “scientism” are now so thoroughly entrenched that

defenders of the autonomy of ethics, or of the legitimacy of religious

knowledge, etc., sometimes think it sufficient, instead of actually engaging with

their critics’ arguments, to dismiss them in a word: “scientistic.”

So, as the term “scientism” is usually currently used, and as I shall use it,

it is a trivial verbal truth that scientism should be avoided. It is, however, a

substantial question exactly what it is that is to be avoided – when, and why,

deference to the sciences is appropriate and when, and why, it is inappropriate

or exaggerated. My primary purpose here is to suggest some ways to recognize

when this line has been crossed, when respect for the achievements of the

sciences has transmuted into the kind of exaggerated deference characteristic of

scientism. These are the “six signs of scientism” to which my title alludes.

Briefly and roughly summarized, they are:

1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,”

etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc.,

of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line

between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific”

imposters.

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific

method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of

inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than

inquiry, such as poetry or art.

[mfbukowski]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

Husserl and Nagel

http://durham.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe/Papers/445082/Husserl_and_Nagel_on_Subjectivity_and_the_Limits_of_Physical_Objectivity

[mfbukowski]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

Wittgenstein

http://stoa.org.uk/t...%20cultures.pdf

A sentence does not acquire

meaning through the correlation, one to one,

of its words with objects in the world; it

acquires meaning through the use that is made

of it in the communal life of human beings.

Anyway all of these are a start.

All these references present ways in which religious statements and stories can be considered "true" in some sense of the word, and show that physical evidence is not the only way to justify belief.

There are many others.

Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Show me anywhere where Elder Holland was doing that- where he was discussing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10, 000 years ago.

I'm waiting.

He already conceded the point.

mfbukowski, as interesting and important as the challenge is on the whole truth and science conept (to whcih I side with you), you are flooding this thread. Please consider a new thread and moving these posts over there to keep this one focused on the Jaredite's voyage.

[Mariner]

Wittgenstein

http://stoa.org.uk/t...%20cultures.pdf

Anyway all of these are a start.

All these references present ways in which religious statements and stories can be considered "true" in some sense of the word, and show that physical evidence is not the only way to justify belief.

There are many others.

Read and or watched everything you posted. Nothing you posted justifies belief in the statement that the Atlantic Basin did not exist 10,000 years ago.

Suppose that I said that the sun rotates around the Earth as did the Church for centuries. Given the evidence that we now have to the contrary, is such a statement still justified because it once a religious belief? Is such a statement in any sense a fact or true?

According to your approach to truth, if some religious minority still believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth, then it would be so (true).

Either the sun rotates about the Earth or it does not. The statement that the sun rotates around the Earth is either true or it is false. Claiming that the sun rotates around the earth in a religious context does not make it true.

[mfbukowski]

Read and or watched everything you posted. Nothing you posted justifies belief in the statement that the Atlantic Basin did not exist 10,000 years ago.

Suppose that I said that the sun rotates around the Earth as did the Church for centuries. Given the evidence that we now have to the contrary, is such a statement still justified because it once a religious belief? Is such a statement in any sense a fact or true?

According to your approach to truth, if some religious minority still believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth, then it would be so (true).

Either the sun rotates about the Earth or it does not. The statement that the sun rotates around the Earth is either true or it is false. Claiming that the sun rotates around the earth in a religious context does not make it true.

You could not have possibly read even the article on Husserl in the time since I posted it. You understood none of the Rorty material or any of it

This is a derail- there is no reason to continue it

Apologies for flooding the thread- please continue

[mfbukowski]

He already conceded the point.

mfbukowski, as interesting and important as the challenge is on the whole truth and science conept (to whcih I side with you), you are flooding this thread. Please consider a new thread and moving these posts over there to keep this one focused on the Jaredite's voyage.

Sorry- it's not worth the effort.

Please continue- I won't post on that subject in this thread again.

[Mariner]

mfbukowski said:

Show me anywhere where Elder Holland was doing that- where he was discussing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10, 000 years ago.

I'm waiting.

He already conceded the point.

mfbukowski, as interesting and important as the challenge is on the whole truth and science conept (to whcih I side with you), you are flooding this thread. Please consider a new thread and moving these posts over there to keep this one focused on the Jaredite's voyage.

Mathew,

I trust that you will not mind my answering for myself here.

mfbukowski,

There is no need whatsoever for me to show that Holland was basing his statement on physical evidence. It makse no difference.

Holland made a falsifiable statement of fact that was clearly false when he made it. In fact, as Mathew pointed, out Holland's statement had already been falsified for at least a decade before he made it.

The fact that Holland might not have known at the time he made the statement that it was false certainly does not make his statement true.

If you still believe that Holland's statement was true because of the context in which it was made, then please have the courage to simply say so, and let's move on.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski said:

Mathew,

I trust that you will not mind my answering for myself here.

mfbukowski,

There is no need whatsoever for me to show that Holland was basing his statement on physical evidence. It makse no difference.

Holland made a falsifiable statement of fact that was clearly false when he made it. In fact, as Mathew pointed, out Holland's statement had already been falsified for at least a decade before he made it.

The fact that Holland might not have known at the time he made the statement that it was false certainly does not make his statement true.

If you still believe that Holland's statement was true because of the context in which it was made, then please have the courage to simply say so, and let's move on.

I have been asked to stop discussing this, I said I would, and I am abiding by that. If he was wrong he was wrong. The point is whether or not spiritual statements can be falsified or for that matter, proven, through scientific or historical evidence.

They cannot be. I will not further derail this thread. You clearly don't understand anything I posted. There is no dialogue here- you just keep asserting your position without responding to mine. It is a waste of time and I appreciate Matthew for pointing it out

Bukowski, clear

Edited March 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Mariner]

You could not have possibly read even the article on Husserl in the time since I posted it. You understood none of the Rorty material or any of it

This is a derail- there is no reason to continue it

Apologies for flooding the thread- please continue

mfbutowski,

If you would like to discuss the Rorty video and other posts you made on another thread, I would be glad to do so.

I did watch the video and read the quotes you provided and the Husserl / Nagel abstract. I certainly do not claim to be a philosopher.

I do claim to be a scientist and the function and success of my entire profession rests on the ability of human beings to objectively determine fact from not fact.

[blackstrap]

A long time ago,in a galaxy far away,I remember reading of a legend regarding the people from the early Jaredite time period .It was said that they came across the ocean in 8 vessels. Can someone here connect me with a resource that speaks of such a legend ?

Also,no windows were allowed on the Jaredite vessels because they would be dashed to pieces.OK , the windows would have provided light.Would they have been of glass,and hence easily broken?No. Would they have been like shutters?If there was a door in the vessel and it was waterproof,then why not make a series of window shutters that were also waterproof?Too many possible failure points?

The clear stones that were molten from the mountain,what might they have consisted of? Can quartz be "molten"?I understand that it takes very high temps (2000 deg.) to do so.

Edited March 3, 2012 by blackstrap

[Tepui]

A long time ago,in a galaxy far away,I remember reading of a legend regarding the people from the early Jaredite time period .It was said that they came across the ocean in 8 vessels. Can someone here connect me with a resource that speaks of such a legend ?

Also,no windows were allowed on the Jaredite vessels because they would be dashed to pieces.OK , the windows would have provided light.Would they have been of glass,and hence easily broken?No. Would they have been like shutters?If there was a door in the vessel and it was waterproof,then why not make a series of window shutters that were also waterproof?Too many possible failure points?

The clear stones that were molten from the mountain,what might they have consisted of? Can quartz be "molten"?I understand that it takes very high temps (2000 deg.) to do so.

"Molten" quartz becomes a glass. Quartz is crystalline. Glass does not have a crystalline structure. What the Brother of Jared created was glass out of rock. Not difficult. (Ether 3:1) Glass was known anciently.

Nice sarcasm, by the way.

[Tepui]

The topic of the united earth was somewhat popular in the 1970's. A New Era article mentions it. Joseph F. Smith said it in Answers to Gospel Questions. Since he was wrong about a lot of science things he touched on, I don't put much stock in his knowledge there, but do put a lot of stock in his knowledge of our salvation.

Do you also question his/their knowledge of the Resurrection of the Lord, the central tenet of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Science can't explain that.

[Tepui]

ETHER 2:19 And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer?

This notion that the Jaredite barges were steered, is incorrect. The Brother of Jared was asking a question on his assumption that they would steer the vessels. Versus 23-25 was his answer, he would have no light, thus they would not be steered from inside. The Lord would steer them: "Therefore what will ye that I should prepare for you that ye may have light when ye are swallowed up in the depths of the sea?" There can't be light when you're swallowed up in the depths of the sea, even if they had windows.

This is also a metaphor for the Gift of the Holy Ghost during your mortal journey. You can't steer yourself through life successfully, you'll be buried. So you need an internal light source powered by the Light of Christ and/or the Gift of the Holy Ghost. If not, you'll spend days on a discussion thread childishly trying to explain how stupid Elder Holland was for ignoring plate tectonics and the Atlantic Ocean being millions and millions of years old!

Edited March 3, 2012 by Tepui

[zerinus]

"Molten" quartz becomes a glass. Quartz is crystalline. Glass does not have a crystalline structure. What the Brother of Jared created was glass out of rock. Not difficult. (Ether 3:1) Glass was known anciently.

Nice sarcasm, by the way.

I believe "molten out of the rock" simply means "quarried". I have not been able to find such usage of the word elsewhere, or in any dictionary; but from the context that is what it appears to mean. I don't believe that it means that he literally melted them down. The context implies otherwise. "Molten" could possibly refer to the way in which they were extracted from the quarry--by using water to dissolve or wash away the surrounding dirt to expose the transparent stones.

[zerinus]

Also,no windows were allowed on the Jaredite vessels because they would be dashed to pieces.OK , the windows would have provided light.Would they have been of glass,and hence easily broken?No. Would they have been like shutters?If there was a door in the vessel and it was waterproof,then why not make a series of window shutters that were also waterproof?Too many possible failure points?

Early windows were either open all the time, or they indeed had shutters. The "doors" of the jaredite barges were opened only once when they got in, and once when they got out. They were sealed during the length of the journey. They could not be opened in transit. The "windows" could not have been made in the same way.

The clear stones that were molten from the mountain,what might they have consisted of? Can quartz be "molten"?I understand that it takes very high temps (2000 deg.) to do so.

For my answer to that question, see my previous post.

[zerinus]

Please go ahead and show me a recognized philosophy of science, paradigm shift, or other rational means of considering physical evidence that makes the statement that the Atlantic basin was formed less than 10,000 years ago "true" in any sense of the word. I'll wait.

Since it is you who is questioning that possibility, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that such an event was not possible by the will and power of God.

[Mariner]

Since it is you who is questioning that possibility, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that such an event was not possible by the will and power of God.

zerinus,

In several of your posts on this thread, you have made clear your belief that there is nothing that can be imagined by humans that is outside the realm of possibility for God. You call this religion. I call it magic. And I don't believe in magic.

Magic has no rules, no structure, no mathematical underpinning and is not falsifiable. It cannot be reasonably studied and hence there is nothing to be gained from belief in magic, except for some false sense of emotional well being.

Since belief in magic would severely damage my career and life and might even get me kicked out of the science club, I consider it as dangerous.

If you wish to continue to believe in magic, including the myths and legends handed down by bronze age goat herders, and thereafter written, re-written, downselected and eventually augmented by a 19th century farm boy, that is your right. However, the fact that you hold such beliefs does not obligate me to seriously consider any claims you might make based upon them.

I came onto this thread to discuss the possibility, or lack thereof, that a small group of bronze age travelers, displaced from their home because of a tower construction project that did not go well, could build 8 wooden semi-submersible and unpowered barges, light them with magic rocks, load them with livestock and provisions for 344 days, seal themselves inside save for stoppable holes in the deck and hull, and cross the ocean during a terrible tempest with continuous wind and mountainous waves.

Some in the discussion have claimed that these barges were designed so as withstand a roll-over in heavy seas. Some have claimed that the hole in the bottom of the hull could be used to dispose of waste at sea. Some have claimed that it would have been possible for a crew to safely land and re-launch these vessels during a terrible tempest although they had no power and could not be steered. Some have claimed that the occupants in these barges could survive for long periods of time with the barges completely sealed so as to be buried in the depths of the sea, even with all manner of livestock aboard. None have yet addressed the problem that the tons of human and animal urine and feces, as well as rotting food waste, garbage, ammonia, carbon dioxide, bilge water, water vapor and methane generated would present in sealed barges on such a voyage, especially in the event of a roll over. But I am sure this issue will eventually come up as well.

Now, if I were to accept your claim that all of these fantastical things could have occurred simply by magic, along with the sudden rifting of the Atlantic basin and the inrush of water to form the Atlantic Ocean less than 10,000 years ago as described by Jeffrey Holland, what would be the point of discussing any of this?

You could simply claim that God's power could account for any event or outcome one could imagine, and in your mind, your logic would always prevail.

I hope that you will consider this rather long response as a discharge of any obligation I have to respond to any and all of your posts on this thread that invoke magic as the right answer.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mariner

[zerinus]

zerinus,

In several of your posts on this thread, you have made clear your belief that there is nothing that can be imagined by humans that is outside the realm of possibility for God. You call this religion. I call it magic. And I don't believe in magic.

Magic has no rules, no structure, no mathematical underpinning and is not falsifiable. It cannot be reasonably studied and hence there is nothing to be gained from belief in magic, except for some false sense of emotional well being.

Since belief in magic would severely damage my career and life and might even get me kicked out of the science club, I consider it as dangerous.

If you wish to continue to believe in magic, including the myths and legends handed down by bronze age goat herders, and thereafter written, re-written, downselected and eventually augmented by a 19th century farm boy and glass looker, that is your right. However, the fact that you hold such beliefs does not obligate me to seriously consider any claims you might make based upon them.

There are many people who, like Pharaoh, couldn't tell the difference between magic and the power of God. They have usually come to an unhappy end.

I came onto this thread to discuss the possibility, or lack thereof, that a small group of bronze age travelers, displaced from their home because of a tower construction project that did not go well, could build 8 wooden semi-submersible and unpowered barges, light them with magic rocks, load them with livestock and provisions for 344 days, seal themselves inside save for stoppable holes in the deck and hull, and cross the ocean during a terrible tempest with continuous wind and mountainous waves.

Then you came to discuss the wrong thing. The Book of Mormon is a miracle. Its story is a story of a miracle. Its people are a peoples of a miracle. Its claims are claims of a miracle. You cannot discuss “possibility” of anything in relation to the Book of Mormon without at the same time discussing the possibility of a miracle. If you are not prepared to discuss the subject with me on my terns by assuming the possibility of a miracle, why should I be obliged to discuss the subject with you on your terms by assuming the impossibility a miracle? I will discuss the subject with you on my terms, not on your terms.

Some in the discussion have claimed that these barges were designed so as withstand a roll-over in heavy seas. Some have claimed that the hole in the bottom of the hull could be used to dispose of waste at sea. Some have claimed that it would have been possible for a crew to safely land and re-launch these vessels during a terrible tempest although they had no power and could not be steered. Some have claimed that the occupants in these barges could survive for long periods of time with the barges completely sealed so as to be buried in the depths of the sea, even with all manner of livestock aboard. None have yet addressed the problem that the tons of human and animal urine and feces, as well as rotting food waste, garbage, ammonia, carbon dioxide, bilge water, water vapor and methane generated would present in sealed barges on such a voyage, especially in the event of a roll over. But I am sure this issue will eventually come up as well.

Now, if I were to accept your claim that all of these fantastical things could have occurred simply by magic, along with the sudden rifting of the Atlantic basin and the inrush of water to form the Atlantic Ocean less than 10,000 years ago as described by Jeffrey Holland, what would be the point of discussing any of this?

You could simply claim that God's power could account for any event or outcome one could imagine, and in your mind, your logic would always prevail.

I don’t “claim” anything except what is written in the book. What anybody else “claims” is their opinions. They are entitled to their opinions, but it has no bearing on what is written in the book.

I hope that you will consider this rather long response as a discharge of any obligation I have to respond to any and all of your posts on this thread that invoke magic as the right answer.

LOL! If you thought by that you are going to shake me off your trail, you got it wrong. I will continue to read your posts, and give them appropriate responses as may be required. You are free to dodge the issue of course by refusing to reply to them as you have done several times in this thread. My replies are meant for the benefit of others, not just yours.

[Mariner]

LOL! If you thought by that you are going to shake me off your trail, you got it wrong. I will continue to read your posts, and give them appropriate responses as may be required. You are free to dodge the issue of course by refusing to reply to them as you have done several times in this thread. My replies are meant for the benefit of others, not just yours.

If you will read my post you will see that I only asked you to consider it a discharge of any obligation that I might have to respond to you. So it would appear that we have arrived at a mutual understanding (and have done so amicably, at that.).

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mariner

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Do you also question his/their knowledge of the Resurrection of the Lord, the central tenet of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Science can't explain that.

As I said...

...but do put a lot of stock in his knowledge of our salvation.

Witnesses saw the resurrected Christ, both anciently and modernly.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

The "doors" of the jaredite barges were opened only once when they got in, and once when they got out. They were sealed during the length of the journey. They could not be opened in transit. The "windows" could not have been made in the same way.

CFR

[ERayR]

I believe "molten out of the rock" simply means "quarried". I have not been able to find such usage of the word elsewhere, or in any dictionary; but from the context that is what it appears to mean. I don't believe that it means that he literally melted them down. The context implies otherwise. "Molten" could possibly refer to the way in which they were extracted from the quarry--by using water to dissolve or wash away the surrounding dirt to expose the transparent stones.

The definition of molten is:

mol‧ten [usually before noun]

molten metal or rock has been made into a liquid by being heated to a very high temperature: