Confirmation Bias From Vogel'S New Article On The Witnesses

[wenglund]

Sigh. Another pointless exchange.

Regrettably, our inability to have a meaningful and substantive discussion, will only serve to confirm: My underlying perception that your are unwilling to engage in a civil, substantive, and rational discussion;

...said the Beam to the Mote.

...and Your underlying perception that I am an anti-Mormon who is incapable of grasping reality.

CFR

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

"You're the worstest at confirmation bias."

"no, you are. "

This thread's turning into a gem.

[altersteve]

And here again we see Wade Englund there to prove my point about confirmation bias. His responses are almost entirely fueled by it.

The fact is no one outside LDS scholarship would ever read LDS history they way they do. This proves point blank that theirs is a strictly biased perspective that is aimed at people who think like they do: other LDS members. For example, no non-Mormon in a million years would ever buy into the plethora of apologetic riff raff that folks like John Gee come up with. Or most of the stuff published by FAIR/FARMS for that matter. The goal to achieve some sense of plausibility isn't going to work for non-LDS critical thinkers.

When the more objective historians like Vogel draw a different picture for them it scares them to death and so naturally confirmation bias hits a new level because they desperately feel they have to compete with that perspective, which of course isn't "faith promoting." And the fact is, "faith promoting" is all that matters in LDS circles. Remember, not all history and truth is "useful" especially if it isn't faith promoting. That's what LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer taught when encouraging members to close their minds to non-Church approved materials. It is why Robert Millet though taught Mormons that when they are asked tough questions, then they should change the question. It is why David Bokovoy said we should "change your paradigm" when confronted with uncomfortable facts that seem to suggest the Church isn't true, and mfbukowski is constantly telling the Mormon fence-straddler that he needs to make up his own truth when he feels like he's uncomfortable with what the evidence suggests.

That's confirmation bias on a silver platter.

You really need to stop mind reading.

[Dan Vogel]

I haven't yet read through your recent tome on the Witnesses, and don't know when I'll get a chance to do so -- what with three newspaper articles, a lengthy encyclopedia article, and a Review foreword due this week; an academic conference on Friday and Saturday for which my paper isn't yet ready; a lecture trip to Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Sunday; and the usual round of classes and meetings (with similar things continuing every week into the foreseeable future) -- but your post above tends to support one of the impressions that my hasty skim of your Witnesses article left behind: You misuse and overuse the accusation of ad hominem. Which is, curiously, itself a kind of fallacious ad hominem.

Saying critics wouldn't admit the BOM is history even with the clearist evidence is the abusive form of

ad hominem

.

[Mark Beesley]

Saying critics wouldn't admit the BOM is history even with the clearist evidence is the abusive form of .

But isn't that pretty much what the Savior taught in the parable of Lazarus? The unbeliever will continue in disbelief even if the truth is declared to them by an angel. Are you saying that the Lord engaged an ad hominem argument?

[Dan Vogel]

Character flaw, perhaps not. I'm sure most critics are doing the best they can, but to say that apologists are the only ones that bring their preexisting biases to the table is mistaken. With religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, confirmation bias afflicts both sides. Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so, you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did. Every one I have ever encountered started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and so all their research was angled towards proving that conclusion that was reached in advance. Some, maybe most, but not all "defenders of the faith" from the LDS side started with a preconcieved notion, to be sure. At least some that I have known really were/are objective researchers. And it is a legitimate question to ask if we posess a character flaw simply because we have a positive bias from the get go as well, or does that blade have two edges?

To resist the clearest evidence would be a character flaw. The statement is

ad hominem

. It takes the focus off the issues and inappropriately puts it on the critics. It would just as wrong to talk about the character and motives of the apologists. It's irrelevant.

[Dan Vogel]

See my post above.

Also, Vogel may have started from a different premise than the one he currently favors, but it is clear from his most recent remarks in the other thread, that he is now operating in reverse--he has come to a conclusion and is going back and selectively interpreting and weighting evidence so as to comport with that conclusion, and he is unwarrantedly dismissing evidence to the contrary. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I consider all the evidence. Confirmation bias is how Anderson rejects Burnett, Parrish, and Turley, but accepts the very dubious P. Wilhelm Poulson.

[Jaybear]

...said the Beam to the Mote.

Interesting. We both believe that its the other person is trying to avoid a civil rational discussion.

Tell you what, next time we have a discussion, lets both make an effort to respond to the other person's question.

Agreed?

CFR

It was just a guess. I thought there must be reason why you resort to calling me names This seemed as good a reason as any.

[Dan Vogel]

You are unwittingly manifesting your ignorance of the situation. Please read the other thread, particularly where Vogel as much as admits to letting his theory control his view of the evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

You're not paying enough attention to very important distinctions I keep making. I clearly said that in the issue of vision vs hallucination I would decide that matter based on BOM historicity. If the BOM is not history, then the witnesses hallucinated. However, my essay is primarily concerned with the issue of the eight witnesses seeing the plates with natural or spiritual eyes. In this issue, I'm not letting any theory control my evaluation of evidence.

[Daniel Peterson]

Saying critics wouldn't admit the BOM is history even with the clearist evidence is the abusive form of .

Only if it's advanced as a serious argument.

(It can only be a logically fallacious argument if it's an argument in the first place.)

But I made no such argument at all in any event, and your response to me doesn't

even

accuse me of

saying

such a thing.

[noel00]

Dan, why do you always have to give us a diary account of how busy you are? Show us how much smarter you are (better than Vogel "BA" or Walters "Mth"?

[wenglund]

Interesting. We both believe that its the other person is trying to avoid a civil rational discussion.

Tell you what, next time we have a discussion, lets both make an effort to respond to the other person's question.

Agreed?

Sure, that is what I have tried to do all along, though I can't promise that you will see it that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sethbag]

Have you ever honestly been open to the possibility that the claims of the LDS church might be valid? If so, you would be the first critic I ever ran into that did.

You're making this up out of thin air, or else just not paying attention, or else you've been living under a rock and simply haven't run into many critics. I could name a good 15-20 critics offhand who either post on this board, or have posted on this board in the last several years and either quit in disgust or were shown the door, who started out as TBMs and were not only open to the possibility that the LDS church claims were true, but in fact believed that they knew the church claims were in fact true.

If you still don't believe it, then allow me to introduce myself, and you may no longer say what you said in the quote above. I thought I knew the church claims were true until I was around 36. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I had almost certainly been wrong in believing this. It was terrible apologetic arguments that finally did me in. I don't see how this could be "confirmation bias" against the church when I was examining the arguments starting from the point of view of a believer, and came to the conclusion that I was probably wrong.

Every one I have ever encountered started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and so all their research was angled towards proving that conclusion that was reached in advance.

I started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. In putting critical arguments and apologetic arguments side by side and judging the quality of the arguments and the evidence, I finally came to the conclusion that the critics probably had it right. Before I came to this conclusion I realized I had always been priveleging the pro-church arguments unjustifiably, and it was only after I made a painful but concerted effort to be more even-handed that I was able to see the ugly truth, finally, that I was in fact on the losing side of this argument.

[Sethbag]

I dunno, maybe you will invent a new term, disconfirmation bias, for the bias that makes a person unfairly privilege the arguments that prove them wrong.

[Buzzard]

You're making this up out of thin air, or else just not paying attention, or else you've been living under a rock and simply haven't run into many critics. I could name a good 15-20 critics offhand who either post on this board, or have posted on this board in the last several years and either quit in disgust or were shown the door, who started out as TBMs and were not only open to the possibility that the LDS church claims were true, but in fact believed that they knew the church claims were in fact true.

If you still don't believe it, then allow me to introduce myself, and you may no longer say what you said in the quote above. I thought I knew the church claims were true until I was around 36. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I had almost certainly been wrong in believing this. It was terrible apologetic arguments that finally did me in. I don't see how this could be "confirmation bias" against the church when I was examining the arguments starting from the point of view of a believer, and came to the conclusion that I was probably wrong.

I started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. In putting critical arguments and apologetic arguments side by side and judging the quality of the arguments and the evidence, I finally came to the conclusion that the critics probably had it right. Before I came to this conclusion I realized I had always been priveleging the pro-church arguments unjustifiably, and it was only after I made a painful but concerted effort to be more even-handed that I was able to see the ugly truth, finally, that I was in fact on the losing side of this argument.

See, I would not consider you a "critic". I am well aware that sincere members of the church have come to a different conclusion than I have after examining the arguments for and against. And while that makes me sad, I am not going to judge your "journey" (As an aside, I don't really like that word to describe your experience, but don't have a better one). A critic is one who comes from outside the faith. Perhaps the very definition of a critic excludes them from considering the possibility that the LDS church is God's Kingdom on earth. But (IMHO), I have seen their arguments shredded by intelligent, skilled apologists-I hope you realize there are some of those-and the one option they don't even entertain is that perhaps, just perhaps, Joseph Smith was an honest young man. I have not lurked on this board long enough to see much of that, although again IMHO, Mr. Vogel is entering gnat/camel territory in the latest round, though I'll give him a B for effort.

[Kemara]

If you still don't believe it, then allow me to introduce myself, and you may no longer say what you said in the quote above. I thought I knew the church claims were true until I was around 36. A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I had almost certainly been wrong in believing this. It was terrible apologetic arguments that finally did me in. I don't see how this could be "confirmation bias" against the church when I was examining the arguments starting from the point of view of a believer, and came to the conclusion that I was probably wrong.

I started from the premise that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. In putting critical arguments and apologetic arguments side by side and judging the quality of the arguments and the evidence, I finally came to the conclusion that the critics probably had it right. Before I came to this conclusion I realized I had always been priveleging the pro-church arguments unjustifiably, and it was only after I made a painful but concerted effort to be more even-handed that I was able to see the ugly truth, finally, that I was in fact on the losing side of this argument.

Sethbag in another thread you made the following statement:

People can and do claim all sorts of things. Some of these people are lying, some are delusional, and some merely are a little over-enthusiastic and the story assumes a grander stature in its eventual retelling.

What category do these genuinely heartfelt experiences described in a way so as to present as having no “confirmation bias” fall into? At a minimum the retelling of your experience seems of grand stature – what with the “painful but concerted effort” in seeing the “ugly truth” and all. It could of course be delusion – what with the “putting critical arguments and apologetic arguments side by side and judging the quality” and all. So dear Sethbag, what category is it?

Of course I shouldn’t really say what category I think this and all of your stirring stories fall into. I will say that I was greatly disappointed that you didn’t recount that treasured experience, so rich and deep in sound reasoning and logic, of your failure to walk on water. This experience should have been included in the recounting on this thread of your, devoid of confirmation bias, journey to the truth or at least included as one step in the heroic and grandiose story of your “painful but concerted effort to be more even-handed”. Yes, my dear Sethbag the “ugly truth” is right there for all to see, it wasn’t your use of the same mature logic and reasoning that led you to engage in juvenile sign seeking, it was the terrible apologetic arguments that finally did you in.......without any form of confirmation bias of course.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, why do you always have to give us a diary account of how busy you are?

"Always"?

Exaggerate much, Noel?

But, more fundamentally, why should you care? What is it in you that makes you even notice this, let alone take offense or be bothered at it? What compels you to mention it, and to try to make this discussion into a personal referendum, totally irrelevant to the thread's stated topic, on me?

Show us how much smarter you are (better than Vogel "BA" or Walters "Mth"?

I've said absolutely nothing here, and, for years now, absolutely nothing anywhere else, about Dan Vogel's B.A. (have I ever mentioned it?) or Wesley Walters's M.A. -- if I'm not mistaken (I could be), he had an M.A., not an M.Th. -- and I really have to wonder what caused you to mention these degrees. What impulses urge you to these rather strange actions?

The fact is that I'm busy. I'm sorry about that. And I'm sorry that that evidently upsets you and makes you feel insecure or oppressed. (I'm sure, though, that you could wipe the floor with me in Solitaire.)

I wanted to explain to Dan Vogel why it is that I'm not responding in any detail to his recently posted tome on the Witnesses. My comment wasn't aimed at you. I wasn't thinking about you. And it certainly wasn't aimed at the Rev. Wesley P. Walters, M.A. (d. 1990), for whom I realize you've been carrying a torch over the past two or three decades. I haven't thought about him in at least a year or two, and wasn't thinking of him, not even slightly, in connection with this thread. Why even bring him up? What connection does he have with anything here? He's been gone for nearly a quarter of a century, Noel. Why can't you let him rest in peace? Why do you feel that you have to attack me on his behalf? Do you really think he cares?

.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[noel00]

In my dealings with you before I have seen you use the "MA" in your discussion of Walters, which to my mind means you think he might be underqualified to speak on matters of Mormon history. Years ago when I was in the church, I became a subscriber to Dialogue. I asked some American members what they thought the LDS leadership would have thought of such an enterprise. They said some of the leadership were uphappy, especially regarding an article by a Presbyterian pastor and the weak response given by the Mormon historian. Later I found out these were Wes Walters and Richard Bushman. When I started corresponding with Walters,he mentioned his disappointment and criticisms of Milton Backman's book on the First Vision that dealt with the revival question. Backman never mentions Walter's paper (interesting for a academic book?). Walters took issue with a particular footnote in Backman's book which Walters said was not supported by the evidence. Walter's work does still have a connection with early LDS history. I notice in a footnote in RSR that Bushman thinks the Smiths did join the Presyterian church in 1823-24 rather than 1820. The issue of the revival is not settled. Does a couple of camp meetings qualify for what Smith described was going on?

[Sethbag]

Buzzard, Dan Vogel was a TBM at some point in his life. He doesn't count as a critic to you? Also, the bias comment was directed at him.

His point is a good one though. He was TBM. Were his arguments crippled by bias then? Is it only once a TBM changes their mind that their opinions become unacceptably crippled by bias?

Anyhow, I'm unsure why you would expect a nevermo critic to take Joseph Smith's claims all that seriously. Just take the barest facts about JS that critics would probably be addressing, and try to imagine what you'd think if you weren't a TBM. Joseph Smith takes all these women to his bed in secret, behind his wife's back, while publicly denying it. Is a nevermo really in the wrong to think that JS was probably just acting like so many other new religious movement leader, rather than thinking hey, maybe God really did want him to do it? Is a nevermo really all that wrong to consider Joseph's head pressed into the hat to gaze at the scrying stone to translate gold plates that conveniently were taken back up to Heaven, and conclude it's unlikely to be a true story?

How about the Book of Abraham? Is a nevermo critic really being unfair thinking it's probably more likely Joseph Smith made up the BoA translation, rather than that it is the result of some sort of mnemonic device theory, given the extant papyrus having been identified as run of the mill Egyptian funerary documents? Is this really surprising to you?

I'm not saying there are no apologetic responses to these things. Certainly there are. The fact is the apologetic responses to all of these all take a certain amount of committment and work to take seriously - work that a nevermo has no reason to have ever done. Does this really surprise you?

[Jeff K.]

Judas Iscariot was a "TBM" (in the contextual sense). So what?

[Jeff K.]

Anyhow, I'm unsure why you would expect a nevermo critic to take Joseph Smith's claims all that seriously. Just take the barest facts about JS that critics would probably be addressing, and try to imagine what you'd think if you weren't a TBM. Joseph Smith takes all these women to his bed in secret, behind his wife's back, while publicly denying it. Is a nevermo really in the wrong to think that JS was probably just acting like so many other new religious movement leader, rather than thinking hey, maybe God really did want him to do it? Is a nevermo really all that wrong to consider Joseph's head pressed into the hat to gaze at the scrying stone to translate gold plates that conveniently were taken back up to Heaven, and conclude it's unlikely to be a true story?

A rather ridiculous example. Given the number of converts in the world, myself included from an agnostic family, I can tell you how it sounds. It sounds like Joseph Smith received a revelation like so many prophets before him. It sounds like he was persecuted, like so many prophets before him. It sounds like details we know of this prophet but not the prophets before him.

So rather than creating a false example of what it sounds like to non members, the growth of the church reflects what it sounds like to non members.

[Jaybear]

A rather ridiculous example. Given the number of converts in the world, myself included from an agnostic family, I can tell you how it sounds. It sounds like Joseph Smith received a revelation like so many prophets before him. It sounds like he was persecuted, like so many prophets before him. It sounds like details we know of this prophet but not the prophets before him.

So rather than creating a false example of what it sounds like to non members, the growth of the church reflects what it sounds like to non members.

Though a convert does bring an interesting perspective to the discussion, your argument is, to put it politely, very poor.

First, you strangely assume that nonmember perception is best viewed from the perspective of the eventual convert, rather than from those who closed the door on the missionary. If conversion is the typical result of contact with a missionary, then you would have a point. But its not.

Second, as it pertains to new members, you assume the new members are aware of the facts surrounding Smith's extramarital relations, or the Book of Abraham.

Sethbag has a valid point. When weighing the evidence, when you take the so called spiritual testimony off the scale, you are going to get a much different result.

[Xander]

Sadly, Emperor Graham's passion-pink colored glasses are preventing him from seeing that he has no real argumentational clothes, and they have apparently and ironically deluded him into believing that his anti-Mormon-Apologertics fantasy cruise will sail out-side of Never Never Land.

So, for his sake, and this is something I could learn to do better from others here, it is probably best to just ignore Kevin's insipid antics and treat him as though everything is all right.

And yet again. Wade unwittingly proves my point regarding confirmation bias among apologists. Confirmation bias is all about coming up with reasons to dismiss uncomfortable facts and deflect instead of responding to them. Every one of his posts drips with it, as he never really has anything of substance to say on any given subject. It is just one "move along, nothing to see here" post after another, which is precisely the kind of thing that goes on during confirmation bias. Instead of dealing with any of the arguments, and instead of trying to understand what confirmation bias really is and how it works, he is content to remain blissfully ignorant with this apologetic misuse of it because it provides those good feelings a troubled mind desperately needs when confronted with those uncomfortable facts that challenge a cherished preconceived belief. This is really why most of what goes on in these apologetic forums is just a big rhetoric battle where one apologist tries to appear smarter that the critic in any way possible, aside from actually dealing with the arguments. It is a confirmation bias festival decorated with hypocrisy and a double-standards.

Exaggerate much, Noel?

Yes, I agree. "Always" is an exagerration. Obviously you do not always do this. But I'm also sure you never really believed Noel meant that literally, and that you know this is just a figure of speech. The more outrageous kind of hyperbole would be something similar to your repeated claim that I always respond to those with whom I disagree by calling them liars. Because your exagerration was presented as a serious argument not to be challenged, whereas I think Noel's was a common figure of speech most English speakers understand.

The point is you do this quite a bit. You're the only person I know who does and you shouldn't be surprised when this is pointed out to you by those who aren't afraid to mention it. I know this certainly isn't the first time you've heard this and yet you still insist on doing it. This suggests that you feel it is important that you do so. How come?

But, more fundamentally, why should you care?

It is "fundamental" to what, exactly? Why should Noel care if you care?

What is it in you that makes you even notice this

It is called being minimally observant.

let alone take offense or be bothered at it?

What makes you think noel "takes offense" to this? It was a simple question. The only frustration I see here is on your part, as you've yet to answer the question. I mean really, do we really need you to present your multiple week (or multiple month as in some cases) itenerary when a simple "I'll get back to you when I can" will suffice? It comes across as "lookie at me I'm a scholar who is constantly doing scholarly things."

What compels you to mention it

No, the question was Noel's. What compels you to mention your itenerary so frequently? It seems like you are the one who thinks other people care.

and to try to make this discussion into a personal referendum, totally irrelevant to the thread's stated topic, on me?

I don't see it that way at all. It was a simple question that could have been easily answered without derailing the thread at all.

Judas Iscariot was a "TBM" (in the contextual sense). So what?

So, you're merely begging the question and missing the point.

Thank God for Jaybear:

Sethbag has a valid point. When weighing the evidence, when you take the so called spiritual testimony off the scale, you are going to get a much different result.

Alas!

Someone finally gets it.

So a person without a testimony isn't more biased because he is without it. In fact, he is far closer to being objective than the TBM could ever hope to be.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Xander

[wenglund]

And yet again. Wade unwittingly proves my point regarding confirmation bias among apologists. Confirmation bias is all about coming up with reasons to dismiss uncomfortable facts and deflect instead of responding to them. Every one of his posts drips with it, as he never really has anything of substance to say on any given subject. It is just one "move along, nothing to see here" post after another, which is precisely the kind of thing that goes on during confirmation bias. Instead of dealing with any of the arguments, and instead of trying to understand what confirmation bias really is and how it works, he is content to remain blissfully ignorant with this apologetic misuse of it because it provides those good feelings a troubled mind desperately needs when confronted with those uncomfortable facts that challenge a cherished preconceived belief. This is really why most of what goes on in these apologetic forums is just a big rhetoric battle where one apologist tries to appear smarter that the critic in any way possible, aside from actually dealing with the arguments. It is a confirmation bias festival decorated with hypocrisy and a double-standards.

Kevin,

You are good enough, and smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sethbag]

A rather ridiculous example. Given the number of converts in the world, myself included from an agnostic family, I can tell you how it sounds. It sounds like Joseph Smith received a revelation like so many prophets before him. It sounds like he was persecuted, like so many prophets before him. It sounds like details we know of this prophet but not the prophets before him. So rather than creating a false example of what it sounds like to non members, the growth of the church reflects what it sounds like to non members.

Converts have absolutely nothing to do with this. I would bet that 99.99% of converts know nothing at all of Joseph Smith's women beyond Emma, the nature of the Egyptian papyri in the church's possession and their relationship to the Book of Abraham, and I would bet that at least 99.9% of them, at least prior to the South Park episode, know nothing of the stone in the hat method of translation.

It would be an interesting thing to test though, if we had the ability. We could take a convert who had shown signs of being receptive to the message, but had not yet committed. Then clone them and lead one clone into a room where stone-in-the-hat, Joseph's polygamy, and the Egyptian Papyrus/BoA stuff was all laid out, and have the other clone go on with the conventional discussions, where all of this stuff is completely missing, and do some statistical analysis on conversion rates. Do you really believe that this information would be neutral or even enhance conversion rates? I would suggest that the fact that this stuff is absent from what potential converts are taught by the church indicates that the church disagrees with you.