Vogel Responds To Starr

[Dan Vogel]

Lance Starr:

In “It’s a Matter of Relevance” you argue that ad hominem is permissible if it’s relevant.

Another example comes to mind: In his biography of Joseph Smith, author Dan Vogel employed Family System Theory in an attempt to understand the Mormon Prophet. Nevertheless, Mr. Vogel is not a trained psychologist, psychiatrist or even a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. How is that information not relevant? And the corresponding review by NAMI employed a response from people with the relevant training who provided what I thought were materially damaging responses to the argument’s Vogel made. http://www.fairblog.org/2012/07/02/its-a-matter-of-relevance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fairldsblog+%28FAIR+Blog%29

Critiquing Joseph Smith’s family dynamics from a family-systems perspective isn’t the same as doing what a family therapist does, which requires a lot more information and training. I searched, but couldn’t find a critique at the NAMI from trained reviewers. Star needs to give a reference for this assertion. I did find reviews responding to Robert D. Anderson’s Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith, who got criticized despite his training.

The only review by someone with training was done by Kyle Walker, who didn’t complain about my knowledge of family systems but criticized my interpretation of the sources, although he doesn’t have a degree in history. For example, he disagreed with my assessment that Joseph Smith was an alcoholic, or at least had a problem with drinking, because he was unsure if there was enough data to make that determination and hesitant to accept the accounts of the Smiths’ neighbors. Walker’s apologetic analysis leaves out a lot of information, which leads him to make erroneous conclusions about Smith family dynamics. If he’s wrong about the history, he’s also wrong about his analysis. At any rate, Walker faulted my historical interpretation, not my use of family systems.

Do I need a degree in political science to critique JS’s career as mayor of Nauvoo, or a degree in economics to critique his handling of the Kirtland Bank scandal? Is Lance Star more qualified to comment on JS’s 1826 trial than I am because he is an attorney?

Starr continues:

If (say) Vogel were to present a logical syllogism, it makes little difference whether he is trained in Family System Theory or anything else. All that matters is the syllogism. Unfortunately, most issues with scripture, ancient langauges, history, and all the other topics that impact “apologetics” aren’t like mathematical or logical syllogisms. One historian noted that these issues sometimes need to come to the fore if we care about the truth, even though people will get upset ...

Expert testimony in court is not analogous to what happens in scholarship. Scholarship has nothing to do with trusting expert testimony. Jurors are constrained to accept as evidence expert testimony. That’s not what happens in scholarship in the humanities, which is by nature interdisciplinary.

Star is engaging in ad hominem while at the same time denying it. Ad hominem abusive includes things like the following:

"Your exposition is highly correct and valid, but you don't have enough academic degree" (Credential fallacy, official degree fallacy). http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ad_hominem

In scholarship, the only thing that matters is arguments and evidence, whether or not in syllogistic form. Unless you can point out where my use of family systems was wrong, your appeals to authority are unfounded and ad hominal.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Calm]

Mr. Vogel, it is Starr (not "Star"), for some reason...probably because it is an actual word, this typo is really distracting when reading it.

I did find reviews responding to Robert D. Anderson’s Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith, who got criticized despite his training.

Was he criticized for the quality of his training or any claims of being trained or for something else to do with the actual argument? Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

I agree that extensive training is not necessary, but what is necessary is to begin the analysis with an open mind without a pre-determined conclusion. I would suggest that Vogel has demonstrated that his analysis has severe failings in this area, regardless of his academic credentials. His treatment of the eleven witness testimony is a shocking example of defective logic, biased use in selecting sources, and flawed analysis, as we have discussed on this forum.

Bottom line, he is hopelessly biased. His conclusions are untrustworthy.

Edited July 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Calm]

Scholarship has nothing to do with trusting expert testimony. Jurors are constrained to accept as evidence expert testimony. That’s not what happens in scholarship in the humanities, which is by nature interdisciplinary.

Nevertheless, Mr. Vogel is not a trained psychologist, psychiatrist or even a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. How is that information not relevant?

It appears you are claiming that since your book is scholarship and therefore those who will read it have the chance to analyze the arguments themselves to see if they are credible arguments based on Family System Theory, pointing out your lack of significant training in the area is unnecessary to address the argument and therefore a fallacy and a personal attack.

But that seems to assume a very limited audience. Do you not anticipate for at least some of those who read your book to be nonscholars, unfamiliar with the ways of scholarship and to just accept your claims based possibly on a believed expertise in the field rather than searching out authoritative information with which to compare your work to? If Mr. Starr is addressing this audience---the one that treats you as if you are an expert witness at a trial--it seems to me his point has value.

[Nevo]

If Mr. Starr is addressing this audience---the one that treats you as if you are an expert witness at a trial--it seems to me his point has value.

I don't know, Cal. I rather doubt that the FAIR Blog's readership (Mr. Starr's audience) is predisposed to accept Dan Vogel's claims uncritically.

I frankly have difficulty imagining a hypothetical reader of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet that would think that the book was written by a family therapist. There is nothing to suggest this in the title, on the dust jacket, or in the book itself.

[Calm]

I don't know, Cal. I rather doubt that the FAIR Blog's readership (Mr. Starr's audience) is predisposed to accept Dan Vogel's claims uncritically.

Perhaps I should have used the term "referring to".

I frankly have difficulty imagining a hypothetical reader of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet that would think that the book was written by a family therapist. There is nothing to suggest this in the title, on the dust jacket, or in the book itself.

It has been quite some time that I read it. There must be references to the theory of Family Systems itself, are there not? and perhaps a claim that the book uses such a theory in order to discover the 'hidden meanings' in or ultimate sources of the text or some such thing as well as filling in the gaps in JS's personal history itself? Is there no indication in the book that the author or someone else considers himself well grounded enough in the theory to use it in an appropriate and even scholarly fashion? That it just isn't some high school student who picked up what he is using in a book report off the internet and found out all he needed to know about the theory from Wikipedia?

If so, for those that read such claims less critically, would it not be helpful to draw attention to the likely limits of that grounding and how it might affect the quality of the text so one shouldn't accept any claims allegedly based on the theory outright?

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I would be critical of anyone doing a psychobiography on Joseph Smith. One of my History profs. told us that we should be leery of any such book unless the author met two criteria, 1) They interviewed them and studied them at length,and 2) they have the needed training. I doubt Dr. Anderson has ever met Joseph Smith and so what he would know about Joseph Smith is skewed like everyone else who studies Joseph Smith. All that is known about him is whatever is left from the documents and hopefully the documents are legit and accurate representations of him

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Vogel, it is Starr (not "Star"), for some reason...probably because it is an actual word, this typo is really distracting when reading it.

Was he criticized for the quality of his training or any claims of being trained or for something else to do with the actual argument?

He got criticized for diagnosing Joseph Smith harshly with a malignant form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[why me]

He got criticized for diagnosing Joseph Smith harshly with a malignant form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

And if Joseph were a fraudster, I can see why this conclusion was reached. But as a prophet, someone who had a calling to restore Christ's church, well...I don't see narcissism. I see survival.

[mfbukowski]

In “It’s a Matter of Relevance” you argue that ad hominem is permissible if it’s relevant.

I just want to raise a meta-ethical question here to show how silly this whole discussion is: Who is it who gets to define what is or is not "ad hominem" and why such arguments are permissible or not?

Where is it written, and by what authority?

How could this question - about what ad hominem is and whether or not or under what circumstances, it is "permissible"- EVER by answered?

I submit that if this cannot be answered it is a waste of time to think about it or discuss it. Of course we should not engage in "ad hominem" arguments, because to do so is rude and unethical. But endless parsing of what constitutes such an argument is simply absurd.

It's like trying to define what is "reasonable". Try to define that term. Either you know what it is or you don't, and it's subject to change according to circumstances.

Trying to define it is like trying to define exactly how many steps we can take on the Sabbath and under what circumstance. It's just silly.

[why me]

I just want to raise a meta-ethical question here to show how silly this whole discussion is: Who is it who gets to define what is or is not "ad hominem" and why such arguments are permissible or not?

Where is it written, and by what authority?

By the authority of exmormons it is written. They have defined it and use it against the lds apologists every chance they get to limit the effect that the apologist has on the believing member.

[Dan Vogel]

I agree that extensive training is not necessary, but what is necessary is to begin the analysis with an open mind without a pre-determined conclusion. I would suggest that Vogel has demonstrated that his analysis has severe failings in this area, regardless of his academic credentials. His treatment of the eleven witness testimony is a shocking example of defective logic, biased use in selecting sources, and flawed analysis, as we have discussed on this forum.

Bottom line, he is hopelessly biased. His conclusions are untrustworthy.

You say this as if you assessment of me is open minded and without pre-determined conclusions. I am one of the fairest critics around and it’s still not good enough for you. There is no requirement that an author be free of bias. It all depends on the quality of the presentation. You are engaging in ad hominem as we speak. Of course, I believe my reconstruction of the experiences of the Book of Mormon witnesses is supported by the full array of the sources and that the apologists are selective. I think your assessment of me is so obviously biased that it’s not trustworthy.

[Calm]

I would be critical of anyone doing a psychobiography on Joseph Smith. One of my History profs. told us that we should be leery of any such book unless the author met two criteria, 1) They interviewed them and studied them at length,and 2) they have the needed training. I doubt Dr. Anderson has ever met Joseph Smith and so what he would know about Joseph Smith is skewed like everyone else who studies Joseph Smith. All that is known about him is whatever is left from the documents and hopefully the documents are legit and accurate representations of him

My take is from the psychology side and I agree with him.

[Calm]

He got criticized for diagnosing Joseph Smith harshly with a malignant form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Thank you. So it was his argument/conclusion attacked, no his training.

Don't really see how that situation relates here then since Mr. Starr never claimed that the only valid reason for criticizing someone was their lack of training.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree that extensive training is not necessary, but what is necessary is to begin the analysis with an open mind without a pre-determined conclusion. I would suggest that Vogel has demonstrated that his analysis has severe failings in this area, regardless of his academic credentials. His treatment of the eleven witness testimony is a shocking example of defective logic, biased use in selecting sources, and flawed analysis, as we have discussed on this forum.

Bottom line, he is hopelessly biased. His conclusions are untrustworthy.

Mormons cannot escape this either however. It is the height of folly and myopia to pretend we are objective without any pre-conceived notions, while critics are simply braindead..... this standard is simply false. I'm not arguing, just saying what you indicate here is only half the story.

[Dan Vogel]

I don't know, Cal. I rather doubt that the FAIR Blog's readership (Mr. Starr's audience) is predisposed to accept Dan Vogel's claims uncritically.

I frankly have difficulty imagining a hypothetical reader of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet that would think that the book was written by a family therapist. There is nothing to suggest this in the title, on the dust jacket, or in the book itself.

Family Systems is just a small part of it, which has mainly to do with paying attention to obvious things like relational aspects of the different Smith family members—alliances, stresses on the family system, realignment after the death of significant members, marriage problems causing imbalance, and how balances or homeostasis is achieved, etc. It’s less a psychology and more a sociology of the family system. That’s why I prefer it. But it would be a mistake to think the entire book is based on Family Systems, and the approach is not used to find secret or hidden things. Anyone can follow my approach and make up their minds. So the reader doesn’t need any expertise either. For example, if my study of Family Systems makes me aware that Hyrum was aligned with his mother, and Joseph was aligned with his father over the subject of religion that’s a significant observation, which can be seen by anyone not just experts. Much of what I did can be found in Bushman’s biography, and I doubt Starr would criticize him for doing it. The only thing I did was to give a name and methodology to it.

Having specific training or credential might be an added element for some readers, but it doesn’t bar me from using the method if I find it useful. So far, no one has pointed out any grievous errors I committed in my use of Family Systems, but quite the opposite. Meanwhile, Kyle Walker publishes on Smith family history without anyone questioning his expertise as a historian.

[Dan Vogel]

And if Joseph were a fraudster, I can see why this conclusion was reached. But as a prophet, someone who had a calling to restore Christ's church, well...I don't see narcissism. I see survival.

Why wouldn't God call a narcissist to be a prophet?

[Dan Vogel]

I just want to raise a meta-ethical question here to show how silly this whole discussion is: Who is it who gets to define what is or is not "ad hominem" and why such arguments are permissible or not?

Where is it written, and by what authority?

How could this question - about what ad hominem is and whether or not or under what circumstances, it is "permissible"- EVER by answered?

I submit that if this cannot be answered it is a waste of time to think about it or discuss it. Of course we should not engage in "ad hominem" arguments, because to do so is rude and unethical. But endless parsing of what constitutes such an argument is simply absurd.

It's like trying to define what is "reasonable". Try to define that term. Either you know what it is or you don't, and it's subject to change according to circumstances.

Trying to define it is like trying to define exactly how many steps we can take on the Sabbath and under what circumstance. It's just silly.

An ad hominem is when you draw attention away from the evidence or argument by attacking the person. It’s a fallacy of distraction and has several forms, abusive being but one. You might not know what it is, but logicians and philosophers have categorized this fallacy for more than a thousand years. I know what it is; Starr knows what it is; millions of people know what it is, but Bukowski doesn’t. Odd, that is!

[Pahoran]

You say this as if you assessment of me is open minded and without pre-determined conclusions. I am one of the fairest critics around and it’s still not good enough for you. There is no requirement that an author be free of bias. It all depends on the quality of the presentation. You are engaging in ad hominem as we speak. Of course, I believe my reconstruction of the experiences of the Book of Mormon witnesses is supported by the full array of the sources and that the apologists are selective. I think your assessment of me is so obviously biased that it’s not trustworthy.

Note here that you not only indulge in ad hominem argumentation, you mix it with a rather heavy dose of self-recommendation.

And I have to wonder: why? Are you leading with the chin, in the hope that someone will take a poke at it, so that you can accuse them of ad hominem too?

For the record: calling yourself "one of the fairest critics around" isn't saying much. Here is a parallel statement: "He is one of the tallest pygmies in the forest." Being fairer that most or all of our critics does not exactly require Olympic-class achievements in fairness.

Why wouldn't God call a narcissist to be a prophet?

A clever (and rather devious) bit of sophistry from "one of the fairest critics around." While I have not read the book in question, I have frequently been confronted with other haters who "diagnose" (it's not a diagnosis because they've never examined him) Joseph with some kind of narcissistic personality disorder. What's their evidence that he was a narcissist? Well, he was clearly deluded enough to think that God thought he was so gosh-darned important as to speak to him and call him as a prophet!

Which is, of course, pure circular argument. Because the simple fact is that if Joseph was telling the truth, then every single shred of evidence for his "narcissism" simply disappears.

BTW, labelling someone a "narcissist" is the purest ad hominem, designed to absolutely prejudice (if not outright poison the well against) the target in the minds of anyone who falls for it. In your self-anointed role as "one of the fairest critics around," can we expect to see you waxing indignant towards the author of that pseudo-diagnosis?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dan Vogel]

I would be critical of anyone doing a psychobiography on Joseph Smith. One of my History profs. told us that we should be leery of any such book unless the author met two criteria, 1) They interviewed them and studied them at length,and 2) they have the needed training. I doubt Dr. Anderson has ever met Joseph Smith and so what he would know about Joseph Smith is skewed like everyone else who studies Joseph Smith. All that is known about him is whatever is left from the documents and hopefully the documents are legit and accurate representations of him

I hope you realize that Family Systems is not the same as Anderson’s psychoanalysis.

[Dan Vogel]

Thank you. So it was his argument/conclusion attacked, no his training.

Don't really see how that situation relates here then since Mr. Starr never claimed that the only valid reason for criticizing someone was their lack of training.

That doesn’t make sense. If Anderson had been criticized for error in training, that would hardly make my point—unless my argument was to excuse my errors because Anderson also made errors. My argument was that his training didn’t save him from criticism.

[Duncan]

I hope you realize that Family Systems is not the same as Anderson’s psychoanalysis.

are you a trained family therapist? do you have a MA in Family therapy or a PH.D. in the subject? Why should I take your analysis seriously?

[Dan Vogel]

Note here that you not only indulge in ad hominem argumentation, you mix it with a rather heavy dose of self-recommendation.

And I have to wonder: why? Are you leading with the chin, in the hope that someone will take a poke at it, so that you can accuse them of ad hominem too?

For the record: calling yourself "one of the fairest critics around" isn't saying much. Here is a parallel statement: "He is one of the tallest pygmies in the forest." Being fairer that most or all of our critics does not exactly require Olympic-class achievements in fairness.

A clever (and rather devious) bit of sophistry from "one of the fairest critics around." While I have not read the book in question, I have frequently been confronted with other haters who "diagnose" (it's not a diagnosis because they've never examined him) Joseph with some kind of narcissistic personality disorder. What's their evidence that he was a narcissist? Well, he was clearly deluded enough to think that God thought he was so gosh-darned important as to speak to him and call him as a prophet!

Which is, of course, pure circular argument. Because the simple fact is that if Joseph was telling the truth, then every single shred of evidence for his "narcissism" simply disappears.

BTW, labelling someone a "narcissist" is the purest ad hominem, designed to absolutely prejudice (if not outright poison the well against) the target in the minds of anyone who falls for it. In your self-anointed role as "one of the fairest critics around," can we expect to see you waxing indignant towards the author of that pseudo-diagnosis?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

Saying that Dowis is biased isn’t ad hominem since everyone does it. I was obviously using hyperbole to show his hypocrisy.

It’s not at all the same as the tallest pygmy since it has an assumption that teller is better and Mormons are tall people. It’s more like being the most moderate of the Democrats and Mormons are Republicans. Of the people not believing in JS’s claims, who would you want explaining JS—me or the people at RFM? I don’t think your assessment was fair.

I think there was narcissism in JS, and he may have had Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it’s only an assessment of his personality. It doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of his mission. There are elements of narcissism in almost any leader, but it’s even more prevalent with charismatic leaders. Some of the evidence comes from his grandiose statements, whether true or false is not relevant; it’s the boastful nature and the feeling of being set apart from other humans and using them as tools for his goals. There’s a list of traits. JS might have some of these traits, but whether it rose to the level of a disorder is speculative. Yes, some of the evidence depends on concluding he used of deception and manipulated people.

Diagnosing JS as a narcissist is not ad hominal because it’s not an argument, but rather an interpretation designed to find meaning, not win a debate. Mormon studies is bigger than FAIR’s interests.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

are you a trained family therapist? do you have a MA in Family therapy or a PH.D. in the subject? Why should I take your analysis seriously?

Have you not been reading my responses? I've already answered that.

[why me]

Why wouldn't God call a narcissist to be a prophet?

I think that you know very well what you meant by calling Joseph a narcissist. And I would agree if he were a fraudster. Too allow so many people to suffer for a faith that he created, without feeling remorse or a tinge of guilt knowing that these people were believing that he was a true prophet based on his own account, would be extremely narcissistic. And that would be putting it mildly. But I don't see Joseph in this way.

I see a guy who had a responsibility, one that he didn't ask for, doing his best to do that responsibility to the best of his ability. But I would agree that god does call imperfect people to serve His cause. j

Edited July 5, 2012 by why me