Ryan Larsen's ("mormon Puzzle Pieces") Response To Professor Brian Hauglid

[DragonLancer]

Ryan Larsen ("Mormon Puzzle Pieces") over time has had correspondence with Professor Brian Hauglid.  Here is his open letter or response to Professor Hauglid on his blog:

 

http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2015/02/response-to-brian-hauglid-i-want-to.html?m=1

 

And here are some of my comments on this:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/02/mormon-puzzle-pieces-ryan-larsens.html

 

Ed Goble

[The Nehor]

Your response is basically:

"People do not think my work is worth their time."

Or am I missing something?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Thank you for posting this, Ed. Logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, nor can it be, and, consequently, judging an argument not on it's merits but on it's adherence to "a priori" expectations of what an argument should "look" like on the surface, is like judging a person by the clothes they wear or the color of their skin. It is bigoted. It is like presupposing that an uneducated farm boy is not worth listening to.

Play it out. Checkmate the other person. Don't assume they don't know what they're doing when they lose their queen, as though a preconceived notion of what a "winning" chess position looks like trumps actual play. The most brilliant moves aren't reducible to "established" principles. They take the grandmasters by surprise.

[cinepro]

Ryan Larsen ("Mormon Puzzle Pieces") over time has had correspondence with Professor Brian Hauglid.  Here is his open letter or response to Professor Hauglid on his blog:

 

http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2015/02/response-to-brian-hauglid-i-want-to.html?m=1

 

And here are some of my comments on this:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/02/mormon-puzzle-pieces-ryan-larsens.html

 

Ed Goble

 

 

Whoever designed the "Mormon Puzzle Pieces" blog should be taken out and shot.

[The Nehor]

Whoever designed the "Mormon Puzzle Pieces" blog should be taken out and shot.

That too.

It is an affront to retinas everywhere.

[ERayR]

Thank you for posting this, Ed. Logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, nor can it be, and, consequently, judging an argument not on it's merits but on it's adherence to "a priori" expectations of what an argument should "look" like on the surface, is like judging a person by the clothes they wear or the color of their skin. It is bigoted. It is like presupposing that an uneducated farm boy is not worth listening to.

Play it out. Checkmate the other person. Don't assume they don't know what they're doing when they lose their queen, as though a preconceived notion of what a "winning" chess position looks like trumps actual play. The most brilliant moves aren't reducible to "established" principles. They take the grandmasters by surprise.

 

The only problem is that religion is not a chess game.

[The Nehor]

The only problem is that religion is not a chess game.

To quote Zap Brannigan:

"In the game of chess Never let your adversary see your pieces."

Edited February 6, 2015 by The Nehor

[juliann]

Thank you for posting this, Ed. Logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, nor can it be, and, consequently, judging an argument not on it's merits but on it's adherence to "a priori" expectations of what an argument should "look" like on the surface, is like judging a person by the clothes they wear or the color of their skin. It is bigoted. It is like presupposing that an uneducated farm boy is not worth listening to.

 

Like it or not, standard methodology is the language that must be spoken. You need to get some training in it rather than rail at others.

[The Nehor]

Thank you for posting this, Ed. Logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, nor can it be, and, consequently, judging an argument not on it's merits but on it's adherence to "a priori" expectations of what an argument should "look" like on the surface, is like judging a person by the clothes they wear or the color of their skin. It is bigoted. It is like presupposing that an uneducated farm boy is not worth listening to.

Play it out. Checkmate the other person. Don't assume they don't know what they're doing when they lose their queen, as though a preconceived notion of what a "winning" chess position looks like trumps actual play. The most brilliant moves aren't reducible to "established" principles. They take the grandmasters by surprise.

If Joseph Smith was trying to establish an academic theory he would have to learn how to do so. He was not so your allusion to him is pointless.

If you see this as a game of chess you are not looking for truth, you are looking to win. In chess it does not matter whether the white pieces or the black pieces are on the side of right.

[cinepro]

Thank you for posting this, Ed. Logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, nor can it be, and, consequently, judging an argument not on it's merits but on it's adherence to "a priori" expectations of what an argument should "look" like on the surface, is like judging a person by the clothes they wear or the color of their skin. It is bigoted. It is like presupposing that an uneducated farm boy is not worth listening to.

Play it out. Checkmate the other person. Don't assume they don't know what they're doing when they lose their queen, as though a preconceived notion of what a "winning" chess position looks like trumps actual play. The most brilliant moves aren't reducible to "established" principles. They take the grandmasters by surprise.

 

But sadly, apologists can be more like a 6 year old who changes the rules mid-game to compensate for the fact that they just lost their queen. 

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

The only problem is that religion is not a chess game.

How is that a problem?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Like it or not, standard methodology is the language that must be spoken.

How do you know that? And you are saying it must be spoken in order to what?

You need to get some training in it

Sounds like you've made false assumptions.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

But sadly, apologists can be more like a 6 year old who changes the rules mid-game to compensate for the fact that they just lost their queen.

In that case, the individual is abandoning the game and trying to get you to play a different game. If they are not willing to play out the game, that's not your fault. I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss the game as a loss for them based on your assessment of the strength of their position, but should play it out. Mainly, this means giving someone a chance to reply rather than assuming that your argument settled the issue.

I'll demonstrate this with an example neutral to our current discussion. A friend of mine was assigned in some class to read excerpts from Al Franken's book, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them. My friend was convinced that Ann Coulter was a pathological liar and that Sean Hannity was in denial about Rush Limbaugh intentionally calling Chelsea "the White House dog" - that Hannity said it was an accident in the face of logical proof that it could not have been an accident. I told my friend that Al Franken by his own standard was the liar. I asked my friend to Google Rush Chelsea and told him that one of the top results was a piece I wrote for lyingliar.com which exposed how badly Franken distorted the actual incident, and on the same site I exposed every Franken argument against Coulter as being badly distorted as well. He came to school armed with this information, but the instructor had no interest. Notwithstanding, the piece I wrote about the Rush Chelsea incident made it's way around the internet through newsbusters.org and sites like MediaMatters eventually dropped Franken's version and replaced it with the actual version (without issuing a retraction for the smear version), which leaves plenty of room for the possibility that the incident was accidental.

[Ahab]

Like it or not, standard methodology is the language that must be spoken. You need to get some training in it rather than rail at others.

For certain people, yes, because some people listen to only those people who use standard methodology. Others think outside of that box.

Reminder to self: find out what the term "standard methodology" refers to.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

For certain people, yes, because some people listen to only those people who use standard methodology. Others think outside of that box.

Reminder to self: find out what the term "standard methodology" refers to.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

If Joseph Smith was trying to establish an academic theory he would have to learn how to do so.

But how did the first person to ever establish an academic theory learn how to do so? And is there an ideal way to establish a theory, and how do we know?

He was not so your allusion to him is pointless.

The actual context refers to the fact that logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, which is a context that you do not seem to have considered.

If you see this as a game of chess you are not looking for truth, you are looking to win.

I can see why it could look that way, but what I actually am saying is people ought *not* assume that they have "won" an argument, especially using that assumption as a reason to disengage from the discussion and dismiss the other person's arguments. Doing so is like

presuming to have won a chess game and putting away the board and pieces while the other person is making their move. Rather, people should play it out to the end as much as possible, and not presume to have won the argument unless the other person is checkmated. This gives the other person a chance to clear up misunderstandings and raise points you might not have seen / showing you lines of play you had not seen.

In chess it does not matter whether the white pieces or the black pieces are on the side of right.

The pieces are the instruments through which the players argue, like words.

[The Nehor]

But how did the first person to ever establish an academic theory learn how to do so? And is there an ideal way to establish a theory, and how do we know?

The actual context refers to the fact that logic is not boxed into secular academic molds, which is a context that you do not seem to have considered.

I can see why it could look that way, but what I actually am saying is people ought *not* assume that they have "won" an argument, especially using that assumption as a reason to disengage from the discussion and dismiss the other person's arguments. Doing so is like

presuming to have won a chess game and putting away the board and pieces while the other person is making their move. Rather, people should play it out to the end as much as possible, and not presume to have won the argument unless the other person is checkmated. This gives the other person a chance to clear up misunderstandings and raise points you might not have seen / showing you lines of play you had not seen.

The pieces are the instruments through which the players argue, like words.

 

Yes, but you aren't playing chess by the same rules. You can make up your own rules to games all you want but don't expect followers of the game to take you seriously when you go to a chess tournament and try to use your own rules or pontificate on why the rules are the way they are when they could just as easily have been designed your way.

 

If you want to play with academic theories you have to learn how that is done. If you do not know how learn. We live in the age of the internet. You can teach yourself almost anything.

 

You want to play chess using your own rules and be treated seriously. It isn't going to happen.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Yes, but you aren't playing chess by the same rules. You can make up your own rules to games all you want but don't expect followers of the game to take you seriously when you go to a chess tournament and try to use your own rules or pontificate on why the rules are the way they are when they could just as easily have been designed your way.

If you want to play with academic theories you have to learn how that is done. If you do not know how learn. We live in the age of the internet. You can teach yourself almost anything.

You want to play chess using your own rules and be treated seriously. It isn't going to happen.

Ah, but I am playing by the same rules. The issue is arbitrary conflation on the part of people who confuse rules with style. They expect the other person to use their same repertoire of opening moves. They don't know how to deal with a new opening. Instead of playing it out, they declare game over. It really is that silly. If you look at specifics - let's use my response to Dr. Hauglid in the OP - you will see this.

[The Nehor]

Ah, but I am playing by the same rules. The issue is arbitrary conflation on the part of people who confuse rules with style. They expect the other person to use their same repertoire of opening moves. They don't know how to deal with a new opening. Instead of playing it out, they declare game over. It really is that silly. If you look at specifics - let's use my response to Dr. Hauglid in the OP - you will see this.

 

You've strained the metaphor to the point that it broke. To be fair it was a pretty bad metaphor to begin with it.

 

Your response is basically you whining that he won't listen to you. If that is your stylistic approach I suggest amending it. It works as well in academia as it does in chess.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

You've strained the metaphor to the point that it broke. To be fair it was a pretty bad metaphor to begin with it.

Your response is basically you whining that he won't listen to you. If that is your stylistic approach I suggest amending it. It works as well in academia as it does in chess.

Can you back up your characterization of my response with specifics?

[The Nehor]

Can you back up your characterization of my response with specifics?

 

Paragraph 2 of the link in the OP.

[ERayR]

How is that a problem?

 

In chess the objective is to beat your opponent.  In religion your objective should be to give them something to make their lives better.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

No?

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

In chess the objective is to beat your opponent. In religion your objective should be to give them something to make their lives better.

I can see why it could look that way at first, but what I actually am saying is people ought *not* assume that they have "won" an argument, especially using that assumption as a reason to disengage from the discussion and dismiss the other person's arguments. Doing so is like

presuming to have won a chess game and putting away the board and pieces while the other person is making their move. Rather, people should play it out to the end as much as possible, and not presume to have won the argument unless the other person is checkmated. This gives the other person a chance to clear up misunderstandings and raise points you might not have seen / showing you lines of play you had not seen.

The point is, play it out and don't assume it is over until the other person actually has no moves left.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Paragraph 2 of the link in the OP.

So you can't back up your characterization.