salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 On 12/25/2015 at 3:50 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Perhaps you'd like to CFR that completely false statement, VGJ. What book or article have you read making that ridiculous claim? Moreover, do you actually know anything about archeology (old world or new world archeology)? Could you give us a brief explanation for such a view, with specific examples? Are you at all familiar with the discussions we have had on this subject on this board in the past? Seems there was a recent public debate between two PhD's on this exact topic which resulted in none of Video's list .. right?
Danzo Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 23 minutes ago, Gervin said: Obviously, when it comes to law there are specific criteria and standards that apply to rules of evidence. Archaeology also has standards and accepted protocols for presenting findings and reaching conclusions based on these findings. If someone claims that there is archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, is it reasonable to request how the claims adhere to these accepted standards or protocols? It is very reasonable. You need to look at the evidence presented and come up with a conclusion. You just can't say "I am not convinced" ergo "There is no evidence" You need to look at each piece of evidence presented and evaluate if the evidence persuades or not. I am not, and don't pretend to be an archaeologist, so unfortunately, I cannot help in establishing what an archaeologist's rules of evidence is (I suspect that it may vary between archaeologists)
Gervin Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 1 hour ago, Danzo said: It is very reasonable. You need to look at the evidence presented and come up with a conclusion. You just can't say "I am not convinced" ergo "There is no evidence" You need to look at each piece of evidence presented and evaluate if the evidence persuades or not. I am not, and don't pretend to be an archaeologist, so unfortunately, I cannot help in establishing what an archaeologist's rules of evidence is (I suspect that it may vary between archaeologists) If you hold up a pot and say, "this is evidence of life on Mars" I can certainly look at it and say, "that's not evidence." Before or after I say, "I'm not convinced." The NPS maintains agreed-upon archaeological standards for the US: http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_7.htm Regarding documentation (which is very detailed) it says, in part, If a property contains artifacts, features, and other materials that can be studied using archeological techniques, then archeological documentation may be selected to achieve particular goals of the planning process, such as to address a specified information need, or to illustrate significant associative values. Within the overall goals and priorities established by the planning process, particular methods of investigation are chosen that best suit the types of study to be performed. (my bold) If LDS apologists want to "illustrate significant associative values" between MesoAmerica and Book of Mormom culture, it's only fair they provide documentation of the type that would be provided for any other assumed cross-cultural assimilation. Goshute's and Seminole's, for example.
Danzo Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gervin said: If you hold up a pot and say, "this is evidence of life on Mars" I can certainly look at it and say, "that's not evidence." Before or after I say, "I'm not convinced." The NPS maintains agreed-upon archaeological standards for the US: http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_7.htm Regarding documentation (which is very detailed) it says, in part, If a property contains artifacts, features, and other materials that can be studied using archeological techniques, then archeological documentation may be selected to achieve particular goals of the planning process, such as to address a specified information need, or to illustrate significant associative values. Within the overall goals and priorities established by the planning process, particular methods of investigation are chosen that best suit the types of study to be performed. (my bold) If LDS apologists want to "illustrate significant associative values" between MesoAmerica and Book of Mormom culture, it's only fair they provide documentation of the type that would be provided for any other assumed cross-cultural assimilation. Goshute's and Seminole's, for example. If you say "that is not evidence" then it just means that you don't understand evidence. You can say "That is not reliable evidence", you can say "That evidence does not convince me", you can say " I do not believe your evidence comes from where you say it did" If you hold up a pot as evidence of life on mars, then you start asking questions. "Where did the pot come from?, how did you get the pot, etc?" Then you can make a judgement on whether the evidence is convincing or not. Even if the evidence is not convincing, it doesn't mean there is not evidence, it just means that the evidence does not convince you. lets take the following simple example "the book of Mormon mentions many cities in ancient america" ; "The Archaeological record mentions many cities in ancient america" You can say "there is no evidence that the book of Mormon mentions many cities in ancient america" or you can say "I don't believe the Archaeological record mentions many cities in ancient america" Or you can accept those two facts as being true (therefore evidence) and say that you don't think the weight of the evidence I just mentioned convinces you. Edited December 31, 2015 by Danzo
Gervin Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 46 minutes ago, Danzo said: lets take the following simple example "the book of Mormon mentions many cities in ancient america" ; "The Archaeological record mentions many cities in ancient america" You can say "there is no evidence that the book of Mormon mentions many cities in ancient america" or you can say "I don't believe the Archaeological record mentions many cities in ancient america" Or you can accept those two facts as being true (therefore evidence) and say that you don't think the weight of the evidence I just mentioned convinces you. The Book of Mormon mentions many cities : the archaeological record mentions many cities all over the ancient world. If you claim that Book of Mormon cities are related to Mesoamerican cities then it's incumbent on you to show evidence. So as not to impose my ludicrous demands on your claims ("show me a sign that says "Sidon River Crossing") or be subject to your ludicrous claims ("the museums are full of Book of Mormon artifacts") we should both use some agreed-upon standards for how you reach your conclusions. You expect nothing less in your professional life.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 On 12/31/2015 at 0:20 PM, salgare said: Seems there was a recent public debate between two PhD's on this exact topic which resulted in none of Video's list .. right? I have seen excellent debates by well-informed contenders, but am not sure which one you have in mind here. Could you clue me in?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 On 12/29/2015 at 9:10 PM, Gervin said: ............................................................. Do you believe that "evidence" should adhere to some generally agreed-upon standards? Of course there should be adherence to scientific/scholarly standards -- the only agreed-upon standards worth considering. Are you willing to abide by those standards, Gervin? 1
Gervin Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course there should be adherence to scientific/scholarly standards -- the only agreed-upon standards worth considering. Are you willing to abide by those standards, Gervin? I don't know what you mean by me "abiding" by the standards. Although I've hired and worked with many archaeologists, I'm not in the profession. But you'll see in my previous post that I suggested that agreed-upon standards should be utilized in making archaeological claims. Specifically, archaeological claims made for the Book of Mormon.
salgare Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have seen excellent debates by well-informed contenders, but am not sure which one you have in mind here. Could you clue me in? http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm It has been rumored in dubious circles this type of deal might have resulted in a shift to the "New Guard" (MI) with some very vicious accusations dealing with a shift in regards to BYU/MI and BoM historicity. Edited January 3, 2016 by salgare
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gervin said: I don't know what you mean by me "abiding" by the standards. Although I've hired and worked with many archaeologists, I'm not in the profession. But you'll see in my previous post that I suggested that agreed-upon standards should be utilized in making archaeological claims. Specifically, archaeological claims made for the Book of Mormon. Sounds good to me, Gervin, but we have been over this ground before, and you have apparently rejected scientific standards, which are the only agreed-upon standards worth having. So, I guess I wonder what your "agreed-upon standards" consist of. I have maintained all along that standard scientific analysis should be applied to the Book of Mormon, and to the rest of Scripture, just as it is to any other ancient literature/civilization. That is where the concept seems to break down for you, but I digress. Perhaps I'm all wrong about you on this score, and perhaps you could suggest some standards and how they are to be applied to the BofM, Bible, or whatever. Edited January 3, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted January 3, 2016 Author Posted January 3, 2016 1 hour ago, salgare said: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm It has been rumored in dubious circles this type of deal might have resulted in a shift to the "New Guard" (MI) with some very vicious accusations dealing with a shift in regards to BYU/MI and BoM historicity. Yes, that was an interesting exchange, some of it very tiresome and tendentious. Was there anything in particular that caught your attention in that exchange? I am just not sure what you mean when you say " there was a recent public debate between two PhD's on this exact topic which resulted in none of Video's list." You said that in reply to my comment to VGJ on a bunch of false statements he had made. Nor sure what relationship your comment has to my comment: Is it that you consider his comments true and on point? Or that the exchange you point to was not relevant to my and VGJ's exchange? As to the Maxwell Institute issue (which is not a BYU issue, but is unique to MI alone), the main point to be made was that the MI shifted to become an institution which does not do ancient Book of Mormon studies, and its library was downsized from a research library to a reference library.
salgare Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 guilty of conflating two different archaeology issues. My posts here have been off topic
Gervin Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Sounds good to me, Gervin, but we have been over this ground before, and you have apparently rejected scientific standards, which are the only agreed-upon standards worth having. So, I guess I wonder what your "agreed-upon standards" consist of. I have maintained all along that standard scientific analysis should be applied to the Book of Mormon, and to the rest of Scripture, just as it is to any other ancient literature/civilization. That is where the concept seems to break down for you, but I digress. Perhaps I'm all wrong about you on this score, and perhaps you could suggest some standards and how they are to be applied to the BofM, Bible, or whatever. I provided a link, above, to standards for the documentation of archaeological research and findings. Do you believe these standards are applied by those who claim the Book of Mormon has an archaeological record? I appreciate salgare's inadvertent posting of the Hamblin / Jenkins exchange. I recognize many of Jenkins' points as similar to ones I've made on this board. The bottom line is that a belief in the Book of Mormon is a prerequisite for claiming that archaeology provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. I'll retract this if you can prove it wrong - but you cannot.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2016 Author Posted January 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Gervin said: I provided a link, above, to standards for the documentation of archaeological research and findings. Do you believe these standards are applied by those who claim the Book of Mormon has an archaeological record? The National Park Service source you cited is very brief and generic, and it doesn't get into the nuts and bolts of archeology. However, it does include a nice bibliography of archeological field methods and such that is useful, and it is that which I suggest as being the best source of accepted standards. The NPS is concerned with everything from paleoindian settlement and culture through recent Amerind ethnology, to colonial period settlements. A good example is Casa Grande in Arizona, an important center of Hohokam culture. In addition to doing archeology at the site, the NPS has a small museum there, and provides docent-lecturers for public tours. A colonial period settlement I have worked on is the Royal Presidio of Santa Barbara (there is also a nearby residence of the Commandante), a State of California Historic Site administered by the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation and the California Dept of Parks and Recreation -- https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDsLYZSjaCeukbLvyBsDxXXKZHAZdQ13f0ybR4dm0oSrs2Cm3kWQ . In addition to historical reminiscences (such as Richard Henry Dana's 1840 Two Years Before the Mast, which mentions his presence at a wedding held in the Commandate's Residence), only through accepted field methods and the subsequent examination of finds in the laboratory do we actually apply science to the question of what and who was there. I am not sure what you mean when you say, "Do you believe these standards are applied by those who claim the Book of Mormon has an archaeological record?" That is a tendentious question at best and has no place in scientific palaver about the Book of Mormon. I appreciate salgare's inadvertent posting of the Hamblin / Jenkins exchange. I recognize many of Jenkins' points as similar to ones I've made on this board. I don't recall you having made actual scientific observations on this board, but my memory may be faulty, and I would be happy to entertain anything along that line. The bottom line is that a belief in the Book of Mormon is a prerequisite for claiming that archaeology provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. I'll retract this if you can prove it wrong - but you cannot. Such a false claim evinces a complete lack of respect for the scientific method, i.e., it is based on the fallacy of apriorism. Science may apply hunches at times, but everything must be tested by dispassionate science. Most such results come from non-Mormon sources completely uninterested in the Book of Mormon. An apriori decision that the Book of Mormon cannot be true thus becomes a self-fulfilling religion for those who do not understand science. Archeologists should only care about achieving accurate and rational results. When they do not do so (and ride a pet hobby horse), their fellow archeologists bring them to heel.
Gervin Posted January 4, 2016 Posted January 4, 2016 Quote I am not sure what you mean when you say, "Do you believe these standards are applied by those who claim the Book of Mormon has an archaeological record?" That is a tendentious question at best and has no place in scientific palaver about the Book of Mormon. Are there any professional archaeologists and anthropologists in the LDS Church who use accepted standards – such as those outlined by the National Park Service – to make their case for an Old World presence and culture in Mesoamerica 2000 years ago?
Recommended Posts