Russell C McGregor Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know you're a smart guy....so I'm going to cut you some slack. The mistake you are making is in thinking that = means identical or the same, when writing the intransitive relations in a mathematical equation = denotes relationship. So no = does not always mean equal or the same...there you learned something new tonight Yes, we learned that Australians do things differently. The symbol used in mathematical logic to denote dependent relationships, whether transitive or intransitive, is not = (equals) but R. You've been havering on about how the equals sign is intransitive, which makes about as much sense as saying that two equal things are unequal. Because that's what you have been saying. 12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: study up on transitive and intransitive logic maybe it'll make more sense Yes. We can see what your mistake was. 12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: again were talking of the logical fallacy This one should be called the "Johnnie Cake fallacy."
Brant Gardner Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 5 hours ago, TrespassersW said: Two questions, Brant: 1 - Since the Book of Mormon (the way I read it) doesn't require chariots to be common, only to exist, how likely is it that very rare use of wheels would not leave permanent tracks on the roads? 2 - Do the sacbeob show track marks for the sort of dragging sled that you've posited? If not, should we expect them to? OK, that was three questions. Sorry. Please understand that I view the Book of Mormon in English as translation literature, and the process of translation can obscure things in the original language, particularly if the object doesn't exist in the translation language--or something perceived to be similar does even though the perceived similarity obscures essential differences (i.e. candles in the NT when they should have been oil lamps). 1) I don't think that the word chariot necessarily describes something with wheels. I think it was a conveyance. My current best guess is a litter, based on cultural uses and contextual parallels. 2) To my knowledge, the sacbeob do not show specific wear patterns. I believe they were traversed by foot, not with anything that rolled or dragged. 3) No, we shouldn't expect them to have the drag marks. That is the result of treating the English translation as though it were the original language. 1
Brant Gardner Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 On 2/21/2016 at 7:41 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Brant, I'm a big fan of Jared Diamonds work, I've read all his books, Guns, Germs and Steel 3 times...it was central to my loss of belief in Mormonism. Please help me, but do you remember where he stated this, I'm not saying he didn't, just can't remember him doing so I hope I am remembering the right book. There is a passage about some technologies in Australia that were forgotten. That is as much as I remember without trying to reread the thing. I'm surprised that you would say that his book led to a loss of belief. I never saw anything in it that struct me that way at all.
PeterPear Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 22 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: Please understand that I view the Book of Mormon in English as translation literature, and the process of translation can obscure things in the original language, particularly if the object doesn't exist in the translation language--or something perceived to be similar does even though the perceived similarity obscures essential differences (i.e. candles in the NT when they should have been oil lamps). 1) I don't think that the word chariot necessarily describes something with wheels. I think it was a conveyance. My current best guess is a litter, based on cultural uses and contextual parallels. 2) To my knowledge, the sacbeob do not show specific wear patterns. I believe they were traversed by foot, not with anything that rolled or dragged. 3) No, we shouldn't expect them to have the drag marks. That is the result of treating the English translation as though it were the original language. Nope. No chariots with wheels. Nephi invoked the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea And we can read about wheels in Exodus: 24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians. But none of the children of Lehi and Ishmael knew anything about chariots having wheels - because they obviosly weren't familiar of the account of Exodus, were they? Which children of Israel would? So when they got to the Land of Promise, they built chariots without wheels. Why? Because they were stuuuuuuupid! STUUUUUUPID!
volgadon Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, PeterPear said: Nope. No chariots with wheels. Nephi invoked the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea And we can read about wheels in Exodus: 24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians. But none of the children of Lehi and Ishmael knew anything about chariots having wheels - because they obviosly weren't familiar of the account of Exodus, were they? Which children of Israel would? So when they got to the Land of Promise, they built chariots without wheels. Why? Because they were stuuuuuuupid! STUUUUUUPID! I challenge you to make proper chariot wheels if you aren't stupid.
PeterPear Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 minute ago, volgadon said: I challenge you to make proper chariot wheels if you aren't stupid. Who can if the Lamanites and Nephites couldn't have made wheels for chariots? Nephi built a ship. He shaped the timbers as instructed by the Lord. He taught his people how to build buildings how to work with ores and metals. But they couldn't make wheels! Because they were STUUUPID! This what you learn from LDS Apologists: "We will defend the Book of Mormon by declaring the Nephites and Lamanites were STUUUUPID!"
volgadon Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 14 minutes ago, PeterPear said: Who can if the Lamanites and Nephites couldn't have made wheels for chariots? Nephi built a ship. He shaped the timbers as instructed by the Lord. He taught his people how to build buildings how to work with ores and metals. But they couldn't make wheels! Because they were STUUUPID! This what you learn from LDS Apologists: "We will defend the Book of Mormon by declaring the Nephites and Lamanites were STUUUUPID!" Are you really declaring yourself too stupid to make chariot wheels? You just posted a verse about them, so surely? 2
JAHS Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Again were talking about the logical fallacy JAHS made when he asserted that just because ancient American toys had wheels that you could therefore conclude that ancient Americans had wheeled vehicles you can't make this leap, it's illogical I made no such "conclusion" or assertion. I only make the observation that if they were aware of the wheel and axle to make those toys to roll on, it is possible that they also knew they could use the technology for other things. That seems very logical to me. It's only a logical fallacy if I claim that it must be true. I am aware that the chariots may not have had wheels. But chariots are mentioned in the same breath as horses, which suggest to be that they used the horses to pull the chariots. Again not making a conclusion, just a suggestion. I am a scientist and if I don't use what information I have and make suggestions and hypotheses from what I see or read, then I can't make steps forward to test things to see if they are true and make bigger discoveries.. Making the leap from toys with wheels to larger vehicles with wheels is the same kind of thing I do in science to keep me moving forward. As always I back it up with testing and collecting evidence before I make any final conclusions. Also as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that they did not use the wheel, and of course I can't prove they did without some more evidence. But the idea that they could have used the wheel based on the few clues we have so far, keeps us searching to find that evidence; otherwise we would just give up and stop looking. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yes, we learned that Australians do things differently. The symbol used in mathematical logic to denote dependent relationships, whether transitive or intransitive, is not = (equals) but R. You've been havering on about how the equals sign is intransitive, which makes about as much sense as saying that two equal things are unequal. Because that's what you have been saying. Yes. We can see what your mistake was. This one should be called the "Johnnie Cake fallacy." So now your an expert in a subject you didn't even know existed until I pointed it out to you, that's been defending an obviously logical fallacy made by a fellow poster and has such a need to be right that you can't admit when your wrong. Just so you know, both the = & the R are considered correct uses particularly when used as I have by spelling out the relationships...but you couldn't even detect the illogic in the the original fallacy, could you...and then when I point it out, supported it with the reasons why it was illogical, you still argued in support of that poster...so now I'm going to guess youll say...oh I knew that already Your overriding need to be right even when you have no idea what your talking about is tiring...
ksfisher Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said: I hope I am remembering the right book. There is a passage about some technologies in Australia that were forgotten. That is as much as I remember without trying to reread the thing. I'm surprised that you would say that his book led to a loss of belief. I never saw anything in it that struct me that way at all. How's this from Chapter 13? “That rejection and China’s abandonment of oceangoing ships (as well as of mechanical clocks and water-driven spinning machines) are well-known historical instances of technological reversals in isolated or semi-isolated societies. Other such reversals occurred in prehistoric times. The extreme case is that of Aboriginal Tasmanians, who abandoned even bone tools and fishing to become the society with the simplest technology in the modern world (Chapter 15). Aboriginal Australians may have adopted and then abandoned bows and arrows. Torres Islanders abandoned canoes, while Gaua Islanders abandoned and then readopted them. Pottery was abandoned throughout Polynesia. Most Polynesians and many Melanesians abandoned the use of bows and arrows in war. Polar Eskimos lost the bow and arrow and the kayak, while Dorset Eskimos lost the bow and arrow, bow drill, and dogs.” Excerpt From: Jared Diamond Ph.D. “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.” W. W. Norton, 1999-01-01. iBooks. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 23 minutes ago, JAHS said: I made no such "conclusion" or assertion. I only make the observation that if they were aware of the wheel and axle to make those toys to roll on, it is possible that they also knew they could use the technology for other things. That seems very logical to me. It's only a logical fallacy if I claim that it must be true. I am aware that the chariots may not have had wheels. But chariots are mentioned in the same breath as horses, which suggest to be that they used the horses to pull the chariots. Again not making a conclusion, just a suggestion. I am a scientist and if I don't use what information I have and make suggestions and hypotheses from what I see or read, then I can't make steps forward to test things to see if they are true and make bigger discoveries.. Making the leap from toys with wheels to larger vehicles with wheels is the same kind of thing I do in science to keep me moving forward. As always I back it up with testing and collecting evidence before I make any final conclusions. Also as the saying goes, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that they did not use the wheel, and of course I can't prove they did without some more evidence. But the idea that they could have used the wheel based on the few clues we have so far, keeps us searching to find that evidence; otherwise we would just give up and stop looking. Fair enough... Btw, I personally view both the mention of horses and chariots along with many other things mentioned in the BoM as anachronisms...I view them in the same manner a book mentioning Gearge Washington using a Cell Phone...you can claim George had a phone I guess, even have teams out looking for one and I can't prove he didn't have one...but I'm pretty safe believing he didn't. I feel the same way about BoM wheels
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Fair enough... Btw, I personally view both the mention of horses and chariots along with many other things mentioned in the BoM as anachronisms...I view them in the same manner a book mentioning Gearge Washington using a Cell Phone...you can claim George had a phone I guess, even have teams out looking for one and I can't prove he didn't have one...but I'm pretty safe believing he didn't. I feel the same way about BoM wheels We just found a cell phone in George Washington's pocket.
Calm Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know you're a smart guy....so I'm going to cut you some slack. The mistake you are making is in thinking that = means identical or the same, when writing the intransitive relations in a mathematical equation = denotes relationship. So no = does not always mean equal or the same...there you learned something new tonight study up on transitive and intransitive logic maybe it'll make more sense again were talking of the logical fallacy Then you need to define the terms and symbols you are using because the ones I use are working great for me all the way through university. Insisting that something doesn't work outside of the framework it was created to work it and within which it is valid doesn't mean that inside its framwork it is wrong. It would appear to me we are using the same symbols but saying something differently. Since I assume you know basic math/algebra as we can label the our equations, it would seem best for you to give a quick informational moment for your terms, first please, by explaing why an equal sign is doing the duty a generic function symbol would apparently be better doing.
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: So now your an expert in a subject you didn't even know existed until I pointed it out to you, that's been defending an obviously logical fallacy made by a fellow poster and has such a need to be right that you can't admit when your wrong. Just so you know, both the = & the R are considered correct uses particularly when used as I have by spelling out the relationships...but you couldn't even detect the illogic in the the original fallacy, could you...and then when I point it out, supported it with the reasons why it was illogical, you still argued in support of that poster...so now I'm going to guess youll say...oh I knew that already Your overriding need to be right even when you have no idea what your talking about is tiring... SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
Brant Gardner Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 7 hours ago, PeterPear said: STUUUUUUPID! I suppose that there is no real response to such erudition. For others who might be interested, PeterPear's caricature of the argument is incorrect no matter how many times that idea gets passed around the Internet. There are two proposals for how known translation issues are involved in the horse/chariot discussion. John Sorenson has proposed one, and I have proposed another (though I suspect I wasn't the first). The tapir meme was the result of what was either an uneducated misunderstanding of Sorenson's argument, or an intentional one. It remains, however, a severe misinterpretation. 3
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted February 22, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Btw, I personally view both the mention of horses and chariots along with many other things mentioned in the BoM as anachronisms...I view them in the same manner a book mentioning George Washington using a Cell Phone. Your personal view is well stated. Others hold it as well. However, the foundational logic of that view assumes that we can analyze the English text of the Book of Mormon as though it were the original language of the text. It is absolutely true that anachronisms in a text that proclaims to be ancient is an indication of modern production. However, the caveat is that we have to have a text that makes the proclamation that it is a text from that time--in the original language. The issue of translation changes everything because it enters a variable that provides for a disconnect between the original language and the text in translation. There are plenty of examples in various translations of historical documents, and the one we know best is the King James Version of the Bible. Certainly that text cannot be ancient because it contains known anachronisms. The reason that we still understand the antiquity of the Bible is that the KJV is a translation, and the anachronisms don't exist in the original language but are artifacts of the translation. Not having an original language text of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean that we have free reign to suppose that English was the original language. Translation issues can, and probably should, exist in the English text precisely because it is a translation. You don't need to cite horses and chariots for that, the modeling of passages after the KJV is ample testament to the influence of the KJV on the translation language of the Book of Mormon. The problem is that many cite anachronisms and KJV language as demonstrations that the Book of Mormon cannot be ancient. Those arguments are correct only if English were the original language. Of course, many making that argument already believe that to be true. It is still an improper argument. The discussion about the antiquity of the text must be made on the basis of something other than vocabulary that can be easily explained as translation issues--issues that are represented in numerous documents in translation where the original is known so that we can see the issue. 7
Johnnie Cake Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: Your personal view is well stated. Others hold it as well. However, the foundational logic of that view assumes that we can analyze the English text of the Book of Mormon as though it were the original language of the text. It is absolutely true that anachronisms in a text that proclaims to be ancient is an indication of modern production. However, the caveat is that we have to have a text that makes the proclamation that it is a text from that time--in the original language. The issue of translation changes everything because it enters a variable that provides for a disconnect between the original language and the text in translation. There are plenty of examples in various translations of historical documents, and the one we know best is the King James Version of the Bible. Certainly that text cannot be ancient because it contains known anachronisms. The reason that we still understand the antiquity of the Bible is that the KJV is a translation, and the anachronisms don't exist in the original language but are artifacts of the translation. Not having an original language text of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean that we have free reign to suppose that English was the original language. Translation issues can, and probably should, exist in the English text precisely because it is a translation. You don't need to cite horses and chariots for that, the modeling of passages after the KJV is ample testament to the influence of the KJV on the translation language of the Book of Mormon. The problem is that many cite anachronisms and KJV language as demonstrations that the Book of Mormon cannot be ancient. Those arguments are correct only if English were the original language. Of course, many making that argument already believe that to be true. It is still an improper argument. The discussion about the antiquity of the text must be made on the basis of something other than vocabulary that can be easily explained as translation issues--issues that are represented in numerous documents in translation where the original is known so that we can see the issue. Thanks Brant, I have great respect for you and your work...I believe you to be very credible...I also believe that your particular worldview is most likely the most plausible for the claimed Book of Mormon civilizations....I just disagree with some of your conclusions Edited February 22, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 2
rodheadlee Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Fair enough... Btw, I personally view both the mention of horses and chariots along with many other things mentioned in the BoM as anachronisms...I view them in the same manner a book mentioning Gearge Washington using a Cell Phone...you can claim George had a phone I guess, even have teams out looking for one and I can't prove he didn't have one...but I'm pretty safe believing he didn't. I feel the same way about BoM wheels Yeah the only problem was nobody else had a cell phone, so it was useless. You only need one chariot for it to be useful. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said: Your personal view is well stated. Others hold it as well. However, the foundational logic of that view assumes that we can analyze the English text of the Book of Mormon as though it were the original language of the text. It is absolutely true that anachronisms in a text that proclaims to be ancient is an indication of modern production. However, the caveat is that we have to have a text that makes the proclamation that it is a text from that time--in the original language. The issue of translation changes everything because it enters a variable that provides for a disconnect between the original language and the text in translation. There are plenty of examples in various translations of historical documents, and the one we know best is the King James Version of the Bible. Certainly that text cannot be ancient because it contains known anachronisms. The reason that we still understand the antiquity of the Bible is that the KJV is a translation, and the anachronisms don't exist in the original language but are artifacts of the translation. Not having an original language text of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean that we have free reign to suppose that English was the original language. Translation issues can, and probably should, exist in the English text precisely because it is a translation. You don't need to cite horses and chariots for that, the modeling of passages after the KJV is ample testament to the influence of the KJV on the translation language of the Book of Mormon. The problem is that many cite anachronisms and KJV language as demonstrations that the Book of Mormon cannot be ancient. Those arguments are correct only if English were the original language. Of course, many making that argument already believe that to be true. It is still an improper argument. The discussion about the antiquity of the text must be made on the basis of something other than vocabulary that can be easily explained as translation issues--issues that are represented in numerous documents in translation where the original is known so that we can see the issue. True, but limited. It is claimed that the Nephites didn't know about the wheel. That it is an anachronism. When a real wheel is presented on a "toy'. It makes no sense to claim it is just an artifact of translation.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: So now your an expert in a subject you didn't even know existed until I pointed it out to you, that's been defending an obviously logical fallacy made by a fellow poster and has such a need to be right that you can't admit when your wrong. Just so you know, both the = & the R are considered correct uses particularly when used as I have by spelling out the relationships...but you couldn't even detect the illogic in the the original fallacy, could you...and then when I point it out, supported it with the reasons why it was illogical, you still argued in support of that poster...so now I'm going to guess youll say...oh I knew that already Your overriding need to be right even when you have no idea what your talking about is tiring... Johnnie, I think your last clue must have died of loneliness. You previously spouted: Quote The mistake you are making is in thinking that = means identical or the same Well, guess what? The equals sign does mean identical or the same. Sheesh.
Brant Gardner Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: True, but limited. It is claimed that the Nephites didn't know about the wheel. That it is an anachronism. When a real wheel is presented on a "toy'. It makes no sense to claim it is just an artifact of translation. The question of wheels is a discussion that arises around the Book of Mormon, but is not actually based in the Book of Mormon. Yes, wheels were known--though I believe most examples were north of Nephite lands and later in time. However, it is still a red herring for either side of the discussion because the New World portion of the Book of Mormon does not mention them, nor does it provide any evidence that they were used (same issue for horses, they never alter Nephite culture/civilization). Wheels are simply an assumption based on a modern reading of chariot. I have found one text mentioning chariots in Mesoamerica that referred to four wheeled objects--some of these specific "toys." The problem is the word and our assumptions about it. The fact that wheels were known, but that they were never influential in Mesoamerican civilization, remains a conundrum--but one that has nothing to do with the actual Book of Mormon. 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 I don't know to what extent the Nephites used the wheel. It very well could have been of little use for them given terrain, and ecological conditions. Much like the Inca didn't use the wheel, but did build a civilization without it. My only contention is that it highly likely that the Nephites knew about it. Sorry, I just don't see it as an artifact of translation.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 22, 2016 Author Posted February 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Johnnie, I think your last clue must have died of loneliness. You previously spouted: Well, guess what? The equals sign does mean identical or the same. Sheesh. Call me when you begin to actually know what your talking about...I've really tried to dumb it down for you, I've already told you that these two symbols are interchangeable when used in conjunction with the relationship...I can't make it any easier for you than that.
mfbukowski Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 21 hours ago, bluebell said: I think the difference is that mother doesn't equal daughter. Right from the beginning the logic falls apart because mothers and daughters are not the same by definition. They are two different things. One is a mother. The other is a daughter. Equal signs mean "the same" so you've used it incorrectly in your equation. I think to prove your argument you have to come with an A and B (and B and C) that are actually equal. If, under those circumstances, you can show that A doesn't equal C, you'll have proven your point. Yeah, semantic ambiguity. Titles. The same person can be a mother and a daughter- and guess what - ALL mothers are daughters. Just a little wrinkle in the logic there But black and white thinkers don't understand that. This thread is a waste of time.
Recommended Posts