Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[Gray]

On 12/15/2016 at 10:48 AM, Marmonboy said:

I'm not claiming anything at all, except the fact that Joseph Smith would have to be either the greatest writer of fiction ever, or a prophet of God. I vote the latter.

The Book of Mormon has some good spiritual insights, but great story telling it is not. 

[bsjkki]

The Salt Lake Trib has this story up. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5139231-155/byu-and-uvu-scientists-question-research Rian Nelson said, "There are many BYU faculty members that disagree with our theory about the heartland of North America being where the Book of Mormon was," he said. "We both have strong testimonies of the gospel. We're just looking at different theories in different directions." 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The Salt Lake Trib has this story up. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5139231-155/byu-and-uvu-scientists-question-research Rian Nelson said, "There are many BYU faculty members that disagree with our theory about the heartland of North America being where the Book of Mormon was," he said. "We both have strong testimonies of the gospel. We're just looking at different theories in different directions." 

That is a change of approach.

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Book of Mormon has some good spiritual insights, but great story telling it is not. 

And it came to pass..

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The Salt Lake Trib has this story up. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5139231-155/byu-and-uvu-scientists-question-research Rian Nelson said, "There are many BYU faculty members that disagree with our theory about the heartland of North America being where the Book of Mormon was," he said. "We both have strong testimonies of the gospel. We're just looking at different theories in different directions." 

Two thoughts.

1.  I've attended Sunstone a couple times now as well as a Dialogue event and a couple other events for scholarly Mormons and none of these events I've attended even come close to approaching the # of people that this psuedo science event gets (5000 - 6000+).  I'm clearly in a much more niche community than this crowd, why do you think that is?  

2.  Are these people less legitimate because the science they ascribe to isn't rigorous?  Personally, I disagree with their claims, but does that make them less legitimate?  Other Christian religions look down on Mormonism in the same way that many of us here might look down on these people.  How should we respond to groups that hold beliefs that we think aren't factually accurate?  (I'm asking myself this question and thought I'd share with you too.)

 

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

2.  Are these people less legitimate because the science they ascribe to isn't rigorous?  Personally, I disagree with their claims, but does that make them less legitimate?  Other Christian religions look down on Mormonism in the same way that many of us here might look down on these people.  How should we respond to groups that hold beliefs that we think aren't factually accurate?  (I'm asking myself this question and thought I'd share with you too.)

Legitimacy should be questioned when claims are knowingly made that have been demonstrated to the individual to be false.  I can't speak to the rest of the "Firm Foundation" (in quotes because it has the effect of hearing nails on a chalkboard for me because this translates to "Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism Foundation", an awkward construction on so many levels), but there were FM members who spent many long hours talking with Rod Meldrum on how he was inaccurately using and representing the science.  He denied the science when it contradicted what he said and then used the same evidence where he thought it could buttress his claims.  It can't be both wrong and right.  He didn't appear to care.  This makes him less legitimate in my eyes.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Legitimacy should be questioned when claims are knowingly made that have been demonstrated to the individual to be false.  I can't speak to the rest of the "Firm Foundation" (in quotes because it has the effect of hearing nails on a chalkboard for me because this translates to "Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism Foundation", an awkward construction on so many levels), but there were FM members who spent many long hours talking with Rod Meldrum on how he was inaccurately using and representing the science.  He denied the science when it contradicted what he said and then used the same evidence where he thought it could buttress his claims.  It can't be both wrong and right.  He didn't appear to care.  This makes him less legitimate in my eyes.

I can understand that, and that these people who differ from the FAIR, Interpreter, BYU studies, have been talked to and still they promulgate their theories.  I also think you could write a similar story from the perspective of non-Mormons who find the claims of all of the above to be not supported by science and reason.  

I think there are degrees of legitimacy along a spectrum when it comes to judging whether these ideas conform to mainstream scientists.  However, I wonder if some people aren't treating the FIRM people in the same way that outsiders treat FAIR, Interpreter, BYU.  

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

2.  Are these people less legitimate because the science they ascribe to isn't rigorous?  Personally, I disagree with their claims, but does that make them less legitimate?  Other Christian religions look down on Mormonism in the same way that many of us here might look down on these people.  How should we respond to groups that hold beliefs that we think aren't factually accurate?  (I'm asking myself this question and thought I'd share with you too.)

I think when you contradict science then that's a problem with legitimacy. I'd note that while some critics might say Mormons do the same thing with the Book of Mormon that there is a difference. Saying there's no evidence for bows, horses or metal is not the same as a scientific contradiction. Further most legitimate scholars on the Book of Mormon usually have alternative explanations for these that deal with the evidence. People may disagree with how they deal with the evidence but they are dealing with it.

When you refuse to even deal with the evidence then that's a red flag against legitimacy in my book. When you outright contradict the evidence you're deeply problematic.

So basically there's a distinction between not having scientific support and contradicting scientific evidence.

Quote

1.  I've attended Sunstone a couple times now as well as a Dialogue event and a couple other events for scholarly Mormons and none of these events I've attended even come close to approaching the # of people that this psuedo science event gets (5000 - 6000+).  I'm clearly in a much more niche community than this crowd, why do you think that is?  

Sunstone is basically a niche intellectual conference. All intellectual conferences have small numbers. This conference isn't intellectual at all but is more non-intellectual people getting together. Sad reality is that there's a lot more of those people, especially people looking to have what they want to be true confirmed without real inquiry.

Edited April 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think when you contradict science then that's a problem with legitimacy. I'd note that while some critics might say Mormons do the same thing with the Book of Mormon that there is a difference. Saying there's no evidence for bows, horses or metal is not the same as a scientific contradiction. Further most legitimate scholars on the Book of Mormon usually have alternative explanations for these that deal with the evidence. People may disagree with how they deal with the evidence but they are dealing with it.

When you refuse to even deal with the evidence then that's a red flag against legitimacy in my book. When you outright contradict the evidence you're deeply problematic.

So basically there's a distinction between not having scientific support and contradicting scientific evidence.

I think there is a difference in degrees, but I'm not sure its fair to say that they are contradicting science.  They seem to be trying to use science to confirm their claims, similar to the creationists.  It doesn't stand up to scrutiny and peer review, but it doesn't completely dismiss or always contradict science either.  

I agree with you that these people aren't in the same arena as traditional scientists and scholars, however they have created their own arena and they have a following.  In this case their following for lay people seems to be greater in numbers than those who follow the actual mainstream science.  This seems to lend them some legitimacy at least in terms of the size of the movement.  

While I agree there is a distinction, I think that many mainstream outsiders may just as easily dismiss the Mormon scholars who try to responsibly give "alternative explanations that deal with the evidence" as they would dismiss the FIRM crowd.  

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

 (in quotes because it has the effect of hearing nails on a chalkboard for me because this translates to "Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism Foundation", an awkward construction on so many levels),

Kind of like a PIN# (Personal Identification Number number)

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there is a difference in degrees, but I'm not sure its fair to say that they are contradicting science.  They seem to be trying to use science to confirm their claims, similar to the creationists.  It doesn't stand up to scrutiny and peer review, but it doesn't completely dismiss or always contradict science either.  

Saying the earth is filled with water is something one can easily verify or falsify with scientific evidence. They're making positive claims that outright contradict physics.

Now of course there are lots of people, arguably most people, who are largely ignorant of science. Thus they can't really tell how wrong some claims are. But that seems a different question from legitimacy. Saying it's like the Creationists is completely apt of course, but I find them illegitimate as well.

Quote

While I agree there is a distinction, I think that many mainstream outsiders may just as easily dismiss the Mormon scholars who try to responsibly give "alternative explanations that deal with the evidence" as they would dismiss the FIRM crowd.  

That may well be, but the question is whether such rejections are themselves legitimate.

More or less the distinction I'm making is between legitimate argument as opposed to simply dismissing conclusions. I might think someone is wrong or has an implausible interpretation while still thinking them rational and arguing according to normal legitimate standards of argumentation. What's been outlined of what this group is arguing simply doesn't do that.

Edited April 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I also think you could write a similar story from the perspective of non-Mormons who find the claims of all of the above to be not supported by science and reason.  

I don't.  There is a difference in not having scientific evidence and using scientific evidence to support one's position that one turns around and rejects for other positions.  I do not have an issue with their beliefs that are accepted on faith or are open waiting for more information.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Kind of like a PIN# (Personal Identification Number number)

Thanks for drawing that to my attention.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Saying the earth is filled with water is something one can easily verify or falsify with scientific evidence. They're making positive claims that outright contradict physics.

Now of course there are lots of people, arguably most people, who are largely ignorant of science. Thus they can't really tell how wrong some claims are. But that seems a different question from legitimacy. Saying it's like the Creationists is completely apt of course, but I find them illegitimate as well.

That may well be, but the question is whether such rejections are themselves legitimate.

More or less the distinction I'm making is between legitimate argument as opposed to simply dismissing conclusions. I might think someone is wrong or has an implausible interpretation while still thinking them rational and arguing according to normal legitimate standards of argumentation. What's been outlined of what this group is arguing simply doesn't do that.

Ultimately legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder it seems, and while I don't find any of their claims plausible, I'm thinking that some of the criticisms of FIRM might be viewed in a different light if we are self reflecting.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't.  There is a difference in not having scientific evidence and using scientific evidence to support one's position that one turns around and rejects for other positions.  I do not have an issue with their beliefs that are accepted on faith or are open waiting for more information.

Really, you don't think any non Mormons would consider the claims of FAIR and others like them to be illegitimate and unscientific?  Surely you've ran into those who have this kind of perspective?  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Really, you don't think any non Mormons would consider the claims of FAIR and others like them to be illegitimate and unscientific?  Surely you've ran into those who have this kind of perspective?  

Please show where FM uses a scientific claim at one moment and then turns around and says it is false the next.

[churchistrue]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Legitimacy should be questioned when claims are knowingly made that have been demonstrated to the individual to be false.  I can't speak to the rest of the "Firm Foundation" (in quotes because it has the effect of hearing nails on a chalkboard for me because this translates to "Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism Foundation", an awkward construction on so many levels), but there were FM members who spent many long hours talking with Rod Meldrum on how he was inaccurately using and representing the science.  He denied the science when it contradicted what he said and then used the same evidence where he thought it could buttress his claims.  It can't be both wrong and right.  He didn't appear to care.  This makes him less legitimate in my eyes.

If someone understands the FairMormon view and rejects it, does it always mean they don't care?

[Calm]

No, this one case I saw in detail what happened in the exchange as well as seeing his justifications/excuses later on (he posted in an extended conversation on the board in one case). It is definitely a special case, imo (as I mentioned in my comment).  Most of the time, I believe we would lack enough knowledge to judge.

Plus he may well have cared, it just didn't appear that way (he agreed to generous deadlines to respond to our criticisms before they were posted online after in my recall demanding a chance to do so and then didn't follow through, for example).

Note that my comments are specific to Meldrum even if others might be talking in a more generic fashion.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

The Book of Mormon has some good spiritual insights, but great story telling it is not. 

I agree. It has spiritual insights and occasionally flirts with greatness in its poetry and speaking but the story is not that good.

It is repetitious, characters are brought in and then vanish, Chekhov's gun shows up regularly and vanishes, the ending is given away in Nephi's visions in the opening chapters, and the book of Ether is spoiled early in the book before we can get started.

The action in the book is regularly interrupted by the author explaining and preaching at a level that I suspect might have annoyed even Tolstoy or Victor Hugo who shamelessly did the same thing.

I love the Book of Mormon but the story.....meh. I turn to other books for a riveting story.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ultimately legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder it seems, and while I don't find any of their claims plausible, I'm thinking that some of the criticisms of FIRM might be viewed in a different light if we are self reflecting.  

Again fundamentally the question is whether one accounts for scientific evidence in ones arguments. The arguments might still be weak or wrong, but they have to deal with counter evidence. If counter evidence is avoided then that's illegitimate IMO. If an apologist does that I feel exactly the same way. Heaven knows there's bad apologetics out there. So I don't think I'm applying a different standard. I'm very critical of people attempting to defend views I agree with if they do it illegitimately.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Please show where FM uses a scientific claim at one moment and then turns around and says it is false the next.

I never said specifically this is what FM does, and I'm not looking to get into a discussion over whether what FM is advocating is exactly the same as what FIRM is doing.  I was making a comparison, but I also acknowledged there are degrees of difference.  Your close association with FM is likely making you a little more defensive about my comparison which is totally understandable.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again fundamentally the question is whether one accounts for scientific evidence in ones arguments. The arguments might still be weak or wrong, but they have to deal with counter evidence. If counter evidence is avoided then that's illegitimate IMO. If an apologist does that I feel exactly the same way. Heaven knows there's bad apologetics out there. So I don't think I'm applying a different standard. I'm very critical of people attempting to defend views I agree with if they do it illegitimately.

As I mentioned earlier there are degrees of accounting for scientific evidence, some degrees are more rigorous and might meet your personal level of satisfaction to consider them legitimate, but might be viewed by an outside party as illegitimate still.  I think this is purely a measure of degree.  For example, some Mormon scholars appreciate the theories of a John Sorensen and his work on BoM limited geography.  While outside scholars might view Sorensen's work as unscientific in the same way that some in FM view the work of FIRM.

In essence, the standard for legitimacy is subjective.  The peer group of the FIRM crowd probably consider their psuedo-science to meet the standards of legitimacy, in the same way that the peer group of Sorensen consider that his theories meet the standards of professional scientific legitimacy.  An outside party likely views the Sorensen work as illegitimate because it doesn't conform to standards that the outsider peer group considers scientifically rigorous by not being published in national and international peer reviewed archaeological and anthropological journals.  

[clarkgoble]

There can be a subjective element, but I think again that one thing they'll all have in common is dealing with the evidence. The question then is how much tighter beyond that they require. More or less the distinction you're making is whether a claim is scientific. But I don't think Sorenson's claims are scientific, although they are scientifically falsifiable. However as I'm using legitimate I am simply making the criteria of explaining the evidence. I don't make any claims that the arguments are robust science.

My point is simply that the work in question doesn't even rise to the lowest level of legitimacy we're discussing. 

If the point is just that people don't apply the word legitimate in a consistent way then of course I agree. But I'm not sure that was ever in question. The issue, as I see it, is what constitutes a legitimate argument. There are I think there are more objective standards. Afterall not all good arguments are scientific arguments.

Edited April 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As I mentioned earlier there are degrees of accounting for scientific evidence, some degrees are more rigorous and might meet your personal level of satisfaction to consider them legitimate, but might be viewed by an outside party as illegitimate still.  I think this is purely a measure of degree.  For example, some Mormon scholars appreciate the theories of a John Sorensen and his work on BoM limited geography.  While outside scholars might view Sorensen's work as unscientific in the same way that some in FM view the work of FIRM.

In essence, the standard for legitimacy is subjective.  The peer group of the FIRM crowd probably consider their psuedo-science to meet the standards of legitimacy, in the same way that the peer group of Sorensen consider that his theories meet the standards of professional scientific legitimacy.  An outside party likely views the Sorensen work as illegitimate because it doesn't conform to standards that the outsider peer group considers scientifically rigorous by not being published in national and international peer reviewed archaeological and anthropological journals.  

The standard for legitimacy has subjective elements, but it is essential to understand and frequently and clearly state that there are also elements of group legitimacy that are not-self referential for one crowd or the other, but that can be applied to evaluate which group has more legitimacy, which is actually better.  These are the values that give scientific revolutions a structure and make paradigm choice meaningful and progressive.

Problem definition and testability

Accuracy of Key predictions (where what a person decides is "key" is always related to the door they are trying to open)

Comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, the breadth of explanations and how it consistent it is internally and externally)

Fruitfulness

Simplicity and aesthetics

Future Promise

There is a huge difference between dismissing an opponent's arguments as "Not us" and actually exploring the notion of "Why us?" in relation to this set of values when evaluating the current state of the art.  There are always networks of assumptions involved, and the comparison should involve an open acknowledgement of the implications of one's own ideological stance.   And specific cases are always more important than broad generalizations.  For a specific case in point, Coe's interview with Dehlin is notably dismissive of the Book of Mormon, but I think we can make a very good case that Coe's "mainstream" position compared to Sorenson's direct response does not fare well by these standards.  Just as FIRM does not fare well compared to what gets taught at BYU in terms of these standards. 

I've written on this at length.  For a helpful non-LDS take, see Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion by Ian G. Barbour.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited April 6, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There can be a subjective element, but I think again that one thing they'll all have in common is dealing with the evidence. The question then is how much tighter beyond that they require. More or less the distinction you're making is whether a claim is scientific. But I don't think Sorenson's claims are scientific, although they are scientifically falsifiable. However as I'm using legitimate I am simply making the criteria of explaining the evidence. I don't make any claims that the arguments are robust science.

My point is simply that the work in question doesn't even rise to the lowest level of legitimacy we're discussing. 

If the point is just that people don't apply the word legitimate in a consistent way then of course I agree. But I'm not sure that was ever in question. The issue, as I see it, is what constitutes a legitimate argument. There are I think there are more objective standards. Afterall not all good arguments are scientific arguments.

Fair enough, however, I think many of the arguments of Mormonism over the years have attempted to cherry pick elements of mainstream science to legitimize their arguments, in the same way that FIRM is doing.  The FIRM folks seem to be only a few generations behind the mainstream Mormon scholars as far as how they approach scientific cherry picking.  

Go back in time 50 - 75 years and look at mainstream Mormon apologetics for the BoM, BoA, age of the earth, evolution, you name it and you can find many mainstream Mormon arguments that mirror the current FIRM arguments.