Template:ProbabilityMagicItems - Revision history

RogerNicholson at 22:08, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T22:08:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 30 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{:Question: What is the probability that Joseph Smith possessed items related to "magic"?}}		{{:Question: What is the probability that Joseph Smith possessed items related to "magic"?}}
	~~[[fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems]]~~
	~~</noinclude>~~

RogerNicholson: Replaced content with "{{:Question: What is the probability that Joseph Smith possessed items related to "magic"?}} fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems "

2014-11-30T22:02:13Z

Replaced content with "{{:Question: What is the probability that Joseph Smith possessed items related to "magic"?}} fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems </noinclude>"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===Probability problems===
+{{:Question: What is the probability that Joseph Smith possessed items related to "magic"?}}
 [[fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems]]
 </noinclude>

GregSmith at 23:55, 31 May 2014

2014-05-31T23:55:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 31 May 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Probability problems===		===Probability problems===
	This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{~~ref\|hamblin.1~~}}		This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:<ref>This section of the response was based on {{FR-8-2-12}}. By the nature of a wiki project, it has since been modified and added to.</ref>

	# Joseph himself owned the item (e.g., parchment, Mars dagger, or Jupiter talisman).		# Joseph himself owned the item (e.g., parchment, Mars dagger, or Jupiter talisman).
Line 24:		Line 24:
	===A non-response to this argument===		===A non-response to this argument===

	D. Michael Quinn, a major proponent of the "magick" argument, responded to the above by claiming that "Only when cumulative evidence runs contrary to the FARMS agenda, do polemicists like Hamblin want readers to view each piece of evidence as though it existed in isolation."{{~~ref~~\|~~quinn~~.1}}		D. Michael Quinn, a major proponent of the "magick" argument, responded to the above by claiming that "Only when cumulative evidence runs contrary to the FARMS agenda, do polemicists like Hamblin want readers to view each piece of evidence as though it existed in isolation."<ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View\|pages=355—56 n. 121}}</ref>

	Replied Hamblin:		Replied Hamblin:
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....		:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....

	:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{~~ref\|hamblin.~~2}}<noinclude>		:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.<ref>{{FR-12-2-16}}</ref><noinclude>
	[[fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems]]		[[fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems]]
	</noinclude>		</noinclude>

GregSmith: robot Adding: fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems

2010-05-04T04:01:14Z

robot Adding: fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 4 May 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....		:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....

	:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{ref\|hamblin.2}}		:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{ref\|hamblin.2}}<noinclude>
			[[fr:Modèle:ProbabilityMagicItems]]
			</noinclude>

GregSmith: /* A non-response to this argument */

2008-12-30T17:17:38Z

A non-response to this argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 30 December 2008
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:Quinn misunderstands and misrepresents my position on what I have called the "miracle of the addition of the probabilities"....		:Quinn misunderstands and misrepresents my position on what I have called the "miracle of the addition of the probabilities"....

	:[~~The above argument~~ discusses] the process of the verification of historical evidence. The issue was ''unproven propositions'', not parallel ''evidence''.		:[Quinn's rebuttal discusses] the process of the verification of historical evidence. The issue was ''unproven propositions'', not parallel ''evidence''.

	:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....		:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....

	:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{ref\|hamblin.2}}		:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman\|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments\|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger\|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{ref\|hamblin.2}}

GregSmith: /* Probability problems */

2008-12-30T17:16:33Z

Probability problems

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 30 December 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:
	#This occult mentor transmitted extensive arcane hermetic lore to Joseph beyond the knowledge necessary to make the artifacts.		#This occult mentor transmitted extensive arcane hermetic lore to Joseph beyond the knowledge necessary to make the artifacts.

	Theses seven propositions are simply a tissue of assumptions, assertions, and speculations. There is no contemporary primary evidence that Joseph himself owned or used ~~the parchments~~. We do not know when, how, or why these items became heirlooms of the Hyrum Smith family. Again, there is no contemporary primary evidence that mentions Joseph or anyone in his family using these artifacts—as Quinn himself noted, "possession alone may not be proof of use." There is no evidence that Joseph ever had any magic books. There is no evidence that Joseph ever had an occult mentor who helped him make or use these items.		Theses seven propositions are simply a tissue of assumptions, assertions, and speculations. There is no contemporary primary evidence that Joseph himself owned or used these items. We do not know when, how, or why these items became heirlooms of the Hyrum Smith family. Again, there is no contemporary primary evidence that mentions Joseph or anyone in his family using these artifacts—as Quinn himself noted, "possession alone may not be proof of use." There is no evidence that Joseph ever had any magic books. There is no evidence that Joseph ever had an occult mentor who helped him make or use these items.

	===Improbability===		===Improbability===

GregSmith at 06:50, 30 December 2008

2008-12-30T06:50:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 30 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			===Probability problems===
	This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{ref\|hamblin.1}}		This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{ref\|hamblin.1}}

	# Joseph himself owned the parchment.		# Joseph himself owned the item (e.g., parchment, Mars dagger, or Jupiter talisman).
	# His possession dates to his early days of "treasure seeking."		# His possession dates to his early days of "treasure seeking."
	# He used them for magical purposes.		# He used them for magical purposes.

GregSmith: New page: This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{ref|hamblin.1}} # Joseph himself owned the parchment. # His possession dates to his early days of "treasure seeking." # He used them...

2008-12-30T06:44:34Z

New page: This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{ref|hamblin.1}} # Joseph himself owned the parchment. # His possession dates to his early days of "treasure seeking." # He used them...

New page

This claim rests upon a lengthy chain of supposition:{{ref|hamblin.1}}

# Joseph himself owned the parchment.
# His possession dates to his early days of "treasure seeking."
# He used them for magical purposes.
#He made them himself or commissioned them.
#He therefore must have used magic books to make them.
# He therefore must have had an occult mentor to help him with the difficult process of understanding the magical books and making these items.
#This occult mentor transmitted extensive arcane hermetic lore to Joseph beyond the knowledge necessary to make the artifacts.

Theses seven propositions are simply a tissue of assumptions, assertions, and speculations. There is no contemporary primary evidence that Joseph himself owned or used the parchments. We do not know when, how, or why these items became heirlooms of the Hyrum Smith family. Again, there is no contemporary primary evidence that mentions Joseph or anyone in his family using these artifacts—as Quinn himself noted, "possession alone may not be proof of use." There is no evidence that Joseph ever had any magic books. There is no evidence that Joseph ever had an occult mentor who helped him make or use these items.

===Improbability===

The methodology used by the critics is a classic example of what one could call the miracle of the addition of the probabilities. The case relies on a rickety tower of unproven propositions that do not provide certainty, rather a geometrically increasing improbability. Probabilities are multiplied, not added. Combining two propositions, each of which has a 50% probability, does not create a 100% probability, it creates a 25% probability that both are true together:

* chance of proposition #1 being true = 50% = 0.5
* chance of proposition #2 being true = 50% = 0.5
* chance of BOTH being true = .5 x .5 = .25 = 25%

Allowing each of these seven propositions a 50% probability—a very generous allowance—creates a .0078% probability that the combination of all seven propositions is true. And this is only one element of a very complex and convoluted argument, with literally dozens of similar unverified assertions. The result is a monumentally high improbability that the overall thesis is correct.

===A non-response to this argument===

D. Michael Quinn, a major proponent of the "magick" argument, responded to the above by claiming that "Only when cumulative evidence runs contrary to the FARMS agenda, do polemicists like Hamblin want readers to view each piece of evidence as though it existed in isolation."{{ref|quinn.1}}

Replied Hamblin:

:Quinn misunderstands and misrepresents my position on what I have called the "miracle of the addition of the probabilities"....

:[The above argument discusses] the process of the verification of historical evidence. The issue was ''unproven propositions'', not parallel ''evidence''.

:Quinn...proposed that a series of "magic" artifacts provide evidence that Joseph Smith practiced magic. My position is that, in order for us to accept any particular artifact as a single piece of ''evidence'', we must first accept several ''unproven propositions'', each of which may be true or false, but none of which is proven. The more ''unproven propositions'' one must accept to validate a piece of evidence, the greater the probability that the evidence is not, in fact, authentic. Thus, two historiographical processes are under discussion. One is the authentication of a particular piece of evidence: did Joseph own a magical talisman and use it to perform magical rites? The second is the cumulative significance of previously authenticated evidence in proving a particular thesis: does the authentication of the use of the talisman demonstrate that Joseph was a magician who adhered to a magical worldview? Quinn apparently cannot distinguish between these two phases of the historical endeavor, which goes far to account for some of the numerous failings in his book....

:Of course the probative value of ''evidence'' is cumulative. The more evidence you have, the greater the probability that your overall thesis is true. Thus, if Quinn can demonstrate that the [[Joseph_Smith_and_Jupiter_talisman|talisman]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Magick_parchments|parchment]] ''and'' the [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult/Mars_dagger|dagger]] all belonged to the Smith family and were used for magical purposes, it would be more probable that his overall thesis is true than if he could establish only that the Smiths owned and used just one of those three items. But my argument is that the authenticity of each of these pieces of evidence rests on half a dozen unproven propositions and assumptions.{{ref|hamblin.2}}