Comments on: BoM IV: Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Part 1 http://thecriticaledition.net/chapter-27/bom-iv-testimony-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith-part-1 Life, annotated Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:45:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: G. Scott http://thecriticaledition.net/chapter-27/bom-iv-testimony-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith-part-1#comment-25 G. Scott Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:24:08 +0000 http://thecriticaledition.net/?p=27#comment-25 And to be even more fair to Lindsay, there are social scientists who cling stubbornly to their theories in the face of overwhelming evidence -- often from "hard" sciences -- to the contrary. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money" rel="nofollow">Dr. John Money</a> and his sexual reassignment of Brenda/David Thiessen are an excellent example of this. Still, Lindsay's word choice -- "believe" -- amused me... And to be even more fair to Lindsay, there are social scientists who cling stubbornly to their theories in the face of overwhelming evidence — often from “hard” sciences — to the contrary. Dr. John Money and his sexual reassignment of Brenda/David Thiessen are an excellent example of this.

Still, Lindsay’s word choice — “believe” — amused me…

]]> By: Thud http://thecriticaledition.net/chapter-27/bom-iv-testimony-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith-part-1#comment-24 Thud Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:01:10 +0000 http://thecriticaledition.net/?p=27#comment-24 <blockquote>Those “who ‘believe’ in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences”? My initial reaction: so much for thoughtful apologetics. “Hey, it’s a belief, just like linguistics!”</blockquote> Well, to be fair DNA evidence is reshaping a lot of these theories and, I would imagine, casting a little more doubt on the older methodologies. But as near as I can tell the superiority of DNA evidence is generally acknowledged. Lindsay makes it sound like DNA evidence is a threat to these disciplines when I suspect it's just going to be accepted as a reliable data point and shift some methodologies around to accommodate it. It's not a problem for these fields any more than it is a better tool.

Those “who ‘believe’ in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences”? My initial reaction: so much for thoughtful apologetics. “Hey, it’s a belief, just like linguistics!”

Well, to be fair DNA evidence is reshaping a lot of these theories and, I would imagine, casting a little more doubt on the older methodologies. But as near as I can tell the superiority of DNA evidence is generally acknowledged. Lindsay makes it sound like DNA evidence is a threat to these disciplines when I suspect it’s just going to be accepted as a reliable data point and shift some methodologies around to accommodate it. It’s not a problem for these fields any more than it is a better tool.

]]>