Comments about ‘Sad science’

This study was done by an English professor and published in a literary journal. How in the world is this a scientific study?

So why can't you get it published in a peer reviewed journal?

sounds like he had evidence and you didn't.

When will people learn that science will never prove or disprove the veracity of the Book of Mormon. It is a matter a faith, and anything outside that is a fools errand.

I guess having a blog doesn't make someone a scientist. Much, I suppose, to the chagrin of the utah armchair climatologists association.

Comparing a peer reviewed article to a blog????? Anyone can blog with no fact checking..... Which has credibility?

So science is in a bad state because it does not validate the Book of Mormon? Sounds like someone is unable to face the evidence. If the BOM is a historical record, there should be hundreds of thousands of bodies near the Hill Cumorah in NY. Oh I forgot, emotions, not facts, are the evidence for this book.

Maybe you should be trying to get it published in a peer reviewed journal rather then complaining. The reason that it is significant is that in a peer reviewed journal is that it has been reviewed for accuracy of both the method used and the content by people with education and experience in the field (not other bloggers). Yours at this point can only be taken as opinion.

Don't blame science for a literary paper! This isn't science!

Sidney Rigdon... or whoever wrote Isaiah.

Mr. Larson, I've read your blogs, and I've read the evidence regarding Rigdon and Spalding in the Oxford Journals.

Your arguments are neither internally consistent nor supported by objective evidence. Jockers research is both internally consistent and supported by objective evidence.

What's so hard to understand about that?

There are some,
who no matter how big the mountain of evidence is placed before them - will still not believe anything.

The Book of Mormon could be an example of one.

Global Warmiing absolutely is a perfect example of another.

So, because people won't accord your blog the same standard of respect they accord peer-review journals, science is faulty?

Me, I would think the fact that blogs are not held in the same regard as peer-review journals (and the fact that not just anyone can get published in a peer-review journal) kind of supports science as being something a little more than just someone's opinion and therefore more worthy of a closer look.

Joseph Smith wrote the BOM. If it had been any good he would have written more fiction.

Ryan,

I just read your blog and response to Jockers and I am very embarrased for you. You are in WAY over your head when it comes to responding to Stanford Professors and their peer reviewed work. I know your heart is in the right place, but leave the heavy lifting to us.

I'd stay Anonymous too if I was so simple minded.

"When will people learn that science will never prove or disprove the veracity of the Book of Mormon. It is a matter a faith, and anything outside that is a fools errand."

Science never proves anything. But the Book of Mormon is utterly without any supporting evidence.

It doesn’t take a genius to ascertain why someone (scientist or not) would find it necessary to seek to prove a theory that a minority religion’s sacred book was not authored by the person who claimed to have authored it. Scientists must first concoct a theory before they search far and wide for anything that might possibly support their assumption. The only reason Jockers would have felt compelled to invent an alternate theory to the authorship of the Book of Mormon, is that the 'scientist' first did not want it to be authored by Joseph Smith. Just because an anti-Mormon crusade hides behind science, doesn’t mean the motivations of the perpetrators are any more credible.

Science will often willfully overlook any evidence that works against their theory, hiding behind the belief that it is the task of other scientists to support alternative theories. Because the number of people that truly share LDS Church beliefs is a small minority, it is extremely easy for nonbelievers to accept ANY possible evidence that supports their preconceived assumptions — regardless of the strength of the arguments or the failure to address all possible alternative conclusions.

RAN, it is clear you have absolutely no idea how science works.

Starting with an idea and going about to find data to support it is the definition of Bad Science. Science starts with data, then tries to explain it.

Given the sparse evidence supporting the text of the Bible, critics of the B of M shouldn't shout too loudly.