Real vs Rumor provides an explanation of excellent methodology for approaching history and several insights into methods of historical analysis, along with cautions about common logical and conceptual fallacies. The book is commendable for that content.
But the book also inexplicably contradicts its own guidance over and over. As we'll see, Real vs. Rumor would be a far more effective book if the author had applied his own sniff tests to his own writing.
Erekson explains that "Every chapter ends with a 'You Try It" section that summarizes key concepts and introduces sniff tests, or clues that something just isn't right. You need not become an expert on every subject to recognize when good thinking is not being used."
This clumsy sentence infers that we must become experts on at least some subjects to recognize when good thinking is not being used.
At the end of chapter 2, Erekson offers these two "Sniff tests."
2. A single piece of evidence. Be wary of an author who takes a single source from the past and uses it to the exclusion of all other available and relevant sources.
3. Narrowly selected evidence. Sometimes authors distort by selecting a few facts to emphasize while ignoring others.... Authors who employ this technique typically emphasize loudly that their "facts" are "correct."
As we'll see in this review, Erekson regularly violates both of these "sniff tests."
Appendix C summarizes the Sniff Tests.
"Sniff Tests are clues that something just isn't right. Like the Lamanite queen in the Book of Mormon, you can tell when something stinks or not (see Alma 19:1-12). You don't need to know every fact to recognize these warning signs."
Notice the difference between this explanation ("you don't need to know every fact"), which is reasonable, and his clumsy sentence in the introduction ("you need not become an expert on every subject"). Erekson then summarizes his lists of examples, such as these:
Survey the Situation
- No attempt at analysis
- No provenance
Analyze the Contents
- No evidence
- No source
- Vague attribution
- More emotion than evidence
- Oversimplification
Connect to Contexts
- "I read a book"
- Quoting out of context
etc.
Lamentably, Erekson repeatedly ignores his own guidelines and suggestions throughout the book, repeatedly violating most, if not all, of his own "sniff" tests.
Why he is blind to this problem is difficult to ascertain, but in many cases, he violates his own guidelines in an effort to promote SITH and M2C. Throughout his book, Erekson explains why it is important to analyze historical sources, but then he repeatedly omits the historical sources that are directly relevant to his topics in favor of modern commentaries--and even then he refers vaguely to books by certain authors without naming even one.
I reviewed his book in a series of posts on this blog that I have edited into an appendix to the Second Edition of The Rational Restoration.
_____
In one particularly outrageous section, Erekson directly, explicitly and intentionally misinforms his readers about me, by name:
Here's what he wrote (in blue), followed by my response (in red).
Some populist theories make appeals to plain-sense reasoning, American patriotism, and distrust of "experts."
This sentence is replete with pejorative rhetoric. "Populist" connotes a charismatic leader who seeks power, yet Erekson cites no such example. "Plain-sense reasoning" alludes to literal interpretations, again without examples. "American patriotism" is simply a set-up for the following misleading sentence. "Distrust of 'experts'" frames proponents of these "populist theories" as being opposed to science and expertise, instead of being opposed to blindly accepting the pronouncements of self-appointed "experts" in fields that don't have "experts." Ironically, because Erekson sets himself up as an expert, his misapplication of his own criteria and standards contributes to the distrust of "experts."
The “heartland” theory, for instance, begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon promises of liberty and prosperity can really apply only to the United States (and certainly not (Mexico)--Lehi landed in Florida, the Nephites moved inland to Missouri and Iowa, and then the civilization ended in New York, all under the banner of the stars and stripes (which, incidentally, appears frequently in materials promoting the heartland theory).20
[Note 20. See works by Bruce H. Porter, Rod L. Meldrum, and Jonathan Neville.]
This long sentence requires a bit of unpacking because it fails Erekson's own sniff tests on multiple levels.
First, it directly misrepresents the "Heartland" model, which begins with the assumption that Cumorah is in New York, not with the caricature assumption Erekson advances.
As with Erekson's vague notes throughout his book, he cites three authors but none of their actual works, forcing the reader to guess to which works he is referring. That of course is a specific example of the "sniff test" he claims others should avoid.
To my knowledge, Bruce H. Porter's only "work" on Book of Mormon geography is the book Prophecies and Promises that he co-authored with Rod L. Meldrum, which was published in 2009.
That book was published long before I got involved with this topic, and I don't recall ever having quoted or cited it. I haven't read it in a long time, but I don't recall it beginning with the assumption Erekson claims it does. Erekson's portrayal looks more like it came from a review of the book by M2C advocates instead of an actual reading of the book.
Which again directly violates Erekson's own methodology.
Nevertheless, I find it highly unlikely that the book Erekson cites claims the Nephites moved "under the banner of the stars and stripes."
At any rate, anyone who has actually read my work knows that I don't subscribe to the idea that the promises of liberty and prosperity apply only to the United States. I consider those promises universal and applicable to every nation and people that chooses to follow God’s commandments. The promised land for Germans is Germany; for Chileans is Chile; for Australians is Australia; for Ghanaians is Ghana, etc.
For Erekson to lump me in with a viewpoint that I don't subscribe to obviously doesn't pass his sniff test.
We are left with two possibilities. Erekson is either
(i) uninformed because he hasn't actually read my work and instead is repeating the uninformed claims of my critics, or he is
(ii) deliberately misleading his readers to promote his own ideological agenda about Book of Mormon geography.
In other words, in the sentence quoted above Erekson directly, explicitly and intentionally misinforms his readers.
Furthermore, my entire approach to the topic of Book of Mormon geography has focused on corroborating the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. In doing so, I have relied on a variety of experts in various relevant fields. To frame me as distrusting "experts" is simply a lie.
That said, I don't defer to self-appointed "experts" on the Book of Mormon because I don't think expertise in Mayan civilization has any relevance whatsoever to the Book of Mormon.
Unbelievable.
And unprofessional.
_____
That excerpt is from part 4 of my review:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/05/real-vs-rumor-part-4-loyalty-to.html
The other parts are here:
No comments:
Post a Comment