• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum - America's "Bigfoot Professor" - Part Deux

JayUtah said:
I have to concur. I employ quite a number of devout Mormons as scientists and engineers. They are as professionally competent in their roles as non-Mormons. Religion does not factor into the work they do for me. No doubt there are some screwy Mormons, and it may be that Dr. Meldrum is one of them, but that's a claim that would require more evidence than just categorical reasoning.
Click to expand...

Oh he's a screwy mormon all right:


In Who Are the Children of Lehi? Meldrum and Stephens examine the merits and the fallacies of DNA-based interpretations that challenge the Book of Mormon’s historicity. They provide clear guides to the science, summarize the studies, illuminate technical points with easy-to-grasp examples, and spell out the data’s implications.

The results? There is no straight-line conclusion between DNA evidence and “Lamanites.” The Book of Mormon’s validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empiricism—as it always has. And finally, inspiringly, they affirm Lehi’s kinship as one of covenant, not genes.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Dara O'Briain line aping a wooist "There's more to life than evidence!"
 
jollyroger85 said:
You miss the point maybe, with all the angst in the Social/Current events section etc, it seems like the height of hypocrisy to dismiss one's competence soley based on their religion.
Click to expand...

When their scientific competency is compromised by their religion, in this case:
The Book of Mormon’s validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empiricism—as it always has. And finally, inspiringly, they affirm Lehi’s kinship as one of covenant, not genes
Click to expand...
Then I am perfectly reasonable in questioning it.

I don't think I missed the point at all.


ETA: "The book of bigfoot validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empircism . . . "

ETAII: All of which was in reply to Jay Utah:
No doubt there are some screwy Mormons, and it may be that Dr. Meldrum is one of them, but that's a claim that would require more evidence than just categorical reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think the link I posted adequately addresses Mr. Utah's requirement.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
I think the link I posted adequately addresses Mr. Utah's requirement.
Click to expand...

It does. My objection is to categorical reasoning as a convenient substitute for knowledge of the more proximate facts.
Mormons are slipshod thinkers.
Meldrum is a Mormon, therefore
Meldrum is a slipshod thinker.​
I disagree with the major premise as a categorical statement, so naturally I don't subscribe to this syllogism. The more proximate facts are that Dr. Meldrum has not only mixed his religion with his science (something I have not often seen Mormons do), but done so in a way that conflates religious belief with scientific reasoning. He can be said to be a slipshod thinker based on a whole different, and clearly particularized, set of facts.

I can't say whether he has also committed a similar conflation in his Bigfoot studies, because I'm unfamiliar with that work. That is yet another body of proximate facts I don't have ready. And as such it still smacks of lazy categorical reasoning to say that just because he's one of "those" Mormons, it must necessarily affect his anthropology and cryptozoology research. If we want to talk about Bigfoot research he has done, then that should speak for itself. It doesn't need "priming" from our preconceptions arising out of his admixture of religion and science elsewhere.
 
JayUtah said:
It does. My objection is to categorical reasoning as a convenient substitute for knowledge of the more proximate facts.
Mormons are slipshod thinkers.
Meldrum is a Mormon, therefore
Meldrum is a slipshod thinker.​
I disagree with the major premise as a categorical statement, so naturally I don't subscribe to this syllogism. The more proximate facts are that Dr. Meldrum has not only mixed his religion with his science (something I have not often seen Mormons do), but done so in a way that conflates religious belief with scientific reasoning. He can be said to be a slipshod thinker based on a whole different, and clearly particularized, set of facts.

I can't say whether he has also committed a similar conflation in his Bigfoot studies, because I'm unfamiliar with that work. That is yet another body of proximate facts I don't have ready. And as such it still smacks of lazy categorical reasoning to say that just because he's one of "those" Mormons, it must necessarily affect his anthropology and cryptozoology research. If we want to talk about Bigfoot research he has done, then that should speak for itself. It doesn't need "priming" from our preconceptions arising out of his admixture of religion and science elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I believe Meldrum has also conflated his religion with his bigfoot science concerning some sort of link between footie and the Nephilim, but I might be misrembering that. Someone around here might have better information on that aspect.
 
Resume said:
When their scientific competency is compromised by their religion, in this case: Then I am perfectly reasonable in questioning it.

I don't think I missed the point at all.


ETA: "The book of bigfoot validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empircism . . . "

ETAII: All of which was in reply to Jay Utah:


I think the link I posted adequately addresses Mr. Utah's requirement.
Click to expand...

Nope, your logic is flawed, two separate issues here. What is being attempted is Meldrum is ******* for bigfoot because MORMON.... its a bigoted outlook so own it.... it's rationalized bigotry


To attempt to break down and disprove any holy book is a completely seperate debate.
 
JayUtah said:
Mormons are slipshod thinkers.
Meldrum is a Mormon, therefore
Meldrum is a slipshod thinker.​
Click to expand...


The aftermath rationizing doesnt really help deflect the original context which was exactly what you propose above.

Thats not skepticism, thats not critical thinking, its exactly the logic portrayed
 
For those of you wondering, the argument should be, that Dr. Meldrum isn't a very good scientist, not, that he is a mormon, therefore he isn't a good scientist.

His book on the DNA of Native Americans and how just because their DNA doesn't match to the Children of Lehi, is not reason enough to discredit the idea that the Children of Lehi became the Native Americans, because sure, after thousands of years the Children of Lehi DNA was dilluted by the Native Americans who came from Asia, has ABSOLUTELY zero to do with him being a Mormon, He's just a bad scientist. Although, if one is doing bad science, in order to inflate the believers in a religion's faith... OMG that sounds like someone who is inflating Bigfoot's Existence with bad science, in order to inflate the believer's faith... (Now I'm not sure, maybe it does have something to do with him being a Mormon...)

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Children-Lehi-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005GGTA3Q

How does the Book of Mormon, keystone of the LDS faith, stand up to data about DNA sequencing that puts the ancestors of modern Native Americans in northeast Asia instead of Palestine?

In Who Are the Children of Lehi? Meldrum and Stephens examine the merits and the fallacies of DNA-based interpretations that challenge the Book of Mormon’s historicity. They provide clear guides to the science, summarize the studies, illuminate technical points with easy-to-grasp examples, and spell out the data’s implications.

The results? There is no straight-line conclusion between DNA evidence and “Lamanites.” The Book of Mormon’s validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empiricism—as it always has. And finally, inspiringly, they affirm Lehi’s kinship as one of covenant, not genes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
For those of you wondering, the argument should be, that Dr. Meldrum isn't a very good scientist, not, that he is a mormon, therefore he isn't a good scientist.

His book on the DNA of Native Americans and how just because their DNA doesn't match to the Children of Lehi, is not reason enough to discredit the idea that the Children of Lehi became the Native Americans, because sure, after thousands of years the Children of Lehi DNA was dilluted by the Native Americans who came from Asia, has ABSOLUTELY zero to do with him being a Mormon, He's just a bad scientist. Although, if one is doing bad science, in order to inflate the believers in a religion's faith... OMG that sounds like someone who is inflating Bigfoot's Existence with bad science, in order to inflate the believer's faith... (Now I'm not sure, maybe it does have something to do with him being a Mormon...)

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Children-Lehi-Book-Mormon-ebook/dp/B005GGTA3Q
Click to expand...
See post 21.

Meldrum is demurring to his faith over his scientific understanding. If he weren't a mormon, he'd make no such demurs.

The Book of Mormon’s validity lies beyond the purview of scientific empiricism—as it always has. And finally, inspiringly, they affirm Lehi’s kinship as one of covenant, not genes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
See post 21.

Meldrum is demurring to his faith over his scientific understanding. If he weren't a mormon, he'd make no such demurs.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a mind reader you don't know that. Bad science can just be bad science. David Icke has proven to be a proud guano connoisseur without dragging any particular religion into it to my knowledge.
 
jollyroger85 said:
riginally Posted by Resume View Post
See post 21.

Meldrum is demurring to his faith over his scientific understanding. If he weren't a mormon, he'd make no such demurs.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a mind reader you don't know that. Bad science can just be bad science. David Icke has proven to be a proud guano connoisseur without dragging any particular religion into it to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

I agree that bad science doesn't require any specific religious beliefs and those in fact may have no relation to the particular piece of bad science.

Thus I doubt that Meldrum's boosting of Bigfoot woo has anything to do with his Mormon beliefs. However in regards to his his claims about the Book of Mormon and the pre-Columbian history of the Americas, especially his boosting of the whole Lehi nonsense etc.; it appears that his Mormon beliefs have a lot to do with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom