Is Logos 4 theologically biased?
Just wondering about the L4 theology. I have not purchased L4 and I need this question answered before purchase. My question is this, is there a theological position the programmers have that is influencing the out come of a search in L4. I have heard it said, "Water tastes like the hose pipe you drink out of". Let me explain. My concern is that if a programmer has a Calvinistic (or any other) theological convictions, would that come out when doing a search on "eternal security"? Does a programmer tell the computer how to respond to a search? How do we know we are getting all sides of an issue? Do the resources available have a balanced perspective on issues of theology? I expect this kind of slant from a commentary. Can a computer software be netrual when programmed by a human?
have been a user of Logos starting on ver.1.6 I love the product but I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.
Any validity to these concerns?
It's all about Jesus!
Comments
-
John, that's a valid concern. First, let me assure you that Logos as a company makes every attempt to include a broad spectrum of theological positions in its available resources. You'll find things from Calvinist and Arminian sides, Dispensationalist and Covenant Theology, evangelistic and social justice, conservative and liberal, all the various eschatological viewpoints, all different denominational publishing houses and authors, different major traditions of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox), and more are continually being added as the user base grows and requests such resources. So you're not going to be steered towards one particular theological position that way. You have the choice of what resources to buy.
Now to address your other concern -- whether the programmers could steer your search results towards only finding particular entries in your library that support their theological bias. As a former programmer myself, I can tell you that is very doubtful. If you enter search terms, it will find those terms wherever they are located. If you enter an exact phrase such as "eternal security" -- it will find that exact phrase. These programmers have great integrity and there is no question that they'd be intentionally hiding some results from you. As long as you learn how to construct searches broadly enough to find what you're looking for, they will work as you intend them to. Sometimes an exact phrase search will be too restrictive, because some authors might have written about that topic but called it something else, so you might need to search for ("eternal security" OR "persistence of the saints" OR "cannot lose your salvation") or something along those lines, in order to find every single occurrence. The programmers are not going to build into the mechanical search function an artificial intelligence that knows the contextual meanings of words you are searching for. It's just based on a simple index that shows where each word occurs in each resource, and they build up the search results from that when you enter a quoted phrase or a complex search with boolean operators (OR, AND, ANDNOT).
Hope that helps.
0 -
JohnFrady said:
Just wondering about the L4 theology. I have not purchased L4 and I need this question answered before purchase. My question is this, is there a theological position the programmers have that is influencing the out come of a search in L4. I have heard it said, "Water tastes like the hose pipe you drink out of". Let me explain. My concern is that if a programmer has a Calvinistic (or any other) theological convictions, would that come out when doing a search on "eternal security"? Does a programmer tell the computer how to respond to a search? How do we know we are getting all sides of an issue? Do the resources available have a balanced perspective on issues of theology? I expect this kind of slant from a commentary. Can a computer software be netrual when programmed by a human?
have been a user of Logos starting on ver.1.6 I love the product but I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.
Any validity to these concerns?
I'm quite sure that programmers have some theological convictions. Being without a theological conviction is like trying to have a day without weather. It's just not possible. The bigger question would be do these convictions have any impact on how the Bible is studied, or the material is presented.
I'm not sure how you would test your hypothesis.
But the assertion has
been made before that Logos seems to cater to North American
Evangelicals. This is probably true, at least to the extent that this
is their primary user base, and drives much of their decisions about
which resources to publish. That being said, they are intentionally
expanding their resource collection to include materials from other
Christian streams.Your question on "eternal security" is one I can speak to a bit, by explaining what the search results would be. If I search a Bible for "eternal security" (in quotes)I get zero hits. If I enter the same without quotes, most Bibles return zero hits, the ESV returns one verse Heb 9:12, where Jesus, enters the holy places by His blood "thus securing an eternal redemption." This is because "securing" is close enough to "security" that the result is shown. Clearly this is a programmatic outcome, not a theological judgment. As a Calvinist, I wouldn't point to this scripture as the first place to go, let alone the only one, to argue for this doctrinal point.
You could do a search for "eternal security" in the non-Bible resources and come up with dozens of hits, but that's not what you're asking about. If a topical Bible has a section on eternal security, it would be the theological bias of the authors of that resource we should discuss, not whether or not Logos finds the entry in the resource.
In short, I don't think your concern has much ground to stand on -- at least as concerns Logos.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I'd second Rosie's evaluation. A lot will depend on the resources you have purchased. But even in a full library, I'd expect a different "slant" to my results if I searched for "eternal security" versus let's say "real presence," because of the tendencies of authors of certain theological perspectives using each term more than others.
One thing to add to what Rosie said, you always have the capability of limiting searches to collections of books that you prefer to use. So in many ways your resources are the faucet, but you decide how to hook up your hose to the faucet (your search term) and how wide or narrow a hose to use (your collections). You have a lot of control over the "taste" of the end product.
Tom
1 Cor 2:2
0 -
JohnFrady said:
Any validity to these concerns?
It is a very valid concern. I dont think the programmers have anything to do with it though. It is the type of books you have in your library. [;)]
0 -
Your search results will look like the resources in your library not like the programmers behind Logos
Jacob Hantla
Pastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church
gbcaz.org0 -
JohnFrady said:
Just wondering about the L4 theology. I have not purchased L4 and I need this question answered before purchase. My question is this, is there a theological position the programmers have that is influencing the out come of a search in L4. I have heard it said, "Water tastes like the hose pipe you drink out of". Let me explain. My concern is that if a programmer has a Calvinistic (or any other) theological convictions, would that come out when doing a search on "eternal security"?
Just echoing your thoughts in a different way: in Zondervan's Glo software, it seems clear that they designed it more around a premill/dispensationalist view point, by the sheer fact that the related terms in their constellation catered to that view (rapture, etc). Not that those SHOULDN'T be there, but that other related terms would NOT be there, that would be more in line with Amill, Postmill, etc.
That said, I am not Calvinist--in regard to a particular perspective on predestination and election--and i use Logos all the time. For nearly a decade. But I feel my resolve crumbling . . . (that was humor). I love the software and I recommend your purchase it. If anything, if you notice that the technology veers toward a particular persuasion, you can make comments on this forum and often, they are heard and addressed.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Agreed.Jacob Hantla said:Your search results will look like the resources in your library not like the programmers behind
The question is like going to a Library and asking the librarian, does the card catalog favor one kind of literature over another? There is no bias, just a search for what you tell it to find.
0 -
Your inquiry is good. Blair & Jacob have answered well. My 2 cents follows:JohnFrady said:Can a computer software be netrual when programmed by a human?
have been a user of Logos starting on ver.1.6 I love the product but I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.
Any validity to these concerns?
No validity from a computer programmer's perspectivce. To keep you from getting search results they don't want you to have the programmers would have to specifically EXCLUDE those hits from your search queries. That isn't going to happen by design. (There are too many search possibilities and too many programmers involved for them to all agree on theological points and pull off the conspiracy.) The only realistic way to sway the results is by limiting WHAT content is searched. Logos has already proven they have a wide umbrella of theological viewpoints they will publish. Certainly they haven't published the Satanic bible but many users have complained to see doctrinal positions they disagree with. If you don't buy certain resources, they will not be searched. There is some wide variety of beliefs covered in the base package content. You can always hide that content if you find it distracting or objectionable. You may want to read some for apologetics purposes.
My concern is more with the new Bble translations not being faithful to the original texts and popular leaders who preach to "itching ears."
John, Even if you hide big portions of the Scholar's library, the non-controversial content is well worth using for productive study. The sale prices do end tomorrow night.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Joe Miller said:
Agreed.Jacob Hantla said:Your search results will look like the resources in your library not like the programmers behind
The question is like going to a Library and asking the librarian, does the card catalog favor one kind of literature over another? There is no bias, just a search for what you tell it to find.
overall, I would agree. but Logos is making certain interpretive decisions, are they not, in using synonyms, and the like in topical searches--right? Now to that particular example of mine, it might be argued that synonyms are not susceptible to theological interpretation. Perhaps not. But in the effort to show relationships (domains and L/N, for example), involves a bit of interpretive work and that could be colored by theology. In the world of grammar, just see how translators have translated Romans 9:22 according to theology. (and that in so-called "literal" translations).
Just saying that it is more than doing a simple search for words that appear in your library. My brief allusion to what I notice in Z's glo software regarding related themes in end-times study is a case in point where theology has steered the options available.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
When it comes to the search algorithms of Logos, I most certainly doubt that the programmers have the time or inclination to color the results. You are in the drivers seat when searching a Bible or your library. The quality of the results depends on how well you understand the search syntax.
With that said, the various databases Logos uses (Morphological, syntactical and so forth) are edited by human beings with theological preferences and biases (I mean nothing negative by this) most of the time these things are not in the realm of debate but it's possible that some choices here and there come down to a particular theological/epistemological bent. And, of course, all the books come from the perspective of the authors/contributors. The trick is to take the secondary literature with a critical and prayerful eye. If I rely on these sources to tell me what the Bible means/says without reading it and prayerfully considering then yes, I may have supplanted the Holy Spirit's role in interpretation. However, this would be my fault, not Logos or its programmers.
Prov. 15:23
0 -
My take on this is, if you have Calvinist resources in your library that's what the search will bring up. If you have Arminian resources, you get Arminian hits. If you do not want either hits then do not have those( Calvinist and Arminian) resources in your Logos library. In the end it depends on what resources you have in your library & not to any bias from the programmers. Logos 4 simply searches the resources in your library.
Ted.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
i realize that my last post is not carefully enough written . . . it may seem like I am making leaps in logic. No, just poorly written in some parts. But after posting, I see Richard makes the point that programmers could limit WHAT content is searched. Now, he may be referring to what resources are available. If that is so, I am not too worried about that with Logos, either. But again, if programmers make decisions on how we can search topically (what connects with what) they may (unintentionally) combine or exclude terms/topics based on theology.
I haven't yet noticed that within Logos, but it would be possible.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Ted Hans said:
My take on this is, if you have Calvinist resources in your library that's what the search will bring up. If you have Arminian resources, you get Arminian hits.
[Y]
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Hi John,
As others have noted, the search technologies are theology-neutral. It's the selection of available resources where "bias" shows up, though at worst it's unintentionally a product of the user/buyer base.
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
BillS said:
the search technologies are theology-neutral.
Except for the occasional place where a particular Canon is still assumed....
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
Except for the occasional place where a particular Canon is still assumed....
Hi Damian,
I'm probably blind, too, in that area. [:)] Please say more as a welcomed corrective.
Blessings to you!
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
BillS said:
I'm probably blind, too, in that area.
Something that's come up in the Septuagint translation section of the BWS: see this thread: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10670.aspx. If one hovers over the little graph above the Septuagint translation ring, it says "number of hits in book" - this is false. It is the number of hits in the Spetuagint when the deuterocanonicals are ignored.
0 -
JohnFrady said:
I have a concern that the Word of God may be transitioning out of the hands of the Holy Spirit into the hands of some great and well meaning programmers.
Any validity to these concerns?
It is not the great and well meaning programmers that you should be concerned about. It is the user who believes that they know more than they really do - reading commentary excerpts without understanding the author's use of terms, the taking of syntax diagrams as established fact without understanding why there is controversy ... In short readers are still readers with the same shortcomings as always. Perhaps magnified a bit.
Logos resources show a primary focus on non-liturgical traditions using what I have nicknamed the NAP canon (North American Protestant). However, within the program functions this is much less true than it was a few years ago. Logos as you actually use it, should reflect your own theological biases - as you set the priorities, build your library, add your notes Logos shows you first the items you have chosen with their theological bias. Forget about programmers - it is use who most strongly affects the bias of Logos.
Note: this is written from the perspective of one from a liturgical tradition using an expanded canon.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
f one hovers over the little graph above the Septuagint translation ring, it says "number of hits in book" - this is false.
I tested it, and your right. In all fairness they are not left out of other sections
0 -
While I don't think that the programmers themselves stack the deck in the way the program responds to a general search there does seem to be some serious bias's related to the library material. In a Scholar package with all available Galaxie journals (some 1600 resources) try running a search on Paul Tillich or Christian Existentialism...perhaps 3 hits a piece (you get my point I think). What maybe taken as liberal among Evangelical Conservatives (Barth perhaps) may not be considered liberal in many mainline seminaries at the moment. Nothing wrong with stacking the deck, so to speak, in this direction but I don't really think there are too many "liberals" sneaking around in the libraries Logos is putting together....perhaps I'm wrong.
0 -
0
-
0
-
Logos did not publish the Galaxie Journals.ReneAtchley said:In a Scholar package with all available Galaxie journals (some 1600 resources) try running a search on Paul Tillich or Christian Existentialism...
And even this only shows the interest of publishers, not a bias from Logos. Any publisher can use the Logos system if they choose.
0 -
Joe Miller said:
Logos did not publish the Galaxie Journals.ReneAtchley said:In a Scholar package with all available Galaxie journals (some 1600 resources) try running a search on Paul Tillich or Christian Existentialism...
And even this only shows the interest of publishers, not a bias from Logos. Any publisher can use the Logos system if they choose.
Dag nabbit, what IS IT with these backwoods Publishers and their stubborn ways? In all seriousness, i wonder what is the hesitancy to use Logos more for their publications. Afraid of not getting as big a cut? Wanting to do their own technology? Maybe call it Pradis, or something?
[8o|]
[;)]
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
I agree. I would like to see a LOT more diversity in the resources because it is so much more helpful when doing research and writing.Dan DeVilder said:Dag nabbit, what IS IT with these backwoods Publishers and their stubborn ways?
But is is not just publishers. There are a lot more resources languishing in pre-pub that would add some good diversity to the Logos Library.
0 -
Without regard to who published the particular set of journals Galaxie reflects, I believe, the general theological approach that Logos has. Plus the search results that I noted didn't were not in the Galaxie material rather they hits which were no more than bare mentions mostly in dictionaries. In terms of back-wood publishers money is money for a three volume systematic (well over $100 prepub I think) for Tillich without regard to how one feels toward the theologian..diversity of opinion does not mean agreement especially when a profit is to be made.
0 -
Everyone has a bias.
However, I am not a Calvinist, but an evangelical in the Wesley tradition. I have never found bias to be a problem with Logos.
Furthermore, many of my favorite books / commentaries are by Calvinists. In fact, I highly value John Calvin's commentaries. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is tremendous. I can benefit from someone whose doesn't agree with me on every theological point. Anyone who loves the Word and does solid study can help me.
The real value of Logos is the tremendous number and variety of the most scholarly resources from nearly every theological prespective. No one has more Calvinist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, Covenant theology, Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed and other resources. If you want only resources that agree with you (why would you?) then you will find more of them here. But you can also find so much more.
I am not very worried about someone's theological bias. I can sift through that and take what is of benefit.
I would not rely too heavily on any search for a topic such as "eternal sercurity" other than as a starting place. No matter what software I was using.
Logos is the best.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
ReneAtchley said:
In terms of back-wood publishers money is money for a three volume systematic (well over $100 prepub I think) for Tillich without regard to how one feels toward the theologian..diversity of opinion does not mean agreement especially when a profit is to be made.
not sure what you mean here. you mean that Logos is asking too much? Or that the publishers want to ask too much, so Logos won't get them published?
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Michael Childs said:
Pentecostal, Baptist
I dont see much baptistcostal stuff, there should be more of that. [;)] Calvary Chapel resources anyone ?
0 -
Joe,
You make a point. If there is a problem in deversity in Logos resources, then it probably is more the result of the customers than the company. Logos generally tries to produce what the customers are willing to buy. Logos customers tend to be more evangelical. At least it seems so to me.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0
