DiscussMormonism.com

consiglieri wrote: Just one of many reasons I am glad to be anonymous.

Bro. Your name is all over the media on this. And unless the reporting is wrong, it sounds like you're one of her attorneys. I don't understand how you can even be commenting on any of this, ethically.

As I was reading your comment I wasn't thinking of Bishop as the predator. Denson was at least 21 years old when she entered the MTC, and was a pretty messed up sociopath/pathological liar given what we know about her now. It leaves me wondering if she is the real predator here. Mmm hmm, my thought...

Skimming through Kass and Raftery 1995 turned out to be easier but less helpful than I thought. I find two points. 1) The association of qualitative terms like "not worth more than a bare mention", "substantial", "strong", etc. for specific ranges of likelihood ratio i...

Thanks, Lemmie. I'm thinking about effective arguments to make in response to the paper. I'm persuaded that, even if that argument were technically correct, it's a weak argument that would distract from several very strong arguments. When I have several strong arguments, it's generally a mistake to...

I think a good case can be made that they didn’t apply Bayes at all. Nowhere did they do what Bayes requires: assessing the likelihood of each piece of evidence under each hypothesis. If you do that for the evidence in the appendix, it’s easy to see that, whatever they were doing, it wasn’t Bayesia...

How can anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of probability make this kind of statement? Pop quiz: If I start making guesses, each of which have a 2% chance of being correct, how many guesses must I make before there is a 50% chance that I've guessed correctly? And the Dales characterize this a...

The apparent source for the Dales' particular set of allowed likelihood ratios is an interesting detail that might be worth adding. I see it as relevant because, if I'm right that this is what they did, then it means their input probabilities aren't merely arbitrary but the situation is much worse ...

A good summary, PG. I would add one thing though. I think some of y'all are still confused about where these LR numbers are coming from. Perhaps I'm wrong, but here's what I'm seeing. They are indeed arbitrary, but I believe they are relying on Harold Jeffreys to derive their arbitrary numbers by wo...

Here's a possible title for a rebuttal article: Dr. Dale's Epic Fail: How an Engineer Used Bayesian Statistics to Delude Himself and Others about the Book of Mormon. You know, in principle his idea isn't bad. A random idea that could be fun would be to setup a crowd sourced Mormonism model that cal...

So Gadianton, I'm not sure if your question got answered previously, but it would seem this blog answers it. The LRs are derived from Harrold Jeffrey's K table. But here's the thing. They are using it in reverse! The point of the K table is to make a judgement call on a mathematically derived likeli...