Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Billy Shears
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:13 pm

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by Billy Shears »

Hi Res Ipsa,

Pinker's point about that "proof" is that it confuses the following two probabilities with each other:

1- What's the probability that a randomly drawn member of the set "human beings" is the pope?
2- What is the probability that the pope is a member of the set "human beings"?

A proper implementation of Bayesian reasoning allows you to answer the second question. Kyler seems doggedly intent on going through the motions of Bayesian analysis while still committing the same basic flaw of reasoning that this proof illustrates.

In general, a possible frequentist approach to the Book of Mormon problem looks like this:

1- List out all of the quantitative characteristics of the Book of Mormon: how many pages it is, how quickly it was written, how much early modern English it contains, how repetitive its vocabulary is, etc.

2- Look at a few other 19th century books and estimate a normal distribution for these quantitative metrics.

3- The null hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century book.

4- In terms of these mundane metrics, the extent to which the Book of Mormon is different from other 19th century books is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century book.

And that is precisely what's driving Kyler's results.

The Pope being different from other human beings is evidence that he isn't a human being. The Book of Mormon being different from other 19th century books is evidence that it isn't a 19th century book.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by malkie »

Billy Shears wrote:
Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:13 pm
Hi Res Ipsa,

Pinker's point about that "proof" is that it confuses the following two probabilities with each other:

1- What's the probability that a randomly drawn member of the set "human beings" is the pope?
2- What is the probability that the pope is a member of the set "human beings"?

A proper implementation of Bayesian reasoning allows you to answer the second question. Kyler seems doggedly intent on going through the motions of Bayesian analysis while still committing the same basic flaw of reasoning that this proof illustrates.

In general, a possible frequentist approach to the Book of Mormon problem looks like this:

1- List out all of the quantitative characteristics of the Book of Mormon: how many pages it is, how quickly it was written, how much early modern English it contains, how repetitive its vocabulary is, etc.

2- Look at a few other 19th century books and estimate a normal distribution for these quantitative metrics.

3- The null hypothesis is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century book.

4- In terms of these mundane metrics, the extent to which the Book of Mormon is different from other 19th century books is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century book.

And that is precisely what's driving Kyler's results.

The Pope being different from other human beings is evidence that he isn't a human being. The Book of Mormon being different from other 19th century books is evidence that it isn't a 19th century book.
If I'm reading this correctly, and I proceed as follows, I can prove that any book was not written in the 19C. Note that I've modified the method you describe to be, in my opinion, more like Kyler's, and to remove a couple of prejudicial instances of "other":

0- Select a book - let's call it "X"

1- Choose a set of quantitative characteristics of X: how many pages it is, how quickly it was written, how much early modern English it contains, how repetitive its vocabulary is, etc.

2- Look at a few known 19th century books and estimate a normal distribution for these quantitative metrics.

3- The null hypothesis is that X is a 19th century book.

4- In terms of these mundane metrics, the extent to which X is different from the known 19th century books is evidence that X is not a 19th century book.

In step 1, listing all of the quantitative characteristics may be impossible. In any case, I mostly choose characteristics that I already believe make X exceptional in a 19C setting. To show that I'm unbiased, I also choose a few "bones" to throw to my critics. Without admitting it, of course.

In step 2, I then make "reasonable" estimates of the likelihood that a 19C book would have these characteristics.

I know the end result I want, of course, and work towards it from the beginning.

By careful manipulation of steps 1 & 2 I could choose, for example, X = Moby Dick, and prove that Melville must got the text from an older source.

How did I do? Was Moby Dick really written by 600BC to 400AD Jewish expats?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by drumdude »

I've collected the first sentences of each of Kyler's essays here:
It seems unlikely that a young man of Joseph Smith’s limited education could produce a book the length of the Book of Mormon as a first-time author.

It seems unlikely that Joseph Smith could write the Book of Mormon through the dictation process described by witnesses, or that he could have written it in some other way without leaving a trail of evidence.

It seems unlikely that the colonization of the American continent described in the Book of Mormon would’ve left no genetic evidence in modern (or ancient) Indigenous populations.

It seems unlikely that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon could give such bold and straightforward testimony to an apparent fraud.

It doesn’t seem likely that a true God could teach things that people find personally and politically disagreeable.

It seems unlikely that Joseph could guess the name Nahom by chance alone, or that he could've gotten that location from a map.

It seems unlikely that Nephi could have built and sailed a boat from the Arabian Peninsula to the New World.

It seems unlikely that Joseph or his scribes could fill the Book of Mormon with examples of grammar and word use that fit better in Early Modern English than in the nineteenth century.

It seems unlikely that an independent translation of Isaiah could be so similar to the King James text, while at the same time different from it in such apparently fraudulent ways.

It seems unlikely that someone could fake stylometric evidence for multiple authors within the Book of Mormon text.

It seems unlikely that the Book of Mormon should show so many parallels to nineteenth-century books if it was really an authentic ancient work.

It seems unlikely that the Book of Mormon could have so many examples of chiasmus if it was written by Joseph.

It seems unlikely that an authentic Book of Mormon should have so many anachronisms—or that a fabricated book could correspond so well to Mesoamerican culture.

It seems unlikely that an allegedly fraudulent text could become more plausible after decades of intense critical examination.

It seems unlikely than an ancient book would have so many themes and ideas common to the early nineteenth century.
It seems likely that what Kyler is doing is trying to simply retread over old apologetic arguments by dolling them up with a Bayesian flair.

What is the difference between DCP spouting these arguments and Kyler spouting them? What does his Bayesian analysis ADD which is new? This is essentially all of DCP's old arguments with the added force of - "and you can't disagree with me, because math!"


Also, consistently saying “it seems unlikely” implies that you're stating an opinion that can't be backed up with solid data.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Drumdude
What is the difference between DCP spouting these arguments and Kyler spouting them? What does his Bayesian analysis ADD which is new? This is essentially all of DCP's old arguments with the added force of - "and you can't disagree with me, because math!"
Yep, it's Dan Peterson's arguments, why do you think Dan allows even the entirely most stupid stuff on his site and in his newspaper? Not because it has validity, but because it agrees with him. In his mind, that means its gold. He can point to it and say "See? Answers!"
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by hauslern »

There is a chart on this site of the strength and weaknessf of various Book of Mormon issues.
https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-17/
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Kyler Rasmussen Proves Russell M. Nelson Is An Alien!

Post by Philo Sofee »

hauslern wrote:
Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:51 am
There is a chart on this site of the strength and weaknessf of various Book of Mormon issues.
https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... idence-17/
I looked at it. Very predictable. It doesn't move me.
Post Reply