The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[Anonymous]

The arguments in the paper by Dale & Dale illustrate one of the fundamental pitfalls Richard Carrier went to great pains to explain and avoid in his classic, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt.

In Carrier’s book, he expands the theory that Jesus was historical as broad as possible, and coined this term, “The minimal theory of historicity” which he contrasted with a “minimal theory of myth”.

If the Dales would have based their logic on Carrier’s valid point, they would have created a “minimal theory of ancient Book of Mormon” and a “minimal theory of modern Book of Mormon”, and only looked at evidence that supported or contradicted those two very broad, minimal theories that cover all of the probability space.

Instead, what they effectively did was test a somewhat general theory that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient Mayan manuscript against a laughably specific strawman theory that the Book of Mormon was written by somebody who made a series of statistically independent “guesses” about what ancient Mayan civilization was like, and that these “guesses” were drawn from statistical distributions where the probability of getting any guess right was very low.

Yes, the Dales proved that the Book of Mormon wasn’t written by somebody who was taking a series of independent longshot guesses about Mayan civilization. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have modern origins in some other way. It doesn't even mean that it is the least bit unlikely that the Book of Mormon has modern origins in some other way.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Is it wrong of me to hope that the Interpreter will refuse to take this article down?

I hope it will stand as a monument to the Interpreter's "peer review" process and the Interpreter's commitment to honest intellectual scholarship.

[_DrW]

Is it wrong of me to hope that the Interpreter will refuse to take this article down?

I hope it will stand as a monument to the Interpreter's "peer review" process and the Interpreter's commitment to honest intellectual scholarship.

Sort of a laughingstock Ensign to the nations?
______________________

Along with a number of others who have commented on this thread, I have published both original research papers and review papers in a variety of peer reviewed journals, as well as serving as a journal board member, associate editor and reviewer. It takes a great deal of hard and careful work to gain the credibility needed to be published in good journals. That kind of hard won credibility should not be taken lightly, neither by individuals, or by the profession in general.

It is difficult to express just how embarrassing, and even offensive, the Dale & Dale paper is to those in the science and engineering professions who take their work seriously. The fact that it has appeared in a religious publication is no excuse, especially when that publication claims scholarly underpinnings.

Dale & Dale made the claim in the paper that they were using valid scientific and mathematical methods, and even cited their secular professional credentials as evidence of their credibility. The paper is a bad joke.

I will state again what I stated upthread; if a credentialed scientific professional had pulled a stunt like this in my current company, or in any company, university or government agency I have worked with, they would write a retraction at a minimum.

More likely they would write a retraction and be severely sanctioned, or may even be dismissed. Whatever the outcome, the process would almost certainly include an appropriately termed "Come to Jesus Meeting" with their supervisor or HR.

[_Res Ipsa]

The arguments in the paper by Dale & Dale illustrate one of the fundamental pitfalls Richard Carrier went to great pains to explain and avoid in his classic, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt.

In Carrier’s book, he expands the theory that Jesus was historical as broad as possible, and coined this term, “The minimal theory of historicity” which he contrasted with a “minimal theory of myth”.

If the Dales would have based their logic on Carrier’s valid point, they would have created a “minimal theory of ancient Book of Mormon” and a “minimal theory of modern Book of Mormon”, and only looked at evidence that supported or contradicted those two very broad, minimal theories that cover all of the probability space.

Instead, what they effectively did was test a somewhat general theory that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient Mayan manuscript against a laughably specific strawman theory that the Book of Mormon was written by somebody who made a series of statistically independent “guesses” about what ancient Mayan civilization was like, and that these “guesses” were drawn from statistical distributions where the probability of getting any guess right was very low.

Yes, the Dales proved that the Book of Mormon wasn’t written by somebody who was taking a series of independent longshot guesses about Mayan civilization. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have modern origins in some other way. It doesn't even mean that it is the least bit unlikely that the Book of Mormon has modern origins in some other way.

I sent Carrier a link to the paper. I thought he might be able to use it as an example of how not to use Bayes.

[_Dr Exiled]

I hope someone took a screenshot of the comments over at the interpreter site. The comments section for the bayesian article is nowhere to be found .....

[_DrW]

I hope someone took a screenshot of the comments over at the interpreter site. The comments section for the bayesian article is nowhere to be found .....

Just visited there and the comments section looks okay on my computer. The Dale & Dale disaster is probably attracting more traffic than they have had over there in a long time.

[_Res Ipsa]

I hope someone took a screenshot of the comments over at the interpreter site. The comments section for the bayesian article is nowhere to be found .....

I just checked and the comments section was there.

[_Dr Exiled]

For some reason it wasn't appearing on my phone, but it shows on my computer. [Still isn't allowing me to read the comments on my phone.]

[Guest]

Mr. Blanco and Allen Wyatt had this exchange:

Allen Wyatt on May 4, 2019 at 7:10 am said:

Shane,

If it is of any help, I can assure you that both Mesoamericanists and statisticians provided peer review on the article.

-Allen
Reply ↓

Mr. Blanco on May 8, 2019 at 12:10 pm said:

Allen,

In light of the many statistical missteps that have been brought to everyone’s attention, do you think the Interpreter will pull this article, allow the Dales to correct their research and have the same properly peer reviewed?
Reply ↓

Allen Wyatt on May 8, 2019 at 1:16 pm said:

Mr. Blanco,

You imply two things: (1) that the research needs correcting and (2) that the paper wasn’t properly peer reviewed. Both implications are incorrect, so the short answer is no, the article will not be pulled.

Some may not like the analysis; that is evident. Such dislike is not reason for retraction, however. As to the asserted “many statistical missteps,” the Dales have answered all of them that I have seen, plus the paper passed peer review by a statistician.

Even if the Dales had not answered the comments posted here, can you give me a good reason why Interpreter should pay attention to anonymous internet posters asserting “missteps” when two non-anonymous PhDs wrote the paper and multiple non-anonymous (to me) PhDs have reviewed it?

Your comment smacks of hubris. (Anonymity brings that out in some people.)

-Allen

PS: Speaking of anonymity bringing out bad behavior, will you be ceasing your critical commenting and baiting soon? Several of your comments here are nothing but cut-and-pastes, without permission, from an anti-Mormon message board. Those that you copied from, there, even complained about it. Such cutting and pasting doesn’t constitute research, but it does constitute plagiarization.
Reply ↓

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/josep ... -the-maya/

The first part I bolded is not true. Mr. Blanco posted post of my main statistical analysis ( this one ). I don't appreciate that he cut and pasted it without my permission, but it is there now, and as far as I can tell, it is the only statistical comment to which the authors have not responded. (Wyatt can't argue he hasn't seen it, because he specifically referred to Blanco doing that, in the bolded part of his p.s.)

If he is asserting that the authors don't need to respond on the technicality that its not Blanco's research, then why did the authors respond to all of Mr. Blanco's other cut and pastes?

[_Gadianton]

A summary of the disaster discussed on this thread: Dale & Dale are like unto Japanese authors who proudly publish a paper on August 7, 1945 claiming that the probability of achieving criticality with a few kg of enriched uranium is less than one in one hundred thousand billion billion. It could only be worse if they lived in Nagasaki.

could you, or physics guy, or lemmie, maybe analytics, I don't know about his field, comment on the certainty published - 10 ^ 132 (Im not looking at the number exactly right now) and how often legitimate and very well respected scientific findings achieve this level of certainty?

I could imagine an obvious setup shining through with heroic odds, but this is a pretty big number.

what is the quantum probability that a tennis ball will disappear from my garage and wind up in mesoamerica?