$30k challenge to Interpreter’s “Team Bayes”

[drumdude]

Well, Dr. Rasmussen really opened my eyes to just how effective Bayesian analysis is when addressing thorny issues taught from the pulpit. I just ran ‘Quakers of a uniform size living on the moon’ through my Kylculator and wouldn’t you know it, the probability of the former living on the moon is about 99.999%.

- Doc

Pffft. If you're doing it right, you should be getting numbers with at least 20-40 digits.

[Dr Moore]

I don’t think so. I’m not doing much with all the Bayesian stuff. It’s above my pay grade. I’m simply interested in the topics he’s discussing and getting his input and point of view. Then I can weigh his opinions/findings on the balance of common sense and compare it with my own experience with thinking about and reasoning through these things.

Keeping it simple. Occam’s Razor works well for me.

I don’t get too hung up with all the analysis stuff.

In other words, you like his porn project because his conclusion starts the same as your own, and you’re happy to accept the analysis uncritically. Well then, there’s probably nothing for you here. Unless all you wanted was another chance to nitpick stuff out of context and find another dismissive quote for your out of hand insults. As you started out by insulting me for, as you insinuated, seeking out gullible newbies with tired old arguments. How’s that work when literally this whole thread addresses a new project with a new approach to quantifying Mormon apologists arguments? And how would you know the difference if you’re not “doing much” with the ”analysis stuff” to begin with? Rather like watching porn and accepting it’s reality because you like it? But anyway you’ve made your method and motive clear enough. I’ll refrain from clicking on your hidden messages from now on.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think so. I’m not doing much with all the Bayesian stuff. It’s above my pay grade. I’m simply interested in the topics he’s discussing and getting his input and point of view. Then I can weigh his opinions/findings on the balance of common sense and compare it with my own experience with thinking about and reasoning through these things.

In other words, you like his porn project because his conclusion starts the same as your own, and you’re happy to accept the analysis uncritically. Why comment on this thread at all then?

Why must one always start with the conclusion? There may be a certain bias, but we all have those. Why bother reading the analysis to begin with if the conclusion is set in stone? I wouldn’t spend the time reading Dr. Rasmussen’s work if I felt like all my questions had been answered affirmatively. There are always opportunities and valid reasons to adjust one’s views. At the end of the day if I agree with his opinions and views, fine. But this only happens if I believe common sense and Occam’s Razor brings me to that point.

I’m always open to new information and different views towards what my perceived reality is. And I’m assuming that you are too.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

In other words, you like his porn project because his conclusion starts the same as your own, and you’re happy to accept the analysis uncritically. Why comment on this thread at all then?

Why must one always start with the conclusion? There may be a certain bias, but we all have those. Why bother reading the analysis to begin with if the conclusion is set in stone? I wouldn’t spend the time reading Dr. Rasmussen’s work if I felt like all my questions had been answered affirmatively. There are always opportunities and valid reasons to adjust one’s views. At the end of the day if I agree with his opinions and views, fine. But this only happens if I believe common sense and Occam’s Razor brings me to that point.

I’m always open to new information and different views towards what my perceived reality is. And I’m assuming that you are too.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Why do you think no one outside of Mormonism takes any of these claims seriously? They all, even the ones with no history in the church, are biased against Mormonism? Or could it be that unless you are in the church there is no reason to entertain any of the ridiculous apologetic arguments.

Again, DCP can’t even convince his non LDS friends to take Mormonism seriously. He might as well be arguing flat earth.

[Gadianton]

What KR should do, in order control for global academic bias against Mopologist theories, is find a surrogate project in the outside world.

KR should find a book that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and show that it is ancient by a Bayesian analysis of length, and see if he can convince anybody in the real world that he's right. And what about witnesses? Go out there and prove something else by a similar Bayesian analysis of witnesses and see if anybody takes it seriously.

[Dr Moore]

What KR should do, in order control for global academic bias against Mopologist theories, is find a surrogate project in the outside world.

KR should find a book that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and show that it is ancient by a Bayesian analysis of length, and see if he can convince anybody in the real world that he's right. And what about witnesses? Go out there and prove something else by a similar Bayesian analysis of witnesses and see if anybody takes it seriously.

You could task any Mopologist with the same challenge but they’d probably argue back that such activity would be a waste of time. Moving goal posts, skipping steps and cherry picking is a bad thing unless you know the conclusion from the outset. Plus, added bonus, when people criticize your work, you get to smash the “antichrist” button with your right hand and “anti Mormon” with your left.

[Rivendale]

In other words, you like his porn project because his conclusion starts the same as your own, and you’re happy to accept the analysis uncritically. Why comment on this thread at all then?

Why must one always start with the conclusion? There may be a certain bias, but we all have those. Why bother reading the analysis to begin with if the conclusion is set in stone? I wouldn’t spend the time reading Dr. Rasmussen’s work if I felt like all my questions had been answered affirmatively. There are always opportunities and valid reasons to adjust one’s views. At the end of the day if I agree with his opinions and views, fine. But this only happens if I believe common sense and Occam’s Razor brings me to that point.

I’m always open to new information and different views towards what my perceived reality is. And I’m assuming that you are too.

Regards,
MG

Occam's Razor chooses the proposed solution that has the least assumptions, not the simplest. When applied to the Book of Mormon and its origins which proposal has the least assumptions?

[drumdude]

you get to smash the “antichrist” button with your right hand and “anti Mormon” with your left.

[MG 2.0]

Why must one always start with the conclusion? There may be a certain bias, but we all have those. Why bother reading the analysis to begin with if the conclusion is set in stone? I wouldn’t spend the time reading Dr. Rasmussen’s work if I felt like all my questions had been answered affirmatively. There are always opportunities and valid reasons to adjust one’s views. At the end of the day if I agree with his opinions and views, fine. But this only happens if I believe common sense and Occam’s Razor brings me to that point.

I’m always open to new information and different views towards what my perceived reality is. And I’m assuming that you are too.

Regards,
MG

Occam's Razor chooses the proposed solution that has the least assumptions, not the simplest. When applied to the Book of Mormon and its origins which proposal has the least assumptions?

We have the Book of Mormon. Which is most likely?

1. It is what it purports to be.
2. It is a fabrication.

Which requires fewer assumptions to arrive at the simplest answer?

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Occam's Razor chooses the proposed solution that has the least assumptions, not the simplest. When applied to the Book of Mormon and its origins which proposal has the least assumptions?

We have the Book of Mormon. Which is most likely?

1. It is what it purports to be.
2. It is a fabrication.

Which requires fewer assumptions to arrive at the simplest answer?

Regards,
MG

Please list the number of assumptions for God.