Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Philo Sofee »

dastardly stem wrote:
Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:44 pm
Dr Rasmussen's previous episodes didn't make any sense to me. The length of the book somehow addresses the "is the Book of Mormon ancient or written in the 19th C"? I don't think there's any real connection. The consequent probability made no sense for episode 1. Episode 2 was worse in that whether or not Joseph dreamed or visioned God and Jesus has no applicability at all. But it came out as a negative for him, so I guess he's happy. Episode 3 was much like 1. The book exists. If he dictated it in 65 days, great. I mean amazing. But that has no bearing on whether it's ancient. Its more likely he perpetrated a trick on his scribes. It's more likely he collaborated with his scribes. It's more likely he wrote it over a number of years previous to getting it written down. ANd it's more likely he got the story from others. The episode didn't work for anything, if you ask me.

And now we have Episode 4

It actually makes sense. I hardly care to quibble with the numbers. But he created a valid looking binary evaluation. On the Hypothesis the book is ancient, what's the probability given our DNA understanding? VS on the Hyposthesis the book was written by Joseph Smith in the 19th Century, what's the probability given our DNA understanding.

I won't even quibble with the numbers even though I think they are kind of silly. I'm just happy we have an actual evaluation that makes sense.

It works out on the negative though.
Indeed it works out on the negative, there is very little choice given what we know. Kyler appears to have done a decent job here, even though he has left out quite a bit, he still makes the attempt which is commendable! And, of course, for myself, I find it quite a bit stronger negative than he has, but only because I will use materials he hasn't. I am working up a video/podcast for it this weekend.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by dastardly stem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:03 pm

Indeed it works out on the negative, there is very little choice given what we know. Kyler appears to have done a decent job here, even though he has left out quite a bit, he still makes the attempt which is commendable! And, of course, for myself, I find it quite a bit stronger negative than he has, but only because I will use materials he hasn't. I am working up a video/podcast for it this weekend.
Awesome, Philo. I'm looking forward to it.

As I understand it, prior probabilities are supposed to mean something, based on something. He is left without something to base it on so he's making them up. Its as if he's saying, "We have no examples of ancient books popping up in unknown languages translated by God's powers, but we have to take the claim seriously, so let's just make up some figures and see what happens."

He's sneaking God into the equation. That's like a whole new element of probability that he just sneaks into the evaluation of ancient vs modern. Ancient just means God did. I suspect we'll see that more clearly, as part of his assumption, when he gets to something like anachronisms. "well that doesn't matter so much because if God did it, then it's possible he permitted Joseph's modern ideas of things creep into the text". Or something.

The thing with Bayesian is its supposed to be used to standardized processes in order to come up with credible probabilities. He seems to be using the methods too cavalierly, acting as if something standard is only meant in theory.

But again, interested in what you come up with.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Post Reply