Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr. Moore
Zelph, for instance. Means Lamanite DNA is should be lying around in graves everywhere, readily available and yet… has this been factored into the prior?
OH MY HELL! I am dense as dirt!!! This is spectacular!!! Joseph Smith claimed his vision as a direct revelation from God. THERE is our Lamanite DNA!!!

WE JUST HAVE GOT TO GET THIS NEWS TO THE APOLOGISTS!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This can't possibly be better news for them! We NOW ***KNOW*** via prophetic revelation where Lamanite DNA is! Heh.....drats, the problem is it originates in Asia, damn it! :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

kyzabee wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:23 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:02 am

Would you be kind enough to scratch out the math, think ‘back of the napkin’, so we can get a better idea at how you arrived to -3? Also, what specific population are you pulling the autosomal data set from?

- Doc
Sure.

CH = Consequent Probability of the Hypothesis (our estimate of the probability of observing a lack of DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon, given an authentic Book of Mormon)

CH = Probability of observing no autosomal DNA evidence X Probability of observing no sex-linked DNA evidence

CH = .06 x .02 = .0012

CA = Consequent Probability of the Alternate Hypothesis (how likely it is that we would end up with no DNA evidence of a 6th century BC Middle-Eastern incursion if Lehi didn’t exist, which for our purposes is p = 1.)


Evidence Score = log10(CH/CA)

Evidence Score = log10(.0012/1)

Evidence Score = log10(.0012)

Evidence Score = -3 (rounded)

Here's the link to the study used by Southerton:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209567/
I’m not sure linking me to the study helps me understand what specific population are you pulling the autosomal data set from. I’d like to know the exact population of tested individuals you used in your data set, and then I’d like to see how you took that dataset and integrated it into your Bayesian analysis to arrive at -3. The study linked has a lot of information, but the rough takeaway is that a very small genetic marker will show up way down the line as suggested by their comments regarding the Kalash.

- Doc
Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Doctor Scratch »

It seems clear at this point that Bayes, as the Mopologists are using it, is little more than an apologetic gimmick. They aren't using it as a truth-finding device. If that's its purpose--if the point is to calculate probability--then let them apply it to a question that makes them uncomfortable, such as the question of whether or not Dr. Peterson was paid for his apologetic work. They won't do it. They'll only apply it to "rigged" questions that they already "know" to be true.

Of course, using Bayes in this way accomplishes a subsidiary Mopologetic goal, which is to get the critics buzzing. I can guarantee you that the "Interpreter" crew is really excited over the fact that the critics are "incensed" over these abuses of Bayes. They will happily tell straight-up lies if they think it will be sufficiently upsetting to their enemies.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Billy Shears
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:13 pm

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Billy Shears »

kyzabee wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:11 pm
Billy Shears wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:59 pm
Illustrating the issue in another way, imagine somebody reading the paper backwards. If they first read the statistics you plugged into the formula, what would they infer your argument is?
If they're making the kind of inferences you're making, I suggest they refrain from reading things backwards.
Fair enough, but here is what I'm trying to get across. There is a disconnect between the narration of your point and the mathematical representation of it.
kyzabee wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:11 pm
Since you seem to think I'm capable of getting the comparisons right, as per Episode 2, and you didn't have much to say on Episode 3 other than to present an alternate theory (a fair thing to do, though I don't think it works well in your specific case), maybe we can just proceed and take the others a step at a time.
In theory, the value of this type of analysis is to fairly compare CH and CA--how well does the evidence fit the hypothesis that it is historical? How well does the evidence fit the hypothesis that it is a fraud?

Understanding that, I can summarize my issue with Episode 3 in about 1 sentence. When you set CH = 1, it looked like you are engaging in the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. That made me lose interest in your estimate of CA.
kyzabee wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:11 pm
Going to take a break from posting for a while to make sure I can get church stuff done today. Cheers everyone!
I think you have gone above and beyond by engaging so many people here. Enjoy the time with your family, and we'll talk again after I read Episode 4.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Dr Moore »

Whenever the DNA episode 4 comes up, I wonder if Kyler will use the current or original Book of Mormon title page. The one claiming “principal ancestors” of the Indians and all. “Principal ancestor” implies something meaningful and detectable, and the original meaning of the phrase was unfortunately a direct racist statement of heritage. Meaning, of course, that for the Book of Mormon to be “true” then enough Lamanite DNA must have survived to pass on the skin of darkness. This was taught thousands of times by Joseph and subsequent leaders, down to present day.

At minimum, a proper DNA treatment using Bayes must consider the question of racial descent in the claim of truth, and how it happened that skin color - arguably the primary marker of Lamanite blood - survived through the claimed excuses of population bottlenecks and haplotype dilution used to explain the absence of expected DNA. I’m going out on a limb that the real figure will be far worse than 1 in 1000 if the whole Bayesian picture of this singular issue is properly handled.

But this is a porn scene, not a clinical study on healthy sex, so I don’t expect Dr Rasmussen to change a thing.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr Moore wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:26 pm
Whenever the DNA episode 4 comes up, I wonder if Kyler will use the current or original Book of Mormon title page. The one claiming “principal ancestors” of the Indians and all. “Principal ancestor” implies something meaningful and detectable, and the original meaning of the phrase was unfortunately a direct racist statement of heritage. Meaning, of course, that for the Book of Mormon to be “true” then enough Lamanite DNA must have survived to pass on the skin of darkness. This was taught thousands of times by Joseph and subsequent leaders, down to present day.

At minimum, a proper DNA treatment using Bayes must consider the question of racial descent in the claim of truth, and how it happened that skin color - arguably the primary marker of Lamanite blood - survived through the claimed excuses of population bottlenecks and haplotype dilution used to explain the absence of expected DNA. I’m going out on a limb that the real figure will be far worse than 1 in 1000 if the whole Bayesian picture of this singular issue is properly handled.

But this is a porn scene, not a clinical study on healthy sex, so I don’t expect Dr Rasmussen to change a thing.
The way out is, of course, the apologists will claim what is meant is a cultural Lamanite, not an ethnic one, ignoring, of course, the entire work of Spencer W. Kimball's glory of converting the Lamanites in every country he went to labeling them as such in North and Central and South America, even saying thanks to the indian placement program, the Lamanites were becoming white and delightsome again. You see, when it comes to believing science or prophets, apologists will always throw the prophets under the bus with their revelations and pronouncements in order to save Joseph Smith. The only difference between them and us is, we also chuck Joe under the wheels... :D
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Dr Moore »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:04 pm
Of course, using Bayes in this way accomplishes a subsidiary Mopologetic goal, which is to get the critics buzzing. I can guarantee you that the "Interpreter" crew is really excited over the fact that the critics are "incensed" over these abuses of Bayes. They will happily tell straight-up lies if they think it will be sufficiently upsetting to their enemies.

You’re absolutely correct, Doctor. It took me a long time to figure this out, that success is defined by critical comment volume. You can envision the conversation when one of the brethren comes around: “well we took a risk with this new type of study and boy did that really set the critics on fire!” Which of course is all so much noise that makes the “flanks” appear well attended and adequately defended. Like miring the plaintiff down for decades with frivolous procedural motions and counter suits. So after a gentle pat on the head, visiting authority says something like, “well it’s dirty work, as you know! But keep it up, we really do appreciate your labor!”

If anyone’s forgotten, here an evidence of Doctor Scratch’s article of faith in action. Not long after the Dales’ Bayes-not-Bayes paper came out, we had the Fairmormon 2019 conference.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/con ... he-prophet

(Kirk Magelby speaking)
Now I really like this article, and hats off to Dan Peterson and his team there at Interpreter that had the guts to publish this. We’ve got a couple of engineers here who said, you know what? Let’s go take a look at statistical analysis and see if the Book of Mormon really fits in ancient Mesoamerica context. And they came up with a probability number that was off the charts. The probability is extraordinarily high that this book fits in this ancient context. Well, the naysayers, and the critics, and so forth had a field day. And I have it on good authority that this is the most heavily commented article Interpreter has ever published.
So there it is: more points of critical feedback equals success. Keep in mind, critics of Mopologetics are almost all folks who at one point wanted Mormonism to be true and good more than anything else in the world. It’s all so backwards when you think about it. Like a movie studio that so long ago gave up shooting for critical acclaim that it now celebrates bad rotten tomatoes scores because upsetting the critics equals buzz and buzz equals relevance and relevance equals importance and who doesn’t want to be important?
drumdude
God
Posts: 5218
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by drumdude »

Since this entire analysis is about the change in the skeptic's belief when presented with all the evidence, shouldn't this analysis be performed for all religions?

Lets find the result for Catholicism, for Calvinism, for Islam, for Judaism. Then lets compare where our skeptic ends up at the end of each analysis.


Presumably Mormonism should beat out every other religion, right? If this analysis is a method of discovering truth?
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Gadianton »

I want to try to understand Kyler's work in light of some of Billy's observations.

Bayes forces you to account for your misses as well as your hits. My impression is that apologists find their way to make Bayes do the opposite, and amplify their hits instead.

The absolute best explanation of Bayes that exists on the Internet is when there's smoke, there's fire on mathisfun.com.

Notice in the example, P(B) is the probability of seeing smoke on its own. That's the crucial component that accounts for your misses. In the example, dangerous fires are rare, they nearly always produce smoke, but because smoke is relatively common, at 10% on its own (bbq, fireworks), the probability of a dangerous fire when you see smoke is only 9%. If the probability of smoke on its own were 90%, then seeing smoke would tell us nothing we didn't already know.

Crucial to our understanding of P(B) is that it covers all possibilities of smoke. If we select only certain circumstances by which we might view the existence of smoke, we will underrepresent the commonality of smoke. In general this is what I think apologists do; what Kyler is doing. And I think I understand his justification for it.

P(A) = probability that prayer healed me. P(B) = probability I healed under all circumstances. P (B|A) = probability I healed if prayed for

P (A|B) = P(A) * P(B|A) / P(B)

The probability prayer healed me given that I healed is inversely proportional to the probability I healed under all circumstances. Even if the probability I healed when prayed for isn't very good, say, 25%, if the probability I healed under all circumstances is very tiny, then prayer wins.

Allow me to recast Kyler's episodes into the simple form of Bayes, to be like the smoke-fire example.

numerator = God
-------
denominator = Nature

apologist goal: Make natural causes very tiny, and that inflates God, even if God isn't very good.

Episode 1.

P(A) = probability that Book of Mormon is ancient. P(B) = probability that the Book of Mormon is long (under all circumstances). P (B|A) = probability the Book of Mormon is long if it is ancient.

P(A|B) = the probability the book is ancient if it is long. Notice Kyler only gave P(B|A) 50-50 odds. All the work is done by the tiny probability that the Book of Mormon can be long under all circumstances.

Episode 3.

P(A) = probability God dictated. P(B) = probability Book of Mormon was produced quickly. P(B|A) = probability produced quickly if God dictated.

P(A|B) = probability God dictated given produced quickly. Billy rightly points out that P(B|A) = 1 is nonsense. If I could quibble just a little with Billy, I'd just point out that even if we substantially lower P(B|A), Kyler has made P(B) so utterly miniscule -- the probability of seeing smoke on it own -- that we can substantially lower the 1 to 1% or way lower than that and God still wins by a landslide.

How is Kyler constraining the probability of seeing smoke on its own, or the probability of Book of Mormon produced quickly in general or probability of Book of Mormon long under all circumstances as so utterly tiny? Hold that thought. Let's tackle episode 2, because Billy gave that one huge props.

Episode 2.

Suddenly, Kyler is a stats guru per Billy, he does an awesome analysis, at least when isolated from the broader project. How is he suddenly firing on all cylinders?
Billy wrote:the pattern of inconsistencies in the first vision accounts are unlikely if the event really happened, but those same inconsistencies are also unlikely if the whole thing was made up.
P(A) = probability story fabricated. P(B) probability of (these) inconsistencies in stories in general P(B|A) = probability of (these) inconsistencies if fabricated

P(A|B) = probability story was fabricated, given the inconsistencies. Aha!

numerator = Satan
---------
denominator = Nature

If the numerator is the case that Smith did something fraudulent given the evidence, then we definitely don't want to restrict smoke in general, or in this case, inconsistencies in general to a small subset of all the known ways that inconsistencies can happen.

Kyler is an intelligent guy and he's a straight-shooter, and I'm not saying this is bad faith or stupidity on his part.
Kyler wrote:you didn't have much to say on Episode 3 other than to present an alternate theory (a fair thing to do, though I don't think it works well in your specific case.
This line brought back a suspicion I had from the beginning. I think the more complex form of Bayes that pits hypothesis 1 against hypothesis 2 is feeding into a natural confirmation bias. Specifically, in the cases where hypothesis 1 is God (fire), hypothesis 2 is some extraordinarily knee-capped circumstance by which we'd find smoke, which doesn't represent the best way to find smoke, or the full range of smoke possibilities. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this; if you want to compare a semi-lame hypothesis to a total crap hypothesis, then your result might be correct that the lame hypothesis is far more likely. But that doesn't help when looking for the best hypothesis. As in the idea of opportunity cost, hyp 2 needs to be the best forgone alternative -- the most likely explanation you can think of aside from the idea you want to win.

My hunch is if Kyler were to go back to the drawing board and work through several examples of Bayesian reasoning in the simple form, rather than in hypothesis testing form, in order to force P(B) to be conceptually, the probability of healing to be healing on its own, or smoke as smoke on its own, then that might help with the intuition to see the strawman in his hyp 2s. I think it would help with the consistency problems Billy has complained about.
Last edited by Gadianton on Mon Jul 26, 2021 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

Post by Philo Sofee »

drumdude wrote:
Sun Jul 25, 2021 11:49 pm
Since this entire analysis is about the change in the skeptic's belief when presented with all the evidence, shouldn't this analysis be performed for all religions?

Lets find the result for Catholicism, for Calvinism, for Islam, for Judaism. Then lets compare where our skeptic ends up at the end of each analysis.


Presumably Mormonism should beat out every other religion, right? If this analysis is a method of discovering truth?
This actually is discussed and somewhat done in John W. Loftus, "The Outsider Test of Faith." The Mormon side of using this Outsider test for Mormonism was done by none other than Thomas Riskas, "Deconstructing Mormonism"!
Post Reply