Page 80 of 82
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:26 pm
by _Res Ipsa
Lemmie, I think the Dales use the concept of positive and negative correspondences in an odd way that created some confusion. They use “positive correspondence” to mean that something is mentioned in both sources and that the text is consistent. A “negative correspondence” means that text is inconsistent. So, the Book of Mormon says there are horses. The Maya says horses had died out. Both mention horses, but the text is inconsistent.
They don’t consider something mentioned in one but not the other to be a correspondence of any flavor. Of course, this categorically excludes the bulk of evidence that would be expected to show that the Book of Mormon is fiction.
Using their terminology, they have examined all the correspondences, whether positive or negative. What he stubbornly refuses to recognize is that they failed to consider all the evidence.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:30 pm
by _grindael
Lemmie,
This is how Mopologists roll. They are ALL hypocrites. From the Maxwell Institute to Farms to FAIRMORMON to The Mormon Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central, all of it is hypocritical BS. They have made an art form out of lying through their teeth. The Dales are only the latest to come along, with Dumbass C Penisbreath and Ludicrous Midgetmind among the founders of the modern Mopologist movement. Only the most rabid and self serving witless wonders join their ranks.
Remember Lowered Expectations from Mad TV? Think of that when you read anything by these creeps. You will do what I do, get a big smile on your face and then begin laughing hysterically at their silly antics. They are not scholars, but moronic messengers of the inane. What they produce is so ridiculous that one can only laugh at it.
THE BOOK OF MOPOLOGY, CHAPTER 1, VS. 1
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:23 pm
by _malkie
Is it worthwhile, do you think, to suggest an independent review of methodology by a recognized expert?
Could such an expert be persuaded to undertake a review?
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:36 pm
by _Lemmie
Billy Shears summarizes:
Summary
1- Your heuristic of “specific, detailed, and unique” as an approximation of Bayesian likelihood ratios is fundamentally flawed, and your subjective judgment as to what constitutes something being “specific, detailed and unique” is incredibly biased—especially by how you insist that under the “fiction” hypothesis the author was making guesses about the Maya rather than writing fiction inspired by the Bible and speculations about the mound builders.
2- Your assumption that these various points are statistically independent exasperate the above problem exponentially.
3- The way you insist that only details mentioned in both books may be included for analysis causes your results to systematically biased in favor of historicity. This bias is illustrated by how your analysis of the View of the Hebrews indicating that the entirety of the evidence indicates “strong evidence” in favor of historicity.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:50 pm
by _malkie
Lemmie wrote:Billy Shears summarizes:
Summary
1- Your heuristic of “specific, detailed, and unique” as an approximation of Bayesian likelihood ratios is fundamentally flawed, and your subjective judgment as to what constitutes something being “specific, detailed and unique” is incredibly biased—especially by how you insist that under the “fiction” hypothesis the author was making guesses about the Maya rather than writing fiction inspired by the Bible and speculations about the mound builders.
2- Your assumption that these various points are statistically independent exasperate the above problem exponentially.
3- The way you insist that only details mentioned in both books may be included for analysis causes your results to systematically biased in favor of historicity. This bias is illustrated by how your analysis of the View of the Hebrews indicating that the entirety of the evidence indicates “strong evidence” in favor of historicity.
I wish he had written "exacerbate" :(
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:32 pm
by _SteelHead
Once again
SteelHead wrote:Standard mopologist MO. Produce crap. Declare victory.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:40 am
by _honorentheos
Lemmie wrote:honor wrote:Or why the failure of their analysis to identify unambiguous specific unique elements of Mayan civilization while Coe contains numerous instances is not a compelling reason to question the methodology's impartiality?
But note that if you do your own analysis, Dale expects impartiality from you:
bruce dale wrote:Compare the Book of Mormon with what you think is a typical 19th century religious document, or any other document you think “represents” the 19th century. State your hypothesis. State your Bayesian skeptical prior. Identify all the evidence, pro and con, relevant to your hypothesis. You must include both positive and negative correspondences…not just a handful of cherry-picked points.
Unbelievable that Dale is still arguing he isn't obligated to weigh ALL positive and negative correspondences, but others must, or they are cherry-picking. His bias is beyond unprofessional.
Hey Lemmie,
Very good points that it would benefit Bruce to take into consideration. But then, that would require his having you or another person of excellent judgement as a peer.
I don't know what delayed them, but the comments I had posted before were ultimately posted. They had disappeared this morning, not showing they were pending approval nor having been posted. So I assumed given the other troubles I was encountering with the site they had been rejected.
I think at this point there isn't much else to say.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:46 am
by _Gadianton
And in the same vein as Steelhead, I’d like to remind everyone that nobody who knows anything about math or stats has endorsed the article publicly. Not even the most dyed in the wool M2C smoking mopologist with a single college stats course would dare to support it.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:53 am
by _honorentheos
malkie wrote: 
I wish he had written "exacerbate" :(
Billy is far superior in his writing compared to most, so to be fair to him the Interpreter's comment section isn't really well suited for extended, lengthy discussion. Typing on ones phone on it is even worse. While I couldn't care much less Billy seems quite careful and conscientious in his writing, and it was a fairly long post that summarized much with impressive economy. Perhaps however it came to be, exasperate captures the emotion of the discussion at this point if not being the best choice to convey the intent, anyway.
Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:04 am
by _malkie
honorentheos wrote:malkie wrote: I wish he had written "exacerbate" :(
Billy is far superior in his writing compared to most, so to be fair to him the Interpreter's comment section isn't really well suited for extended, lengthy discussion. Typing on ones phone on it is even worse. While I couldn't care much less Billy seems quite careful and conscientious in his writing, and it was a fairly long post that summarized much with impressive economy. Perhaps however it came to be, exasperate captures the emotion of the discussion at this point if not being the best choice to convey the intent, anyway.
I certainly have no quarrel with the quality of Billy's writing - I agree with your comment. And I make my fair share of typos, so I really wasn't casting stones. I just find that that kind of error often jumps off the page at me.
ETA: I regret having made that comment
