Another piece of Rasmussen’s statistical process is so ridiculous I can’t even imagine how he can mean it seriously.

Rasmussen wrote:
Regardless, we have what we need to wrap up our analysis.

Before we do, though, we’ll need to consider how to incorporate the findings from the Cranney article, which found that chiasmus and parallelism were much more likely to be found in Book of Mormon texts that would’ve been delivered orally than in its written texts.

The main question here is one of independence—would we expect the frequency of chiasmus in a text (as indicated by the TTR) to be independent of how those texts are distributed within the text? Hopefully this is something on which reasonable people can agree—merely inserting more instances of chiasmus into a text should have nothing to do with putting those instances in the right spots and in the right context—in fact, doing so naïvely might lead to those instances being scattered indiscriminately through the text.

If so, then these two pieces of evidence can be considered to be independent, and we can incorporate that evidence by multiplying the p-value calculated by Cranney (p = .000016) by the p-value for the TTR comparison that we’ve calculated here (p = 3.14 x 10-10). That would leave us with a final consequent probability estimate of p = 5.02 x 10-15.

So, Rasmussen is testing the hypothesis,

*”Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is due to ancient writing patterns and techniques.”*
He finds a posterior probability: p = 3.14 x 10*-10.

He then goes to a different (non-Bayesian) study with this hypothesis:

*” texts intended for oral presentation [in the B of M] have a statistically higher percentage of parallelized (that is, poetic) material than do texts meant to be read.”*
Here are the results of this study, which are UNRELATED to his hypothesis:

I find a relationship that is statistically significant to the 0.000016 level.

In other words, there is less than a 1 in 50,000 chance that this relationship occurred by chance.

Here’s the link to the Chaney paper he is referring to:

https://www.academia.edu/12176915/The_D ... _of_Mormon
Rasmussen’s then takes that p= 0.000016, FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERERENT STUDY WITH AN UNRELATED HYPOTHESIS, and incorporates it into his hypothesis results! He simply multiplies it by his results, to get a final, and completely bogus posterior probability that he attributes to HIS hypothesis testing, of p = 5.02 x 10-15.

This little cheat is what boosts his order of magnitude to a 14. Without it, his (still Bogus) results would get him only 9 orders of magnitude change. More than a third of this episode’s magnitude change came from this tacked on nonsense.

Come on. This is ridiculous. Even Peterson has to ask a few questions about the legitimacy of this.