Billy Shears makes a bet with Bruce Dale

[Lem]

Billy Shears and Bruce Dale have engaged in the comments section of Rasmussen's 14th episode*, and it is quite interesting.

(*Rasmussen's 14th episode, posted as a blog entry on the Interpreter's Blog, reiterates many of the same conclusions from the Dale's absurd paper-- the one in which they find that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is authentic is greater than the likelihood that the sun will rise tomorrow. Rasmussen uses the same bad math that the Dales used, and the episode is as nonsensical as his previous offerings.)

Anyway, Bruce Dale challenges Billy Spears, and Billy responds. Enjoy.

Bruce Dale on October 8, 2021 at 5:58 pm

Hi Billy,

Kyler has pointed out that he is nothing if not an optimist. I am a lot older than Kyler, so perhaps I have more experience with reality than he does. Therefore I am less of an optimist. But I am glad for Kyler’s optimism because it has motivated me to make one more optimistic invitation to you, Billy.

Our Interpreter paper from 2019 had some weaknesses, including the issue of independence of correspondences that you and Kyler have properly pointed out. Our upcoming paper will deal with the independence issue and several other important topics. That said, our 2019 Interpreter paper is, to my knowledge, the only study to date that compares evidence both for and against the Book of Mormon based on the work of an avowed skeptic of the Book of Mormon, Dr. Michael Coe.

Furthermore, our study analyzed, within a Bayesian statistical framework, this large body of evidence both for and against the Book of Mormon, so as to provide a quantitative answer to the question: “Is the Book of Mormon an authentic ancient document or is it a work of fiction?” Once again, I am not aware of anyone who has attempted to do something like that for the Book of Mormon.

As I mentioned in a previous comment, the existence (or not) of those correspondences is the critical issue here. And the existence (or not) of the correspondences is the issue you have declined to deal with for over two years.

How we weight the value of the evidence provided by each correspondence (or each negative point of evidence) is an important factor, but it is secondary. If you do not agree with our method of statistical analysis, then please propose and defend your own approach to weighting the evidence.

For over two years, you have successfully avoided any real engagement with the evidence summarized in our first paper. So once again, as I did over two years ago, I offer to send you a free copy of the Ninth Edition of The Maya so that you can check those 131 correspondences and see if we are making this all up or if those correspondences really do exist.

If they do not exist, then by all means expose us as a fraud.

Billy Shears on October 9, 2021 at 3:22 pm
Hi Bruce,

You said, “As I mentioned in a previous comment, the existence (or not) of those correspondences is the critical issue here.”

Yes, you said that. However, you are absolutely, positively wrong about that. The issue is most assuredly NOT whether these correspondences exist. The issue is the following two things:

1- How likely are we to see the actual evidence we have under the hypothesis the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record?
2- How likely are we to see the actual evidence we have under the hypothesis the Book of Mormon is fiction?

A reasonable estimation of the ratio of those two things is the real issue. Your infatuation with counting correspondences and your system of scoring them are a flagrant abuses of statistics. You are causing Thomas Bayes to roll in his grave. I’ve explained this to you this before in detail. I’ve provided references. Yet you continue to ignore it.

“For over two years, you have successfully avoided any real engagement with the evidence summarized in our first paper. So once again, as I did over two years ago, I offer to send you a free copy of the Ninth Edition of The Maya so that you can check those 131 correspondences and see if we are making this all up or if those correspondences really do exist.”

This is the type of comment that makes me even less optimistic than you are. Two years ago I engaged with several of your so-called correspondences in detail. In doing so, I sometimes quoted extensively from the Ninth Edition of The Maya. In fact, I copied one of those comments here (see my comments titled “On Calendars, Part 1:” and “On Calendars, Part 2:” (my engagement of this correspondence was so extensive it didn’t fit into the 5,000 character limit per post and I needed to spread it across two posts).

Now you are refusing to acknowledge that I’ve engaged with the evidence. Further, you are refusing to even acknowledge that I obviously already own a copy of that book from which I quote.

Here is my offer to you. I’ll write a 2-3 page paper explaining why your methodology is fundamentally flawed. I’ll include my real name and a brief bio with my qualifications on the bottom. You choose a qualified expert at Bayesian statistics to critique my paper. It can be anybody you choose, but he needs to be qualified. By qualified, I’m imagining a Ph.D. in math or statistics who has published about Bayesian statistics in respectable journals with statistics as its primary focus, or a Ph.D. who teaches Bayesian statistics at the graduate level. And hopefully he’ll be near the middle of his career so that he is motivated to care about his academic reputation.

I’ll pay the expert you choose to review my paper. (I’m hoping he’ll do it for about $1,000). He’ll need to write a short report and give us permission to publish it on the Internet. The report needs to answer two questions. 1- In his professional opinion, is your methodology basically sound. 2- In his professional opinion, is my critique of your methodology basically valid. The scope of this is limited to methodology (i.e. are you right when you say, “the existence (or not) of those correspondences is the critical issue here”).

If he concludes you are basically right and I’m basically wrong, I’ll need to donate $1,000 to the charity of your choice. But if he concludes I am basically right and you are basically wrong, then *you* need to donate $1,000 to the charity of my choice.

What do you think? Do you *really* want me to expose you as a fraud?

-Billy

Kyle steps in weakly, and pretty ineffectually, under the circumstances.

Kyler Rasmussen on October 9, 2021 at 8:12 pm

This feels like an odd bet to make. His paper’s been published for all to see. You, as a credentialed expert, have made your views thoroughly known where anyone reading the paper can see. I’m sure you could find people who’d agree with you, but I’m not sure why you’d need to certify that fact.

In my estimation, the best way to move the conversation forward would be to contribute to it, officially and publically. Instead of a 2-3 pager, why don’t you put together a full paper? I’m sure Dialogue would be happy to publish it. Surely with your credentials that wouldn’t be a problem, and I imagine your thoughts here would survive peer review. That would feel quite a bit more open and worthwhile than what you’re attempting here.

Just a thought.

My money's on Mr. Spears.

[Gadianton]

Dale ain't that bright, but he's too smart to take that bet.

Kyler says "I'm sure you can find people who agree with you, but I'm not sure why you'd need to certify that fact". Right, Kyler, if Billy looks hard enough he might find somebody to agree with him. lol. What a way to put it. No, Kyler, the point is, can you find anyone qualified who agrees with you?

I'm very certain why you need to certify that fact.

[Lem]

Eventually I'll probably move this to a discussion about Rasmussen's episode 14, but Billy's argument here about the Dales' analysis and Rasmussen's imitation of it is, in my professional opinion, absolutely accurate. Within the context of the bet, it is unimpeachable evidence that the Dale/Rasmussen analyses do not rise to the level of what is required of an academic paper.

Billy Shears on October 7, 2021 at 9:07 am

I was accused of making an “unsubstantiated claim of bias” in regards to the Dale & Dale paper, so for the interested reader, I’d like to go ahead and substantiate it.

In this episode, Rasmussen claims that the Dales limiting their work to correspondences and anachronisms that could be found specifically in the Maya is “commendable.” I disagree—this is a systematic bias that by itself would be enough to discredit the entire endeavor (but it’s also mainly a [moot] point, because as far as I can tell, not a single one of the so-called correspondences has a likelihood ratio as strong as what they claim).

Why is this a systematic bias? Because a book about the Maya simply shouldn’t be expected to talk about things that aren’t a part of Mayan history or culture. It shouldn’t be expected to say things like, “The Mayans weren’t Christians. The Mayans didn’t record records on gold plates. The Mayans didn’t divide their society into a group of white Nephites and dark Lamanites. The Mayans didn’t quote Isaiah in their sacred books…”

Because the Maya talks about positive things rather than negative things, the methodology is fundamentally biased towards finding positive correspondences.

That is my hypothesis. Can it be tested? Yes. We can apply their methodology to a book that everybody concedes isn’t about the Maya. If their methodology is valid, their methodology should conclusively prove that the book really isn’t about the Maya. If their methodology is invalid, it could indicate that it is likely the non-Mayan book *is* about the Maya.

Here is the test. When the Dales applied their methodology to View of the Hebrews, the positive correspondences outweighed the negative ones. Using a pure frequentist approach, their methodology of selecting evidence and their weighting of the evidence indicates that we can be 98.46% certain that View of the Hebrews is about the Mayan. That is what *their* analysis of the evidence *they* selected says!!! The likelihood of View of the Hebrews being about the Maya is 98.46%.

It’s important to keep in mind that the View of the Hebrews is only 227 pages long. If it were 800 pages long and the ratio between positive and negative correspondences persisted, we would be 99.99996% sure the book was Mayan.

Since we know the View of the Hebrews really isn’t about the Maya, this proves their methodology of selecting and weighting evidence is flawed. They obfuscate this fact by multiplying the likelihood ratio by an arbitrarily high skeptical prior, but this is irrelevant to the point—irrespective of the a priori belief, the likelihood of View of the Hebrews being Mayan is 0%, not 98.46%. A methodology that indicates View of the Hebrews is likely Mayan is fundamentally and systematically flawed.

QED

[Lem]

The most ridiculous thing I think I have ever seen someone who is trying to publish a statistical analysis complain about....

Kyler Rasmussen [to Billy Shears] on October 9, 2021 at 9:08 am

You seem to have a strange penchant for rule following....

Unbelievable.

[Dr Moore]

A second monetary challenge to team Bayes! I hope Bruce will accept.

If I’m not mistaken, Bruce has now, via Kyler’s post thread at Interpreter, admitted to deep flaws in regards to statistical independence in his own 2019 paper. I mean wow . . . if that shouldn’t be grounds for a retraction and back-to-the-drawing-board edit with tighter peer review by folks who know the science, then what is?

And… Bruce’s counter to justify his deeply flawed paper? That anachronisms might also not be statistically independent. Well, duh. that's what happens when you have a sample set that all share a single correlated, causal factor (Joseph Smith and his ideas and beliefs about the Indians).

[Philo Sofee]

The most ridiculous thing I think I have ever seen someone who is trying to publish a statistical analysis complain about....

Kyler Rasmussen [to Billy Shears] on October 9, 2021 at 9:08 am

You seem to have a strange penchant for rule following....

Unbelievable.

This just makes my day! Yeah, this particular methodology of following the rules of academic respectability and logical validity in statistics is most certainly not what Mormons want to do! This is HILARIOUS!!! Thanks for this golden gem Lem.

[Philo Sofee]

You know, those bastards who keep beating me at chess follow the rules too, and they MAKE me do the same! Just WHO do they think they are??? I ought to be able to just checkmate them and win for crying out loud. What is all this nonsense of playing chess by following the rules? I ***AM*** the world champion dammit. It is irrelevant if I follow the rules, playing chess my way I CANNOT be defeated! I win. That's the truth, that is all that matters. Chess is a great game, and I am very, very, VERY GOOD at it, so long as I can play it MY way and not worry about following the rules. I hereby CHALLENGE Kyler Rasmussen to a chess game!!!

[Lem]

This argument is absurd,

“It’s important to keep in mind that the View of the Hebrews is only 227 pages long.”

Now this is a claim that actually has some substance to it–the idea that longer books that favor certain kinds of correspondences systematically overestimate the probability of producing them by chance, when compared to smaller books, assuming the ratio of negative to positive correspondences remained constant. That’s an idea worth examining.

Of course, the assumption that the ratio would remain constant may not hold. If Ethan Smith left behind his (poorly conducted) research on Indigenous peoples and just started to pontificate incoherently for another 600 pages, would that ratio hold? Probably not.

Note that in the bolded part, Rasmussen rules out a comparison of items of different length by using ratios instead of absolutes with a “probably not.” Because it would not fit the conclusions he wants.

However, in Rasmussen’s previous episode, he relies on EXACTLY that technique to compare inverted TTR counts in items of different length. He even makes a chart for it, and then uses it to support his conclusions.

So, “probably not” works to rule out evidence that doesn’t support his hypothesis, but he replaces “probably not” with “it absolutely will and here’s a chart” when he thinks it will support his hypothesis.

Who needs peer review when the author states outright the biased methodologies he uses to support the conclusion he wants?

[Lem]

You know, those bastards who keep beating me at chess follow the rules too, and they MAKE me do the same! Just WHO do they think they are??? I ought to be able to just checkmate them and win for crying out loud. What is all this nonsense of playing chess by following the rules? I ***AM*** the world champion dammit. It is irrelevant if I follow the rules, playing chess my way I CANNOT be defeated! I win. That's the truth, that is all that matters. Chess is a great game, and I am very, very, VERY GOOD at it, so long as I can play it MY way and not worry about following the rules. I hereby CHALLENGE Kyler Rasmussen to a chess game!!!

Love it.

[Physics Guy]

You know, those bastards who keep beating me at chess follow the rules too, and they MAKE me do the same! Just WHO do they think they are??? I ought to be able to just checkmate them and win for crying out loud. What is all this nonsense of playing chess by following the rules?

I was going to quote this, then I felt embarrassed, but then Lem expressed the same thought and I felt empowered. I’m no good at chess—at all—but it’s a fine proxy for all the subjects with objectively fair rules.