Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by doubtingthomas »

At the beginning of a new video, Kipping defends the idea that "Wow" was an alien signal. Kipping debunks criticisms and makes a very compelling case for the "Wow" extraterrestrial hypothesis. I was initially very impressed, I thought "Wow" had to be of alien origin.

But in the second half of the video, Kipping talks about a new statistical model he created. Using his rigorous analysis, Kipping concludes there is only a 1 in 50 chance "Wow" was an alien signal. In other words, the Wow signal was probably nothing.

References
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6rPNPVQp0Y
Kipping, D. & Gray, R. (2022), "Could the “Wow” signal have originated from a stochastic repeating beacon?", MNRAS

Kipping's video reminds me how easy it is to defend Mormonism and Christianity. You don't have to be very smart to make a "compelling" case for utter nonsense. If only apologists knew how to do a careful analysis.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by Philo Sofee »

That was stellar. (GRIN!)...

On a serious note, that was really groovy and the first time I have heard of the WOW signal. What a terrific video on it, and the use and powerful use of statistics to lead us in the correct direction. Thank you for sharing something so educational, uplifting, maddening, and hopeful.
I predict if someone does pick up the cudgel and carry it all the way through, it will end up not being a WOW signal of significance, meaning, it would not be the alien signal we are looking for.
hauslern
Valiant B
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by hauslern »

How relevant would statistics be to interpreting the hypocephalus?
It seems both Skousen and Givens have given up on accepting Smith'sinterpretations and they did not need stats.
"Hi Noel
My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

Warm regards
Terryl"


Nibley spent a lot of time attacking the Breasted et all scholars. They have been in my opinion somewhat right.

Who remembers the Jockers et all study on spalding and the Book of Mormon? I see DanP mentions spalding theory on his blog.

canonized scripture.
Definition of canonize
transitive verb

1: to declare (a deceased person) an officially recognized saint
2: to make canonical
3: to sanction by ecclesiastical authority
4: to attribute authoritative sanction or approval to
5: to treat as illustrious, preeminent, or sacred
his mother had canonized all his timidities as common sense
— Scott Fitzgerald
hauslern
Valiant B
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by hauslern »

Tamas Mekis author of THE book on hypocephalus responded to the views of Givens and Skousens. "It was good to read that even within the church of LDS there are scholars like Terryl Givens who do not want to prove the truth of the Book of Abraham. I liked his viewpoint: "Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with. As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture." He may be right about that, papyri are part of the history of the church and there will be always Muhlsteins in the history who defend Joseph Smith's viewpoint, but again it was reassuring that Mormon scholars like Terryl Givens accept that the original content of the papyri are completely different from what Joseph Smith "translated".email to me 21/6
drumdude
God
Posts: 2233
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by drumdude »

All the lipstick in the world won’t change the fact that the book of Abraham is a pig. And we will have generations of LDS apologists continue to kiss that thing and try to convince the world they aren’t kissing a pig.

John Gee’s incredibly strained and unhappy face says it all. He’s wasted a lifetime career out of putting ungodly amounts of rouge on that hog. Just so that the rest of the world can make a mockery of his feeble attempts.
User avatar
Rivendale
1st Counselor
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by Rivendale »

drumdude wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:06 pm
All the lipstick in the world won’t change the fact that the book of Abraham is a pig. And we will have generations of LDS apologists continue to kiss that thing and try to convince the world they aren’t kissing a pig.

John Gee’s incredibly strained and unhappy face says it all. He’s wasted a lifetime career out of putting ungodly amounts of rouge on that hog. Just so that the rest of the world can make a mockery of his feeble attempts.
Even Jim Bennett has taken pareidolia to a new level with the book of Abraham. Using apologetics like disappearing written languages. Or my favorite, secret Nostradamus patterns that only Joseph could see. John Gee's face can be juxtaposed against Brian Hauglid's to see a true release of internal struggle.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by Philo Sofee »

hauslern wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:36 am
How relevant would statistics be to interpreting the hypocephalus?
It seems both Skousen and Givens have given up on accepting Smith'sinterpretations and they did not need stats.
"Hi Noel
My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

Warm regards
Terryl"


Nibley spent a lot of time attacking the Breasted et all scholars. They have been in my opinion somewhat right.

Who remembers the Jockers et all study on spalding and the Book of Mormon? I see DanP mentions spalding theory on his blog.

canonized scripture.
Definition of canonize
transitive verb

1: to declare (a deceased person) an officially recognized saint
2: to make canonical
3: to sanction by ecclesiastical authority
4: to attribute authoritative sanction or approval to
5: to treat as illustrious, preeminent, or sacred
his mother had canonized all his timidities as common sense
— Scott Fitzgerald
Interesting note form Terryl Noel! Thanks for sharing. This will be worth at least a mention in a future video...
hauslern
Valiant B
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by hauslern »

Do you think Smith would have been aware that the hypocephalus was not unique that there were many others with the same registers?
Chap
God
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by Chap »

hauslern wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:36 am

[...]

canonized scripture.
Definition of canonize
transitive verb

1: to declare (a deceased person) an officially recognized saint
2: to make canonical
3: to sanction by ecclesiastical authority
4: to attribute authoritative sanction or approval to
5: to treat as illustrious, preeminent, or sacred
his mother had canonized all his timidities as common sense
— Scott Fitzgerald
I am not sure why you have chosen to bold those two senses. In talking about a piece of scripture, it is surely absolutely clear that there is only one sense in which the word can properly be thought to be used in the context of the present discussion, and that is sense five in the Oxford English Dictionary, referring to the process by which a church recognises a text as belonging to the group of texts which it proclaims to be scripture containing divinely authorised doctrine or revelation.
5. To make canonical; to admit into the Canon of Scripture, or (transferred) of authoritative writings.
1382 [implied in: Bible (Wycliffite, L.V.) James Prol. Not the same ordre is at Greekis..of the seuen epistoelis that ben clepid canonysid. (at canonized adj.)].
1593 T. Nashe Christs Teares 38 b Canonizing such a multifarious Genealogie of Comments.
1595 Polimanteia (1881) 36 To canonize your owne writers.
1645 J. Ussher Body of Divinitie 5.
1657 J. Cosin Scholast. Hist. Canon Script. ii. 14 They canonized the Books of the Maccabees.
1872 O. Shipley Gloss. Eccl. Terms 86 Apocryphal books..were not canonized.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
¥akaSteelhead
Star A
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:33 pm

Re: Statistical models vs "compelling" arguments and apologetics

Post by ¥akaSteelhead »

“All models are wrong, but some are useful”. George EP Box
Post Reply