Answering Daniel C. Peterson’s call for assistance!

[Tom]

Dr. Peterson quotes the following from page four of Evidence of the Afterlife:

By scientifically studying the more than 1,300 cases shared with NDERF [by the time the book was written, more than a decade ago], I believe that the nine lines of evidence presented in this book all converge on one central point: There is life after death.

The convergence of several lines of evidence — like the nine presented in this book — builds a much stronger case than only a single line of evidence.

For example, suppose we had only two lines of NDE evidence. We may not be 100 percent convinced that these two lines of evidence prove an afterlife, but perhaps each line of evidence by itself is 90 percent convincing. Combined, these two lines of evidence by mathematical calculation are 99 percent convincing that the afterlife exists.

I just took a look at page four. What follows on the page is intriguing:

Given how complex it is to mathematically analyze only two lines of evidence, imagine how mind-boggling it would be to mathematically analyze all nine lines of NDE evidence. Fortunately, that won't be necessary. The [Near Death Experience Research Foundation] website includes a custom-designed form that automatically performs these mathematical equations.

Well, that's a relief. I was never very good at math. To continue from page four:

This website wizardry allows you to calculate for yourself how strongly you believe the nine lines of evidence prove the existence of an afterlife. You can also see the results obtained from every other person who has completed this form.

The book provides the URL: http://www.nderf.org/afterlife. Apparently, there are now twelve lines of evidence, but no matter. I invite all interested parties to visit the website and experience the wizardry for yourself.

Let me quote from the site's explanation of how the Afterlife Calculator works:

There are multiple lines of NDE evidence suggesting the existence of an afterlife. Many people find it difficult to assess the totality of these multiple lines of evidence in determining the strength of the totality of overall NDE evidence in proving the existence of an afterlife.

An example of this is as follows. Suppose there were only two independent lines of NDE evidence suggesting an afterlife. Further, assume that each one of these lines of evidence individually had a 50% probability that it proved the existence of an afterlife. Many people would consider that the two lines of NDE evidence, each with a 50% probability of proving the afterlife, would mean that the combination of the two lines of evidence suggests a 50% probability of the NDE evidence proving an afterlife. However, this is not true. This may be illustrated as follows. The two hypothetical lines of evidence may be called Evidence1 and Evidence2. The four possible outcomes are:

Afterlife Proven Afterlife Not Proven
Evidence1 Yes No
Evidence2 Yes No

For both lines of NDE evidence, another way of listing the four possible combinations are:

Evidence1, Afterlife Proven: Yes AND Evidence2, Afterlife Proven: Yes
Evidence1, Afterlife Proven: Yes AND Evidence2, Afterlife Proven: No
Evidence1, Afterlife Proven: No AND Evidence2, Afterlife Proven: Yes
Evidence1, Afterlife Proven: No AND Evidence2, Afterlife Proven: No

Of the above four possibilities, the afterlife would be considered proven with the first three combinations. This is true because there is a Yes response to at least one of the two lines of evidence. Only the last combination, with a No response to both lines of evidence would suggest the afterlife is not proven. Thus, if there are two lines of NDE evidence, each with a 50% probability of proving an afterlife, the combination of the two lines of evidence gives a three out of four, or 75% probability that an afterlife is proven.

The mathematical formula that determines the percentage probability that the afterlife is considered proven by N independent lines of NDE evidence, is:

100 x {(1-N1)*(1-N2)*(1-N3)...*(NN)} %

Let me know your results. Here are mine:

The percentage chance that there IS an afterlife, based on your selected data is: 21.53%
The percentage chance that there is NOT an afterlife is: 78.47%

This means afterlife is only weakly suggested by evidence

I selected 2% for all twelve concepts.

[Dr Exiled]

Seems like a waste of time to me. Suppose DCP finds proof of an afterlife, now what? Therefore Mormonism? Not so fast. Just because we might continue on doesn't prove anything regarding what is there once we get there. Why not spend time living in the present instead of worrying what lies beyond? DCP will find out soon enough.

This brings up another question: why the obsession? Is it due to a lack of faith? DCP is on in years and perhaps he is contemplating the question "is there really something beyond?" more and more as he gets closer. Perhaps he is contemplating this question more "Is Mormonism really true?" Are feelings enough proof?

DCP, don't fear death good buddy. I'm sure you'll be fine regardless of the nonsense you've pushed these many years.

[dastardly stem]

Did that just ask someone to estimate the probability that an afterlife exists given someone imagines there's an afterlife?

"I had an experience and I imagined an afterlife".

"My God, that's good reason to think there's an afterlife."

[Dr Moore]

Wonderful post, DrStak.

Mopologetics, and Interpreter in particular, has celebrated efforts to project qualitative historical perspectives onto the plane of statistical analysis. Predictably, with incredible outcomes, such as the likelihood of a collection of Mormonism's historical claims being untrue coming in similar to the odds of winning the PowerBall Jackpot anywhere from twice in a row (Gee) to 5 times in a row (Rasmussen) to 13 times in a row (Dales). Those are illustrative of their efforts to multiply "independent" probabilities, within a few orders of magnitude. The Dales' Greatest Guesser orgy produced an outcome which, in other terms, argues that the odds of Joseph correctly guessing certain Lehite markers aligned with provable Maya markers comparable to selecting one atom out of all matter in the known universe on the first try (for the wonks here, that's approx 1 in 10^90 odds -- the Dales asserted net odds for Joseph's guessing Lehite = Maya in the 10^110 range). The practical interpretation of these works is to assert that these odds are akin to being "impossible," with obvious ramifications for believing readers.

But in all cases, these works casually wave off "independence," arguing that for one reason or another, this or that "thing" shouldn't be connected to each other. As if that should suffice in a valid statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, were any Mopologists honest enough to pursue the question of independence through consultation with unbiased academics (NONE OF THEM WERE), the outcome predictably would have been to throw their work in the trash. This is obvious to anyone who has taken first-year statistics. And even more obvious to folks who deal in real-world statistical considerations for a living.

I have said that the Interpreter's published works deploying Bayesian computation amount to worthless garbage. That has nothing to do with the merits of their qualitative arguments, and everything to do with their deliberate mangling of the most essential rules governing the multiplication of independent probability functions.

Hence, why I confidently offered $10,000 each to the Dales, Gee, and Rasmussen, to have their apologetic math porn audited -- peer reviewed -- by a BYU statistics professor.

None of them, not a single one, took the offer.

Interpreter retains this garbage math porn on its website.

[Marcus]

Wonderful post, DrStak.

yes!

But in all cases, these works casually wave off "independence," arguing that for one reason or another, this or that "thing" shouldn't be connected to each other. As if that should suffice in a valid statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, were any Mopologists honest enough to pursue the question of independence through consultation with unbiased academics (NONE OF THEM WERE), the outcome predictably would have been to throw their work in the trash. This is obvious to anyone who has taken first-year statistics. And even more obvious to folks who deal in real-world statistical considerations for a living.

I have said that the Interpreter's published works deploying Bayesian computation amount to worthless garbage. That has nothing to do with the merits of their qualitative arguments, and everything to do with their deliberate mangling of the most essential rules governing the multiplication of independent probability functions.

Hence, why I confidently offered $10,000 each to the Dales, Gee, and Rasmussen, to have their apologetic math porn audited -- peer reviewed -- by a BYU statistics professor.

None of them, not a single one, took the offer.

Interpreter retains this garbage math porn on its website.

this is a huge point. along a spectrum, full dependence means additional pieces of information have NO impact on the probability.

P(A and B) = P(A) · P(B|A); when B always occurs with A then P(B|A) = 1, therefore
P(A and B) = P(A).

Additionally, any type of dependence between A and B will always result in:

P(A and B) < p(A) x p(B).

Any refusal to consider any dependence when it is an issue can almost always be dismissed out of hand. i am curious where mopologists came upon this independence technique.

[The Stig]

Genius.

[Dr Moore]

Any refusal to consider any dependence when it is an issue can almost always be dismissed out of hand. i am curious where mopologists came upon this independence technique.

Exactly. If there is one potentially common, causal factor (such as Joseph Smith's curious mind and milieu) then it is willful ignorance to dismiss the question of independence. Intellectually bankrupt is any venue that calls itself "A Journal of ... Scholarship" yet allows such willful ignorance to be featured in its pages.

[drumdude]

This is way too much reading for Dr Peterson.


Can you put it in the form of a short comment on his blog? 140 characters or less.

[DrStakhanovite]

Thank you, everyone, for the kind remarks.

Seems like a waste of time to me. Suppose DCP finds proof of an afterlife, now what? Therefore Mormonism?

I think this is largely motivated to defeat naturalism and/or physicalism with the added bonus of the “feel good” narratives that often come with these stories. A dry analytical discussion about the philosophy of mind isn’t going to have wide appeal to it and no obvious pastoral applications.

Also, the NDE community is fairly welcoming and pluralistic in nature. Mormons are not gonna stand out in that crowd or be looked upon as being weird, but if DCP were to show up at a traditional apologetics convention held by another denomination, it would be a different story. I imagine Daniel was enthusiastically welcomed and made to feel at home, which only encouraged further pursuit.

I’ve hung out with Flat Earth advocates before and once they see that you are not there to debunk them, but are just genuinely curious about what they believe, they can be really fun company.

Any refusal to consider any dependence when it is an issue can almost always be dismissed out of hand. i am curious where mopologists came upon this independence technique.

Probability theory went through a popularity surge about a decade or so ago and there was a veritable tsunami of introductory videos and articles explaining the basics and demonstrating real world application of it. Eventually Mopologists decided to capitalize on the trend after it had ran its course and we started seeing it crop up in the usual venues.

I think people get seduced by the use of algebra because it gives the impression of objective detachment, precision, and rigor. Of course the reality is far different from that, but finding new ways to visualize abstractions and map relationships is always fun. Tempering one’s enthusiasm for a new conceptual toy isn’t the easiest thing to do either.

I often have to remind myself that the kind of mopologetic material that Daniel puts out isn’t designed for people like you or I, so they don’t even bother to conceal how sloppy they are in application. Once the average consumer of mopologetics starts seeing variables and equations, they mentally check out until the big reveal when their beliefs are reaffirmed.

Can you put it in the form of a short comment on his blog? 140 characters or less

Honestly, if I was able to comment on his blog, I'd have skipped writing the OP and posted an abbreviated version along with a short bibliography.

[Gadianton]

I think people get seduced by the use of algebra because it gives the impression of objective detachment, precision, and rigor.

I think part of that seduction is that once you know how the mechanics of the math works for a couple examples, you can plug your own scenario into the math and be right about anything you want. But it only works for stupid or evil people. Normal people realize anyone can justify anything the same way.

What if there's a person on this forum who thinks DCP is a jerk, and there is only a 10% chance they're right? Now let's say elsewhere outside this forum, there are 9 more witnesses from 9 forums who all think DCP is a jerk, but only 10% chance each is correct. Looks like he's a jerk without even needing to look for the witnesses.

Oh, he thinks 10% is an exaggeration? How about 1%? Would DCP really say that nobody in the world who thinks he's a jerk has enough credibility to have a 1% possibility of being right?

Well, unfortunately for him, a lot of people know who he is, and out of the thousands and thousands of folks who have read his online works or taken his class, or been in his ward -- certainly a mere 70 with the same credibility of the hypothetically admitted case also have a 1% chance of being right.