Yet another paper Mopologists will ignore...

[_MrStakhanovite]

From time to time I like to link to papers or publications that really have bad implications for Mormon Apologetics. What I like to show is that there are criticisms out there that are sophisticated and devastating

Here is the download, and this is the abstract:

Under what conditions is the failure to have evidence that p, evidence that p is false? Absent evidence reasoning is common in many sciences, including astronomy, archeology, biology and medicine. An often-repeated epistemological motto is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Analysis of absent evidence reasoning usually takes place in a deductive or frequentist hypothesis-testing framework. Instead, a Bayesian analysis of this motto is explored and it is shown that, under plausible assumptions about the nature of evidence, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Will LDS Apologists at the top tiers acknowledge these types of papers and offer a response? Could Bill Hamblin or DCP ever hope to deal with this kind of analysis if say, a critic brought it to Sunstone?

Doubtful.

[_Morley]

Thanks.

[_TAO]

Stak, Bayesian Reasoning is not the end all of reasoning. You have to look into epistemology after that (philosophy of knowledge and justification) in order to tell whether Bayesian Reasoning would even be a strong factor in belief in the first place.

In addition, the argument in this paper is kind of an invalid argument form. For example, if we were to apply it to an often debated subject:
[p]There are supporting archeological artifacts, [q]Nephite Civilization Existed
p->q (If there are supporting archeological artifacts, Nephite civilization existed)
~p (There are no supporting archeological artifacts)
:. ~q (Therefore Nephite Civilization did not exist)
That's invalid because q is not exclusively the result of p.

In other words, a lack of artifacts does not exclusively lead to the conclusion that Nephite civilization did not exist. Furthermore, on an issue of likeliness, this becomes an even stronger invalid because we are limited on what we can suppose is a 'Nephite' artifact, because we haven't ever actually determined if one is (in other words, it's all based on inference). Because of this, there is literally an infinite possible list of permutations and possibilities that can be overlooked; you can't search for something if you don't know what it looks like.

Then we get to the epistemological issues (subjectivity of truth, pragmaticism, etc) and things get more messy from there. =P

In any case, even if we accept the study as accurate, ultimately, I don't think this will really change apologetic very much... because both sides make the mistake you are describing and neither really wants to stop.

[_Darth J]

Because of this, there is literally an infinite possible list of permutations and possibilities that can be overlooked; you can't search for something if you don't know what it looks like.

Yes, if only the Book of Mormon were to describe Nephite civilization in some way: their weapons, livestock, buildings, religious practices, system of government, racial origins, technology.......we have no idea what to even look for!

And it just goes without saying that there are infinite possibilities. Maybe the Nephites had airplanes. Or laser guns. Perhaps they domesticated dinosaurs, or used nuclear reactors to power their underwater cities. The possibilities are literally infinite!

[_Darth J]

Then we get to the epistemological issues (subjectivity of truth, pragmaticism, etc) and things get more messy from there. =P

There are some historians who swear up and down that there was an ancient civilization in Assyria, but isn't that really just a matter of opinion?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Stak

TAO (Welcome back to the board by the way)

Bayesian Reasoning is not the end all of reasoning.

It’s a big topic in modern Anglophone Philosophy, if Mormon Apologists want to offer a real defense of their faith, they need to engage it.

In addition, the argument in this paper is kind of an invalid argument form.

That is most certainly not the argument presented in the paper.

[_asbestosman]

I think apologists could even use this to their advantage. For example. They might use it to claim that since none of the 3 witnesses ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon, this is evidence that their testimony is true--or at least that they believe it.

By the way, I am a fan of Bayesian Reasoning--at least from an applied mathematics point of view. I'm not so sure I've read much of the philosophical discussion around it. Personally I like to augment Bayesian reasoning by weighing the probabilities of the outcomes with the consequences of various options. This works great for engineering, but isn't quite the same as deciding what is the most likely outcome or range of outcomes.

[Guest]

It takes little more than a simple thought experiment to realize the falsity of the old "absence of evidence" schtick. Let's say we want to determine if someone's been living in my house while I was away on vacation. We check the fridge, and none of the food has been moved. We check the phone and electric bills, and there are no charges for the period in question. We check the toilet paper supplies, and none has been used. We check for fingerprints, and find none. Would any reasonable person really conclude that none of these observations constitute evidence of absence? There are certain things we'd simply expect to see if someone had been living in my house, and if we don't see those things then it must be considered improbable (though not impossible) that someone was living there.

It seems patently obvious to me that the statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is false in any case where p can be expected to follow from q with a fairly high degree of probability. I think what Carl Sagan (the originator of this quote) meant to say was that "absence of proof is not proof of absence."

[_Chap]

I wonder if there are any other posters here who are wondering what the hell Bayesian reasoning really IS? Or worse perhaps, who are thinking to themselves 'Each time I look it up I understand, then I forget. Do I have to go through the math again, or just admit I am too dumb?'.

Well, there is hope! But first, why should you care about Bayesian reasoning? After all, it is not necessary to your salvation, is it? Well it might be. Here is an example (sorry, but this is not a very mormonized example)

After you die, you arrive in front of St Peter, who has to make the choice as to where you go. However, he has a new game that enables you to play a role in the choice! There are three gates, numbered 1, 2 and 3. One gate leads to heaven, the other two to hell.

The rules, he explains, are as follows:

1. You choose a gate and tell him which you have chosen, but he does not open it.
2. He then opens one of the other gates you did not choose, always selecting one that leads to hell (you get to see the flames and stuff ...).
3. You then have to choose which of the two unopened gates you want to go through ... how do you do it?

Common sense reasoning says you should just toss a coin, because one of the two unopened gates must lead to heaven, and it seems equally likely that either one of the two unopened gates could be the one you want.

BUT COMMON SENSE IS WRONG!

In fact it is TWICE as likely that the the unopened gate that you did NOT choose is the one that goes to heaven. So you should ALWAYS change the gate you choose to the previously unchosen gate that St Peter did not open. Of course it may still lead to hell ... but you can't win 'em all.

So all of us need to understand Bayesian reasoning, don't we, if only to see how wrong our intuitive sense of 'likelihood' can be in the real world.

If you go to Wikipedia, you will be dropped right into the math, and may drown. But here is an excellent site that gives you a really clear and intuitive explanation of how it works out. Have a look ...

[_Chap]

It takes little more than a simple thought experiment to realize the falsity of the old "absence of evidence" schtick. Let's say we want to determine if someone's been living in my house while I was away on vacation. We check the fridge, and none of the food has been moved. We check the phone and electric bills, and there are no charges for the period in question. We check the toilet paper supplies, and none has been used. We check for fingerprints, and find none. Would any reasonable person really conclude that none of these observations constitute evidence of absence? There are certain things we'd simply expect to see if someone had been living in my house, and if we don't see those things then it must be considered improbable (though not impossible) that someone was living there.

None the less, it could still be that someone was there who carefully avoided doing anything that might leave a trace of their passage ... but after all, this kind of reasoning is not being used in a secular way. What we have is typically someone like the late lamented stemelbow, who says:

1. I have a strong faith-based testimony that the Book of Mormon peoples did live in ancient America.

2. The fact that no evidence to support this claim has yet been discovered admittedly does not support my belief - but on the other hand, so long as it remains at least borderline possible, in the sense of not being ruled out by the laws of logic, that there were Nephites who have not yet been discovered, I can retain my faith. You can never, after all prove with 100% mathematical certaintly that there can't have been any Nephites.