Yet another paper Mopologists will ignore...

[_sock puppet]

there is literally an infinite possible list of permutations and possibilities...

This type of a statement always triggers from my memory the pot smoking scene from Animal House

Pinto, the freshman pledge: [to Professor Jennings, while high] Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. [Jennings nods] This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
Professor Jennings: Could be one little tiny universe.
Pinto: Could I buy some pot from you?

I can envision in my mind's eye--Featherstone's visual aid--how pot smoking as a group would help them reinforce this notion that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Hamblin: [to Professor Midgley, while high] Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of God. [Professor Midgley nods] This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
Professor Midgley: Could be one little tiny universe of Nephites.
Hamblin: Could I buy some pot from you?

[_Aristotle Smith]

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.

I don't think Bayesian analysis will affect Mormon apologetics much at all. Bayesian analysis requires a couple of things that I don't think the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS have ever really done. First, it requires you to actually have a hypothesis about some states of affairs. Second, it requires you to be able to rationally decide what counts as evidence given that hypothesis. If you don't have both of these, you can't really do a Bayesian analysis of a given situation.

Take the Book of Abraham for instance. What is an actual coherent hypothesis about the Book of Abraham that the apologists are actually willing to state? They'll throw out a ton of explanations, many of which are mutually contradictory, but they won't actually give a coherent hypothesis. But even more telling, what counts as actual evidence in favor of the Book of Abraham, given the hypothesis? Pretty much anything, because practically anything counts as evidence when you claim half a dozen or so competing hypothesis are the hypothesis. Likewise, what would count as negative evidence, given the hypothesis? Pretty much nothing for the same reason.

[_LDSToronto]

That's not very good when applied to real life, ya' know =P.

That assume several things. First, is that there is only one heaven/hell gate. That isn't a very real-life scenario. Second, your game includes the choice in it's scenario (you are guaranteed that one gate you choose is hell) meaning that you have an effect. Also not very real-life scenario. The best thing you can do is try to psychoanalyze St. Peter, in which you could learn something that might help you.

In normal scenarios, you don't get the limited choices (such as one heaven, two hell) or the effect in the choice (a gate that isn't yours is one of the hells) to help you.

This is also known as the Monty Hall problem, named after the host of "Let's Make a Deal". Chap was simply illustrating with an analogy. If it helps, think about choosing prizes behind the doors - two doors have goats behind them, one door has a car.

H

[_asbestosman]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There is no known fast algorithm for computing the discrete logarithm. However, this is not necessarily evidence that such an algorithm does not exist.

Stated mathematically, if P(A&B) is approximately P(A)*P(B), then Bayes' theorem tells us squat (if Probability of A and Probability of B are more or less independent events).

Other outs for apologists would include their calculated probabilities conditioned on their existing faith (based in turn on other personal experiences). In that case Bayesian analysis would give them a higher probability than it would for critics since critics reject that faith--or at least don't agree about what probabilities should be assigned to the various experiences and probabilistic inferences.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Are images still blocked on the board? I'm trying to post some images, but it keeps telling me they may only be up to 735 pixels wide. They're only 600.

[_mfbukowski]

Well I know you are all much smarter than I am about all these things, but I am just wondering how one would analyze this statement:

"Mormonism is the best religion for me."

Or for that matter:

"Susie is the best girl for me"

Or for that matter

"Gay people should be able to get married."

Oh and while you are teaching me, please tell me what you (plural) think of Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge? I was thinking about reading it, if you don't think it would be too hard for me, or hurt my testimony too much.

[_Chap]

Well I know you are all much smarter than I am about all these things, but I am just wondering how one would analyze this statement:

"Mormonism is the best religion for me."

Or for that matter:

"Susie is the best girl for me"

Or for that matter

"Gay people should be able to get married."

Oh and while you are teaching me, please tell me what you (plural) think of Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge? I was thinking about reading it, if you don't think it would be too hard for me, or hurt my testimony too much.

Your post seems to have nothing to do with the OP, which was about the use of Bayesian statistics to deal with the proposition that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Derail? I think so.

[_mfbukowski]

I don't think Bayesian analysis will affect Mormon apologetics much at all. Bayesian analysis requires a couple of things that I don't think the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS have ever really done. First, it requires you to actually have a hypothesis about some states of affairs. Second, it requires you to be able to rationally decide what counts as evidence given that hypothesis. If you don't have both of these, you can't really do a Bayesian analysis of a given situation.

But is this a derail then too? Now I am very confused.

I thought the thread was about if Bayesian analysis had anything to do with Mormonism and proving it true.

Silly me! I guess you were right.

This thread has nothing to do with the truth of Mormonism, so I guess I was mistaken. Sorry for the derail, continue talking about evidence of absence or whatever

[_Runtu]

But is this a derail then too? Now I am very confused.

I thought the thread was about if Bayesian analysis had anything to do with Mormonism and proving it true.

Silly me! I guess you were right.

This thread has nothing to do with the truth of Mormonism, so I guess I was mistaken. Sorry for the derail, continue talking about evidence of absence or whatever

I like you a lot more when you aren't this snarky.

[_LDSToronto]

Well I know you are all much smarter than I am about all these things, but I am just wondering how one would analyze this statement:

"Mormonism is the best religion for me."

Or for that matter:

"Susie is the best girl for me"

Or for that matter

"Gay people should be able to get married."

Oh and while you are teaching me, please tell me what you (plural) think of Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge? I was thinking about reading it, if you don't think it would be too hard for me, or hurt my testimony too much.

My god, stemelbow has taken possession of mfbukowski's account! Welcome back, stemelbrow!

H.