The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Lemmie »

So Brian Dale responded to Mr. Blanco's posting of my analysis.

I only got this far:
At no point did we assume P(B|~A) = 1 nor P(B|A)=1. Those would have led to likelihood ratios of 0 or infinity, neither of which were permitted by design.


But technically, Likelihood ratios, by definition, have a range from 0 to infinity.

The Dale paper, by design, is preventing that. In other words, they cherry picked their data, cherry picked their ratio values, and mis-used the definition of independent events.
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Water Dog »

Gadianton wrote:could you, or physics guy, or lemmie, maybe analytics, I don't know about his field, comment on the certainty published - 10 ^ 132 (Im not looking at the number exactly right now) and how often legitimate and very well respected scientific findings achieve this level of certainty?

For theoretical sciences or liberal arty type pseudo science applications such as this I have no idea, but in the applied sciences these sort of numbers are unheard of. I use Bayes a lot for signal/control and machine learning/modeling applications. Floating point precision is used for everything, so you're talking about 6-7 decimal points of precision. And when it comes to decision thresholds usually even that's way beyond what we need. Nothing is ever that certain. If a model returns extremes close to 100% beyond just a few decimal places that's a classic indicator of bias or overfitting.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _DrW »

Lemmie wrote:So Brian Dale responded to Mr. Blanco's posting of my analysis.

I only got this far:
At no point did we assume P(B|~A) = 1 nor P(B|A)=1. Those would have led to likelihood ratios of 0 or infinity, neither of which were permitted by design.


But technically, Likelihood ratios, by definition, have a range from 0 to infinity.

The Dale paper, by design, is preventing that. In other words, they cherry picked their data, cherry picked their ratio values, and mis-used the definition of independent events.

Exile wrote:Countdown to takedown? This mess really ought to be removed as I think it will cause more people to leave than stay, when the magical manipulation or delusional manipulation by these guys is discovered by a questioner. If they were after having a sciency thing that they can point to, this is not the one.

Lemmie and Exile,

Perhaps there is an opportunity here for "Mr. Blanco" to redeem himself. He would certainly have my forgiveness for his little plagiarism episode if he were to act on the following suggestions. All concerned in the Dale & Dale / Interpreter mess would be better off as well.

Since Mr. Blanco is engaged over there already, and is using information from this board for some of his content, perhaps he should be the one to convey the so-far unanimous view, reflected in more than 160 comments from contributors to this board, regarding the Dale & Dale paper.

Perhaps he should be the one to suggest to the Dales, on the Interpreter platform, that they retract their paper before the damage to their credibility, that of the Interpreter, and indeed the Mormon Church and its members, gets any worse.

As justification for this suggestion, Mr. Blanco might refer them to this thread in case they are unaware of it. He might refer to the opinion of the paper from Dr. Carrier, as posted by Meadowchick.

He might point out the number of qualified folks over here (especially you, as someone who does Bayesian for a profession). He may refer to the rest of the scientists and engineers here who are uniformly astounded that someone would seriously publish calculated outcomes from Bayesian inference in the range one in one hundred thousand billion billion.

Mr. Blanco (whoever he is) would run no risk to himself in doing so since he does not appear on this thread as a poster. In fact, something tells me that Mr. Blanco is well qualified to be the bearer of bad news in a situation like this.
_____________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Lemmie »

So the authors have indicated that when they say "statement of fact" they are considering statements that are fact, and statements that are not fact.

:rolleyes: Ok.

MrStak called that one! It doesn't change the problem, however.

If a fact is factual, call it B+, then

P(B+ | ~A) = 1

(~ means not)

This is by their new comment:
in our analysis we admit no possibility that a disagreement between the Book of Mormon and The Maya could be due to an error in The Maya. So The Maya defines the facts and the Book of Mormon statements of fact are compared to the actual facts in The Maya. This is, of course, not realistic since The Maya is not infallible, but it is an appropriate skeptical criterion.


Therefore the probability of a true fact in The Maya matching the same true fact in a factual Book of Mormon is 1. (Unless a true Book of Mormon is adding non-facts.)

Now, consider a fact that is not factual, call it B - . Then:

P(B - | ~A) = 0

The probability that a nonfact shows up in The Maya, which the authors state they assume to be all factual, and that the same nonfact also shows up in the Book of Mormon, when the Book of Mormon is assumed to be factual and true, is 0.

Also recall that only statements in the Maya and in the Book of Mormon are under consideration, plus Dr. Coe statements about things he thinks are untrue in the Book of Mormon, so by definition, any non-true Book of Mormon fact Dr. Coe discusses would by definition NOT show up in a true Book of Mormon, so the probability holds.

Therefore,

P(B | ~A ) = P(B+ | ~A) + P(B - | ~A) = P(B+ | ~A) + 0 = 1 + 0 = 1.

in other words, P(B | ~A) = 1.

Authors' comment:
At no point did we assume P(B|~A) = 1...


And here's why, also from authors:

Those would have led to likelihood ratios of 0 or infinity, neither of which were permitted by design.


Exactly. And a correct likelihood ratio analysis should include both possibilities. The limit of ratios to 2, 1/2, 10, 1/10, and 50, 1/50 is completely arbitrary and biased.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _grindael »

Adam Clarke Commentary that Smith was very familiar with...

PSALM 73

That this Psalm was written during the captivity, there is little room to doubt. How then can the psalmist speak of the sanctuary? There was none at Babylon; and at Jerusalem it had been long since destroyed? There is no way to solve this difficulty but by considering that y㠏qm mikdeshey may be taken in the sense of holy places-places set apart for prayer and meditation. And that the captives had such places in them captivity, there can be no doubt; and the place that is set apart to meet God in, for prayer, supplication, confession of sin, and meditation, is holy unto the Lord; and is, therefore, his sanctuary, whether a house or the open field. Calmet thinks by holy meditations a view of the Divine secrets, to which he refers, ver. 24, is here meant. (Psalm 73, http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkepsa73.htm)


And this one, THE BOOK OF JAMES:

16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Verse 16
Confess your faults one to another - This is a good general direction to Christians who endeavor to maintain among themselves the communion of saints. This social confession tends much to humble the soul, and to make it watchful. We naturally wish that our friends in general, and our religious friends in particular, should think well of us; and when we confess to them offenses which, without this confession, they could never have known, we feel humbled, are kept from self-applause, and induced to watch unto prayer, that we may not increase our offenses before God, or be obliged any more to undergo the painful humiliation of acknowledging our weakness, fickleness, or infidelity to our religious brethren.

It is not said, Confess your faults to the Elders that they may forgive them, or prescribe penance in order to forgive them. No; the members of the Church were to confess their faults to each other; therefore auricular confession to a priest, such as is prescribed by the Romish Church, has no foundation in this passage. Indeed, had it any foundation here it would prove more than they wish, for it would require the priest to confess his sins to the people, as well as the people to confess theirs to the priest.

And pray one for another - There is no instance in auricular confession where the penitent and the priest pray together for pardon; but here the people are commanded to pray for each other that they may be healed.

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much - The words δεησις ενεργουμενη signify energetic supplication, or such a prayer as is suggested to the soul and wrought in it by a Divine energy. When God designs to do some particular work in his Church he pours out on his followers the spirit of grace and supplication; and this he does sometimes when he is about to do some especial work for an individual. When such a power of prayer is granted, faith should be immediately called into exercise, that the blessing may be given: the spirit of prayer is the proof that the power of God is present to heal. Long prayers give no particular evidence of Divine inspiration: the following was a maxim among the ancient Jews, קצדה צדיקים שתפלת the prayers of the righteous are short. This is exemplified in almost every instance in the Old Testament. (Book of James 5, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries ... mes-5.html)

This exercise of theirs is so ridiculous that it is stupifying that it was published. But Mormon Apologists are so freaking desperate to prop up the fictional Book of Mormon, I'm not surprised.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _grindael »

Did these idiots do ANY RESEARCH at all before they thought up this rubbish?

John Wesley’s Rules for the Band-Societies (drawn up Dec. 25,
1738)
The design of our meeting is, to obey that command of God,
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye
may be healed." To this end, we intend,-
1. To meet once a week, at the least.
2. To come punctually at the hour appointed, without some
extraordinary reason.
3. To begin (those of us who are present) exactly at the hour, with
singing or prayer.
4. To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of
our souls, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or
deed, and the temptations we have felt, since our last meeting.

5. To end every meeting with prayer, suited to the state of each
person present.
6. To desire some person among us; to speak his own state first, and
then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as
may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.

Some of the questions proposed to every one before he is admitted
among us may be to this effect:-
1. Have you the forgiveness of your sins?
2. Have you peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ?
3. Have you the witness of God's Spirit with your spirit, that you are
a child of God?
4. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart?
5. Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?
6. Do you desire to be told your faults?
7. Do you desire to be told of all your faults, and that plain and
home?
8. Do you desire that every one of us should tell you, from time to
time, whatsoever is in his heart concerning you?
9. Consider! Do you desire we should tell you whatsoever we think,
whatsoever we fear, whatsoever we hear, concerning you?
10. Do you desire that, in doing this, we should come as close as
possible, that we should cut to the quick, and search your heart to the
bottom?
11. Is it your desire and design to be on this, and all other occasions,
entirely open, so as to speak everything that is in your heart without
exception, without disguise, and without reserve?

*Any of the preceding questions may be asked as often as occasion
offers; the four following at every meeting:-
1. What known sins have you committed since our last meeting?
2. What temptations have you met with?
3. How were you delivered?
4. What have you thought, said, or done, of which you doubt whether
it be sin or not?

Conditions of Membership into Methodist Society:
There is one only condition previously required in those who desire
admission into these societies: a desire "to flee from the wrath to
come, to be saved from their sins:" But, wherever this is really fixed in
the soul, it will be shown by its fruits. It is therefore expected of all
who continue therein, that they should continue to evidence their
desire of salvation. Thus we say to those who unite with us:
4
You are supposed to have the faith that "overcometh the world." To
you, therefore, it is not grievous:
I. Carefully to abstain from doing evil; in particular:
1. Neither to buy nor sell anything at all on the Lord's day.
2. To taste no spirituous liquor, no dram of any kind, unless
prescribed by a Physician.
3. To be at a word both in buying and selling.
4. To pawn nothing, no, not to save life.
5. Not to mention the fault of any behind his back, and to stop those
short that do.
6. To wear no needless ornaments, such as rings, earrings,
necklaces, lace, ruffles.
7. To use no needless self-indulgence, such as taking snuff or
tobacco, unless prescribed by a Physician.
II. Zealously to maintain good works; in particular:
1. To give alms of such things as you possess, and that to the
uttermost of your power.
2. To reprove all that sin in your sight, and that in love and
meekness of wisdom.
3. To be patterns of diligence and frugality, of self-denial, and taking
up the cross daily.
III. Constantly to attend on all the ordinances of God; in particular:
1. To be at church and at the Lord's table every week, and at every
public meeting of the Bands.
2. To attend the ministry of the word every morning, unless
distance, business, or sickness prevent.
3. To use private prayer every day; and family prayer, if you are the
head of a family.
4. To read the Scriptures, and meditate therein, at every vacant hour.
And:
5. To observe, as days of fasting or abstinence, all Fridays in the year.
5
These are the General Rules of our societies; all which we are taught
of God to observe, even in his written word, the only rule, and the
sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these, we know,
his Spirit writes on every truly awakened heart. If there be any among
us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be
made known unto them who watch over that soul as they that must
give an account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways; we
will bear with him for a season: But then if he repent not, he hath no
more place among us.
We have delivered our own souls.
Wesley's Works Vol. 8. pgs 270,271,272-274.
Because the Methodist Societies were not controlled by The Church
of England some Priests from the Church opposed them and said they
were divisive. John Wesley pointed out that they were not dividing
Christians but introducing true Christian fellowship and support
where it had not been.
"But it was not long before an objection was made to this, which had
not once entered into my thought: "Is not this making a schism? Is not
the joining these people together, gathering Churches out of
Churches?" It was easily answered, If you mean only gathering people
out of buildings called churches, it is. But if you mean, dividing
Christians from Christians, and so destroying Christian fellowship, it is
not. For,
(1) These were not Christians before they were thus joined. Most of
them were barefaced Heathens.
(2) Neither are they Christians, from whom you suppose them to be
divided. You will not look me in the face and say they are. What!
drunken Christians! cheating Christians! If these are Christians at all,
they are devil Christians, as the poor Malabarians term them.
(3) Neither are they divided any more than they were before, even
from these wretched devil Christians. They are as ready as ever to
assist them, and to perform every office of real kindness towards
them.
(4) If it be said, "But there are some true Christians in the parish, and
you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them;" I
6
answer, That which never existed, cannot be destroyed. But the
fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it cannot be
destroyed. Which of these true Christians had any such fellowship
with these? Who watched over them in love? Who marked their
growth in grace? Who advised and exhorted them from time to time?
Who prayed with them and for them, as they had need? This, and this
alone, is Christian fellowship: But alas! where is it to be found? Look
east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: Is this
Christian fellowship there? Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners
a mere rope of sand? What Christian connection is there between
them? What intercourse in spiritual things? What watching over each
other's souls? What bearing of one another's burdens? What a mere
jest is it then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was? The real
truth is just the reverse of this: We introduce Christian fellowship
where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace,
joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work."
Wesley's Works Vol. 8. pgs. 251, 252-
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 09, 2019 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Dr. W,

Do we know whether CB has the chops to address any responses on technical issues? I don’t know the guy.

Also, lots of significant points have been made in this thread, but they aren’t organized. What would you think of starting a new thread in Celestial intended to organize and present these issues? The OP in the thread would end up being an organized rebuttal to the paper. It could start as a simple outline and then be fleshed out based on posts as they are made.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Gadianton »

they assign the wrong values to the facts they list. For example, Smith's knowledge of volcanism has no actual connection with Mesoamerican history.


This is what I came to believe a couple days ago. I now reject that as the fundamental issue. Yes, this is a huge problem for them, a deal breaker, but Lemmie I believe, nailed the biggest issue. The biggest question I had was, is Lemmie being a stickler on theory? I can do integrals, but I probably can't explain them very well, so if they botched the theory that doesn't mean they can't do the calculations.

Rereading Lemmie's post, it's clear the dales are using medical testing as their framework. They assign .02 or 1/50 for good, and 50 for bad. It took me about 10 minutes to read Lemmie's materials and come up with the following medical examples. Please correct errors because these are meant to be analogues of what the dales MIGHT have done, to get there .02 s and their 50 s. If my examples aren't good, we need examples that are good, so make suggestions:

(A = patient)

prob A has symptom and disease true 1
prob A has symptom and disease false .02, then LR = 50

everyone in stage 5 lung cancer has coughed up blood. a few people cough up blood but don't have cancer.

prob A has symptom and disease true .01
prob A has symptom and disease false .50, then LR = .02

a few people sneeze in the desert when stung by a scorpion. half the people sneeze in desert (allergic to sage brush?).

prob A has symptom and disease true .02,
prob A has symptom and disease false, 1, then LR = .02

a few people perspire and have a flesh eating virus. Everyone perspires even if they don't have a flesh eating virus.


After I came up with those, pretty quickly, I went to the dales examples of hits and misses. I hit a brick wall. I couldn't make heads or tails out of how to construct any of them. On the easy end of the scale would be this:

volcanoes are guessed and show up in Book of Mormon, given Book of Mormon is fiction .02
volcanoes are facts about mesoamerica anyway = 1

This would be like the flesh eating virus example. Its pointless. the denominator shouldn't be 1, but what else could it be? If the denominator is say, .8, then that means there's a 20% chance that Coe is wrong about volcanoes, and dales assume hes right. I think this is the sort of point Lemmie was making. Lowering to .8 would also decrease our confidence in the Book of Mormon.

try to make sense of a disagreement. I came up with this:

Dales give horses in the Book of Mormon the BAD LR of 50.

prob horses guessed in mesoamerica and Book of Mormon is false 1
prob horses guessed in mesoamerica and Book of Mormon is true .02 LR = 50

don't agree? then how do YOU suggest they got 50? This appears to be an outright contradiction. To get a 50 LR, you have to make contradictory assumptions about the possibility Coe is wrong.

by the way: I PMd a stats expert with this material, Im only posting what I sent; any and all stats experts are free to trash me here. ;)

I'd love to see a coherent example of how they calculated an LR.
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 09, 2019 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Dean Robbers,

I think there are several fundamental errors that combine to be fatal. The one Lemmie showed the math on is one of them. It is critical because the effects of hits and misses are not symmetrical. One piece of negative evidence can be fatal to a hypothesis, even in the face of many pieces of evidence that appear to confirm it. The Dales prevent that from happening by artificially constraining the lower bound of the likelihood ratios.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Gadianton »

Res Ipsa wrote:Dean Robbers,

I think there are several fundamental errors that combine to be fatal. The one Lemmie showed the math on is one of them. It is critical because the effects of hits and misses are not symmetrical. One piece of negative evidence can be fatal to a hypothesis, even in the face of many pieces of evidence that appear to confirm it. The Dales prevent that from happening by artificially constraining the lower bound of the likelihood ratios.



While I do see where you are coming from, I have to say, if they can't show the math behind how they constructed a single one of their LRs, which is very easy math, then I think this is bigger than all of the other problems.

I know, it's a bit like saying, suppose you're shot with a shotgun but at the same time a piano falls on your head and you're hit by a freight train, it's tough to call cause of death.

One could still be coherent and make the mistake Carrier proposes, but failing to rise to the level of coherency will always win.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply