The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Lemmie. I'm thinking about effective arguments to make in response to the paper. I'm persuaded that, even if that argument were technically correct, it's a weak argument that would distract from several very strong arguments. When I have several strong arguments, it's generally a mistake to throw in a couple of weaker ones.

To make sure I understand, are you suggesting that saying "the paper is incorrectly using a Bayesian factors model by making up numbers instead of presenting actual results, and that the made-up results are therefore invalidated" is one of the weaker arguments?

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Nope. I'm saying that, of the two ways of presenting the argument:

The Dales didn't use Bayesian methodology

is less likely to be less persuasive than

The Dales improperly used Bayesian methodology

It probably would have been more clear if I'd said "less effective" than "weaker."

When I floated the notion that the Dales weren't doing Bayes at all, two of the folks here who have shown they really understand Bayes jumped in to correct me. You agreed, but only after placing a pretty specific interpretation on what I said. That tells me that claiming that the Dales didn't do Bayes is too strong a claim given what the Dales actually did. Imagine the response from the Dales and the mopololgists: Of course they used Bayes. They used prior probability. They used LRs. If that Res Ipsa character says they didn't use Bayes, why should we believe a word he says. Then the argument gets focussed on: Did the Dales use Bayes or not? But that's not what I want folks thinking about: I want them thinking about how horribly awful the Dales' paper is.

Had the reaction from you three been an unconditional: "holy cow, that's right. They didn't use Bayesian methodology." I'd assess it differently.

[_Lemmie]

Thanks, Lemmie. I'm thinking about effective arguments to make in response to the paper. I'm persuaded that, even if that argument were technically correct, it's a weak argument that would distract from several very strong arguments. When I have several strong arguments, it's generally a mistake to throw in a couple of weaker ones.

To make sure I understand, are you suggesting that saying "the paper is incorrectly using a Bayesian factors model by making up numbers instead of presenting actual results, and that the made-up results are therefore invalidated" is one of the weaker arguments?

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Nope. I'm saying that, of the two ways of presenting the argument:

The Dales didn't use Bayesian methodology

is less likely to be less persuasive than

The Dales improperly used Bayesian methodology

It probably would have been more clear if I'd said "less effective" than "weaker."

When I floated the notion that the Dales weren't doing Bayes at all, two of the folks here who have shown they really understand Bayes jumped in to correct me. You agreed, but only after placing a pretty specific interpretation on what I said. That tells me that claiming that the Dales didn't do Bayes is too strong a claim given what the Dales actually did. Imagine the response from the Dales and the mopololgists: Of course they used Bayes. They used prior probability. They used LRs. If that Res Ipsa character says they didn't use Bayes, why should we believe a word he says. Then the argument gets focussed on: Did the Dales use Bayes or not? But that's not what I want folks thinking about: I want them thinking about how horribly awful the Dales' paper is.

Had the reaction from you three been an unconditional: "holy cow, that's right. They didn't use Bayesian methodology." I'd assess it differently.

oh, I get it. Yes, I agree, then, as you noted from my previous post:

I think a good case can be made that they didn’t apply Bayes at all.

I took that to mean a correct application of the principles underlying the Bayesian factor model they appropriated from the medical diagnostic literature.

[_Water Dog]

Thanks, Lemmie. I'm thinking about effective arguments to make in response to the paper. I'm persuaded that, even if that argument were technically correct, it's a weak argument that would distract from several very strong arguments. When I have several strong arguments, it's generally a mistake to throw in a couple of weaker ones.

Yes. Much like asserting Mormons aren't Christian. Aside from insulting them, what's the point?

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Lemmie. I'm thinking about effective arguments to make in response to the paper. I'm persuaded that, even if that argument were technically correct, it's a weak argument that would distract from several very strong arguments. When I have several strong arguments, it's generally a mistake to throw in a couple of weaker ones.

Yes. Much like asserting Mormons aren't Christian. Aside from insulting them, what's the point?

Exactly.

[_Gadianton]

statement true Book of Mormon historical (TP) statement false Book of Mormon historical (FN)
statement true Book of Mormon fiction (FP) statement false Book of Mormon fiction (TN)

L?

[_Lemmie]

statement true Book of Mormon historical (TP) statement false Book of Mormon historical (FN)
statement true Book of Mormon fiction (FP) statement false Book of Mormon fiction (TN)

L?

LR?

[_Gadianton]

no, that was short for Lemmie. ha

do you agree with those statements?

to accurately follow your post above I think we need to nail down these terms.

[_Lemmie]

no, that was short for Lemmie. ha

Ha ha.

do you agree with those statements?

to accurately follow your post above I think we need to nail down these terms.

No. Tl;dr at bottom.

You can do it either way as long as you are consistent, but since you are asking, no, I do not define them that way.

In paper, hypothesis A = Book of Mormon fictional. (Like having disease)

Hypothesis Not-A = Book of Mormon not fiction. (Like not having disease)

In my post where I say Dales set FP = 1,

I am saying P ( B true statement from Maya is in Book of Mormon, given Book of Mormon nonfiction), is

P(B true | not-A)

To make it like the medical example, I am saying Dales' assume

P ( positive test, given no disease) = 1, which means they say

Prob of a false positive = 1.

End.

Tl;dr:
Here is your statement, strikeouts show changes to mine:

statement true Book of Mormon historical (TPFP) statement false Book of Mormon historical (FNTN)
statement true Book of Mormon fiction (FPTP) statement false Book of Mormon fiction (TNFN)

[_honorentheos]

I forgot how quickly LDS discussions move to asked & answered due to any response being seen as fulfilling the role of demonstrating understanding of a counterargument and presenting evidence that reasonably advances a conversation. Apparently Dr. Dale Sr. has landed there. For having authored what appears to be such a target rich paper, he's certainly stuck to his belief any concern expressed to date is merely critical rage over having the Book of Mormon proved overwhelmingly a match for a Mayan setting composed around 2000 years ago. He's stopped responding to specific concerns with the methodology and the results anyway, and seems primarily interested in rehashing the old Mesoamerica parallel debates.

[_Lemmie]

I forgot how quickly LDS discussions move to asked & answered due to any response being seen as fulfilling the role of demonstrating understanding of a counterargument and presenting evidence that reasonably advances a conversation. Apparently Dr. Dale Sr. has landed there. For having authored what appears to be such a target rich paper, he's certainly stuck to his belief any concern expressed to date is merely critical rage over having the Book of Mormon proved overwhelmingly a match for a Mayan setting composed around 2000 years ago. He's stopped responding to specific concerns with the methodology and the results anyway, and seems primarily interested in rehashing the old Mesoamerica parallel debates.

i empathize, honor, you have laid out your arguments very clearly, and still, the authors said this yesterday:

Bruce E. Dale on May 16, 2019... said:

So we are going to talk about the evidence (at least I am), since most of the critical commentators seem really reluctant to do so.

Why are they reluctant to talk about the evidence summarized in our paper?

Bruce

Unbelievable.

But this exchange they had with Billy Shears may be even less understandable:

When you applied your methodology to View of the Hebrews, you found 15 positive correspondences and 9 negative correspondences. When you multiplied all of the likelihood ratios together, you came up with “the weighted strength of the evidence” being 0.0156. This means that in aggregate, we have “strong evidence” that the View of the Hebrews “is fact-based and essentially historical.”

This is your methodology and your numbers, including your explicit definition of what the term “strong evidence” means. Right?

and the direct response:

Well, we have already made just that comparison for two books purporting to represent ancient Indian cultures written about the same time as the Book of Mormon was published. These two books are View of the Hebrews (not deliberate fiction) and Manuscript Found (pretty awful fiction, but written as if it were fact).
Both of these books fail the test these commentators have proposed. We compared both of them with The Maya. They fail miserably to match the world of ancient Mesoamerica as described in The Maya and the Book of Mormon.

What?!!