The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Analytics]

Apparently Bruce thinks that all of the criticism of his interpretation of Bayes' Theorem is a distraction from the main point of his paper, which is the 131 correspondences in the appendix. So, he wants to talk about the correspondences and table the disagreements about his methodology.

On May 19, he politely requested that we go through the correspondences one-by-one, and have a discussion about what likelihood ratio each point deserves (based on his misunderstanding of what a likelihood ratio is). He asks the commentators to allow him to choose the first 20 or so that we discuss. "If the commentators are willing to actually participate in an orderly discussion of each correspondence, we will eventually get to the correspondences that some may think are weak or non existent."

Which raises the question, what is the likelihood we will in fact eventually get to a correspondence that somebody thinks is weak or non existent?

He starts with Correspondence 2.17, which he claims "is really a 'bull's eye', for the Book of Mormon: a specific, detailed and unusual correspondence. Likelihood = 0.02." Given this is the one he jumps to first, it must be especially strong. Let's dive into it.

According to The Maya, the very earliest evidence of maize being grown anywhere in the world was around 2,500 B.C. It says this was about 1,500 years before anybody in the region used pottery, so there is basically no archeological evidence of who it was, specifically, that first domesticated Maize. He says that one theory, based on linguistic evidence, is that the people who first domesticated corn "could have been the Yukateko on their trek north to Yucatan from the Maya homeland."

Later on, chapter 6 of Coe's book is called "The Terminal Classic." Quoting part of the introduction to the chapter, "The Terminal Classic, c. AD 800–925, was therefore a time of tragedy and triumph: old thrones toppled in the south as a new political order took shape in the north; southern cities fell into the dust as northern ones flourished. It was an era marked by widespread movements of peoples and goods, during which the destinies of central Mexico and the Maya area became as closely intertwined as they had been in the days of Teotihuacan’s hegemony, setting the stage for the rise of a new power in Mexico: the Toltecs."

What are the odds that Joseph Smith guessed that correctly?

Whether Joseph Smith was translating an authentic Mayan manuscript or merely the luckiest guesser in the world, the fact remains that Alma 63 says that between 56 and 53 B.C., some Nephites immigrated north, and Helaman 3 says that around 49-39 B.C., some more Nephites immigrated to the north.

Based upon this new evidence, I'm going to update my Bayesian estimate and increase by a factor of 1.5 the probability that this paper is a sophisticated spoof of the Mopologists.

[_fetchface]

Jesus Christ, this reminds me of the time that a bunch of my LDS Facebook friends were claiming that some 24,000 year old bones found somewhere in Asia were proof of the Book of Mormon. Truly staggering lack of critical thinking skills.

[_Res Ipsa]

Apparently Bruce thinks that all of the criticism of his interpretation of Bayes' Theorem is a distraction from the main point of his paper, which is the 131 correspondences in the appendix. So, he wants to talk about the correspondences and table the disagreements about his methodology.

On May 19, he politely requested that we go through the correspondences one-by-one, and have a discussion about what likelihood ratio each point deserves (based on his misunderstanding of what a likelihood ratio is). He asks the commentators to allow him to choose the first 20 or so that we discuss. "If the commentators are willing to actually participate in an orderly discussion of each correspondence, we will eventually get to the correspondences that some may think are weak or non existent."

Which raises the question, what is the likelihood we will in fact eventually get to a correspondence that somebody thinks is weak or non existent?

He starts with Correspondence 2.17, which he claims "is really a 'bull's eye', for the Book of Mormon: a specific, detailed and unusual correspondence. Likelihood = 0.02." Given this is the one he jumps to first, it must be especially strong. Let's dive into it.

According to The Maya, the very earliest evidence of maize being grown anywhere in the world was around 2,500 B.C. It says this was about 1,500 years before anybody in the region used pottery, so there is basically no archeological evidence of who it was, specifically, that first domesticated Maize. He says that one theory, based on linguistic evidence, is that the people who first domesticated corn "could have been the Yukateko on their trek north to Yucatan from the Maya homeland."

Later on, chapter 6 of Coe's book is called "The Terminal Classic." Quoting part of the introduction to the chapter, "The Terminal Classic, c. AD 800–925, was therefore a time of tragedy and triumph: old thrones toppled in the south as a new political order took shape in the north; southern cities fell into the dust as northern ones flourished. It was an era marked by widespread movements of peoples and goods, during which the destinies of central Mexico and the Maya area became as closely intertwined as they had been in the days of Teotihuacan’s hegemony, setting the stage for the rise of a new power in Mexico: the Toltecs."

What are the odds that Joseph Smith guessed that correctly?

Whether Joseph Smith was translating an authentic Mayan manuscript or merely the luckiest guesser in the world, the fact remains that Alma 63 says that between 56 and 53 B.C., some Nephites immigrated north, and Helaman 3 says that around 49-39 B.C., some more Nephites immigrated to the north.

Based upon this new evidence, I'm going to update my Bayesian estimate and increase by a factor of 1.5 the probability that this paper is a sophisticated spoof of the Mopologists.

And to understand how weak these parallels are, one has to grab a Book of Mormon and read the references. Although the paper is supposed to compare what the Book of Mormon says with what The Maya says, it never does that. It compares what The Maya says with what the Dales think the Book of Mormon means.

[_honorentheos]

I have a copy of the 9th edition of The Maya, and not the 10th. But unless Dr. Coe really went in a different direction with him latest edition I think it's giving the Dales' too much credit to say they were comparing what The Maya with what they think the Book of Mormon says. It seems like they took extensive liberties in interpreting both for their exercise

[_Analytics]

And to understand how weak these parallels are, one has to grab a Book of Mormon and read the references. Although the paper is supposed to compare what the Book of Mormon says with what The Maya says, it never does that. It compares what The Maya says with what the Dales think the Book of Mormon means.

It is impossible to overstate how bad their reasoning is on this. If the Book of Mormon would have mentioned these population expansions heading south rather than north, then the Dales would have quoted things like this:

"...much of the Central Area appears as a blank on the map, with the exception of those lands occupied by the Lakandon, by the surely recent Q’eq’chi, and by the Yukatekan Itzaj, who probably moved into the Peten from the north."

And then said How could Joseph Smith been so lucky and guessed that they would move into the South?

My only guess here is that Bruce really did read the Book of Mormon hundreds of times just like he claimed, and is absolutely, positively sure that is the whole story. Then when he picks up The Maya, the only thing he is capable of seeing are fragments of correspondence. For example, when Coe says:

By 2500 BC a little maize was grown in the Peten, again to judge from cores and evidence of charcoal from the burning of forests. This was a good 1,500 years before the first pottery-using farmers are known for the region, raising the question of who these people might have been. If we accept the word of the linguists, they could have been the Yukateko on their trek north to Yucatan from the Maya homeland...

What Bruce Dale hears is:

Bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla trek north bla bla from the Mayan homeland...

I'm trying to have empathy here, but I think that's what's really happening. How else could somebody possibly think this is a hit?

[_Res Ipsa]

I have a copy of the 9th edition of The Maya, and not the 10th. But unless Dr. Coe really went in a different direction with him latest edition I think it's giving the Dales' too much credit to say they were comparing what The Maya with what they think the Book of Mormon says. It seems like they took extensive liberties in interpreting both for their exercise

The difference is, they quote the language from the Maya. They don’t quote the language from the Book of Mormon — they only present their interpretation of the language. If they were to quote the actual Book of Mormon language, the weakness of the correspondences would be much more apparent.

[_Simon Southerton]

Apparently Bruce thinks that all of the criticism of his interpretation of Bayes' Theorem is a distraction from the main point of his paper, which is the 131 correspondences in the appendix. So, he wants to talk about the correspondences and table the disagreements about his methodology.

On May 19, he politely requested that we go through the correspondences one-by-one, and have a discussion about what likelihood ratio each point deserves (based on his misunderstanding of what a likelihood ratio is). He asks the commentators to allow him to choose the first 20 or so that we discuss. "If the commentators are willing to actually participate in an orderly discussion of each correspondence, we will eventually get to the correspondences that some may think are weak or non existent."

The problem is not the strength of the likelihood ratios. Even if you assign the worst possible ratios for the 131 (bullpucky) positive correspondences and the best possible ratios for the 18 negative correspondences, you still end up with the odds of the Book of Mormon being false of about 1 in a billion. It's the ridiculous number of positive vs negative evidences that's the problem. Their conclusion is reached before they start with the math.

This is the single biggest flaw in the paper. The Bayesian stuff is a sideshow.

[_Res Ipsa]

And to understand how weak these parallels are, one has to grab a Book of Mormon and read the references. Although the paper is supposed to compare what the Book of Mormon says with what The Maya says, it never does that. It compares what The Maya says with what the Dales think the Book of Mormon means.

It is impossible to overstate how bad their reasoning is on this. If the Book of Mormon would have mentioned these population expansions heading south rather than north, then the Dales would have quoted things like this:

"...much of the Central Area appears as a blank on the map, with the exception of those lands occupied by the Lakandon, by the surely recent Q’eq’chi, and by the Yukatekan Itzaj, who probably moved into the Peten from the north."

And then said How could Joseph Smith been so lucky and guessed that they would move into the South?

My only guess here is that Bruce really did read the Book of Mormon hundreds of times just like he claimed, and is absolutely, positively sure that is the whole story. Then when he picks up The Maya, the only thing he is capable of seeing are fragments of correspondence. For example, when Coe says:

By 2500 BC a little maize was grown in the Peten, again to judge from cores and evidence of charcoal from the burning of forests. This was a good 1,500 years before the first pottery-using farmers are known for the region, raising the question of who these people might have been. If we accept the word of the linguists, they could have been the Yukateko on their trek north to Yucatan from the Maya homeland...

What Bruce Dale hears is:

Bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla trek north bla bla from the Mayan homeland...

I'm trying to have empathy here, but I think that's what's really happening. How else could somebody possibly think this is a hit?

The problem is that they substituted their subjective interpretation for what is a hit and what is a miss for a critical part of the Bayesian analysis: formulation of the numerator and denominator by asking what the evidence would look like under each hypothesis. They turned many misses into hits that way.

I’m also becoming increasingly suspicious that the Dales did not systematically evaluate every fact asserted in the Book of Mormon. It looks more like they looked at the Maya and relied on Bruce’s extensive familiarity with the Book of Mormon to find a correspondence.

[_Res Ipsa]

Apparently Bruce thinks that all of the criticism of his interpretation of Bayes' Theorem is a distraction from the main point of his paper, which is the 131 correspondences in the appendix. So, he wants to talk about the correspondences and table the disagreements about his methodology.

On May 19, he politely requested that we go through the correspondences one-by-one, and have a discussion about what likelihood ratio each point deserves (based on his misunderstanding of what a likelihood ratio is). He asks the commentators to allow him to choose the first 20 or so that we discuss. "If the commentators are willing to actually participate in an orderly discussion of each correspondence, we will eventually get to the correspondences that some may think are weak or non existent."

The problem is not the strength of the likelihood ratios. Even if you assign the worst possible ratios for the 131 (bullpucky) positive correspondences and the best possible ratios for the 18 negative correspondences, you still end up with the odds of the Book of Mormon being false of about 1 in a billion. It's the ridiculous number of positive vs negative evidences that's the problem. Their conclusion is reached before they start with the math.

This is the single biggest flaw in the paper. The Bayesian stuff is a sideshow.

I disagree, Simon, because the flaws all work together to produce the result. The reason for the imbalance you describe is, in large part, due to their exclusion of many, many pieces of evidence that would result in at least weak evidence supporting a non-historical Book of Mormon. Their model also forces the conclusion that six pieces of evidence, no matter how weak, always outweigh a single piece of contrary evidence, no matter how strong. Their arbitrary restriction of the ranges of the LRs treat very weak evidence as stronger than it is and treats very wrong evidence as weaker than it is. Their failure to follow proper Bayesian analysis allowed them to turn misses into hits by avoiding answering the relevant questions. Finally, their multiplication of dependent LRs allowed them to grossly overstate the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a bona fide historical
narrative.

Their ratio of hits to misses would not be ridiculous but for the ways their methodology improperly forced that result.

[_Gadianton]

And then said How could Joseph Smith been so lucky and guessed that they would move into the South?

lol. They should try this again using this thing I heard of called Bayes Theorem, that will help them control for confirmation bias.

if we're back on this topic, probably the joke wasn't that funny but I let it go since every post was unloading a new point more devastating than the last, I had this fake quote:

Book of Mormon: There shall come over the whole earth an intense darkness lasting three days and three nights. Nothing can be seen, and the air will be laden with pestilence which will claim mainly, but not only, the enemies of religion. It will be impossible to use any man-made lighting during this darkness.

That's actually from some Catholic website. It's been pointed out that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention a volcano which is true. The mopologists get around this by making it a "first person experience" of a volcano. but even if the Book of Mormon specifically mentioned a volcano as the cause, volcanoes aren't exactly unheard of, and three days darkness where a candle can't be lit is a predictable theme that the author had a great chance of getting elsewhere.

It doesn't mention volcano, they have to use "local flood" logic to constrain the catastrophe to a small area, and then what's actually mentioned, the three days of darkness so thick you can't light a match (or whatever they used back then) is a popular religious folklore idea, and unrelated to volcanoes.

And this is of the strongest class of evidence -- the same class as finding the statue of liberty or empire state building in New York City.