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 »

honor wrote:So...what would happen if someone developed and posted an honest attempt at a calculation of a likelihood ratio for one of the 20-odd correspondences Bruce wants to debate? I don't think the problem is one that can be talked away. Otherwise, it would have gone away already. I do think it needs demonstrated away. Like one has to with a not-too-bright student, sometimes walking through the problem up to the point their approach stops working and letting them come to that realization may be the only way to get through. If the Dales could be enticed to do even one LR calculation in full, I suspect it would advance the conversation on the methodology rapidly towards revision.


It would be interesting to see if they really could walk through such a calculation. Once they had the definition that LRs < 1 benefited the Book of Mormon historical hypothesis, and the reciprocals don't, I think they stopped there. Consider this from page 170:
Negative Correspondences between Manuscript Found and The Maya

1. Manuscript Found claims that the manuscript was found in an “earthern box.”

Coe’s standard: “A few probable coffers exist for books, including the recent find of a lidded limestone box” (p. 239).

Negative correspondence from “Manuscript Found”: The manuscript was found in an “earthern box.” See p. 12.

Analysis of correspondence:
This is similar to Correspondence 6.20 in Appendix A, comparing the Book of Mormon to The Maya. We have assigned a likelihood of 0.02 to this fact as a positive correspondence. Thus lack of correspondence, or negative correspondence, in this case must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence or likelihood 1.0/0.02 = 50.0.

Likelihood = 50.0
_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 »

Good catch, Lemmie. By failing to actually calculate the LRs, they lost track of exactly what they were supposed to be comparing. Another example of this is how often their analyses revert to “how could Smith have possibly guessed this?”
​“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
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Res Ipsa wrote:Good catch, Lemmie. By failing to actually calculate the LRs, they lost track of exactly what they were supposed to be comparing. Another example of this is how often their analyses revert to “how could Smith have possibly guessed this?”


The ghost of Nibley past is very hard to shake for some.........
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_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 »

One thing I’m having trouble figuring out (ok, another thing I’m having trouble figuring out) is how to account for the number of “guesses” that Smith made on the likelihood of getting a bullseye. Every time I see someone touting some incredible guess Smith made, I want to ask “how many times did he guess?” How would a Bayesian analysis capture the effect of multiple guesses on the odds of a coincidental match?
​“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
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Lemmie »

Res Ipsa wrote:One thing I’m having trouble figuring out (ok, another thing I’m having trouble figuring out) is how to account for the number of “guesses” that Smith made on the likelihood of getting a bullseye. Every time I see someone touting some incredible guess Smith made, I want to ask “how many times did he guess?” How would a Bayesian analysis capture the effect of multiple guesses on the odds of a coincidental match?

You are exactly on track, RI, especially since the authors described how to do it when they were considering this 'bad guess' about 'earthern' containers:
Analysis of correspondence:
This is similar to Correspondence 6.20 in Appendix A, comparing the Book of Mormon to The Maya. We have assigned a likelihood of 0.02 to this fact as a positive correspondence. Thus lack of correspondence, or negative correspondence, in this case must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence or likelihood 1.0/0.02 = 50.0.

Likelihood = 50.0
So if the paper is assigning a likelihood ratio to a 'lack of correspondence,' and defining it as a 'negative correspondence,' then every single 'lack of correspondence' or bad guess should be noted.
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Analytics »

Lemmie wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:One thing I’m having trouble figuring out (ok, another thing I’m having trouble figuring out) is how to account for the number of “guesses” that Smith made on the likelihood of getting a bullseye. Every time I see someone touting some incredible guess Smith made, I want to ask “how many times did he guess?” How would a Bayesian analysis capture the effect of multiple guesses on the odds of a coincidental match?

You are exactly on track, RI, especially since the authors described how to do it when they were considering this 'bad guess' about 'earthern' containers:
Analysis of correspondence:
This is similar to Correspondence 6.20 in Appendix A, comparing the Book of Mormon to The Maya. We have assigned a likelihood of 0.02 to this fact as a positive correspondence. Thus lack of correspondence, or negative correspondence, in this case must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence or likelihood 1.0/0.02 = 50.0.

Likelihood = 50.0
So if the paper is assigning a likelihood ratio to a 'lack of correspondence,' and defining it as a 'negative correspondence,' then every single 'lack of correspondence' or bad guess should be noted.


Do you have any idea what he is talking about here? If the Book of Mormon's lidded stone box is a hit, shouldn't an earthern box also be a hit? And even if it weren't, where did they get this idea that a "lack of correspondence must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence?"
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _Lemmie »

Lemmie wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:One thing I’m having trouble figuring out (ok, another thing I’m having trouble figuring out) is how to account for the number of “guesses” that Smith made on the likelihood of getting a bullseye. Every time I see someone touting some incredible guess Smith made, I want to ask “how many times did he guess?” How would a Bayesian analysis capture the effect of multiple guesses on the odds of a coincidental match?

You are exactly on track, RI, especially since the authors described how to do it when they were considering this 'bad guess' about 'earthern' containers:
Analysis of correspondence:
This is similar to Correspondence 6.20 in Appendix A, comparing the Book of Mormon to The Maya. We have assigned a likelihood of 0.02 to this fact as a positive correspondence. Thus lack of correspondence, or negative correspondence, in this case must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence or likelihood 1.0/0.02 = 50.0.

Likelihood = 50.0
So if the paper is assigning a likelihood ratio to a 'lack of correspondence,' and defining it as a 'negative correspondence,' then every single 'lack of correspondence' or bad guess should be noted.

Analytics wrote:Do you have any idea what he is talking about here? If the Book of Mormon's lidded stone box is a hit, shouldn't an earthern box also be a hit? And even if it weren't, where did they get this idea that a "lack of correspondence must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence?"

:lol: i should have put a /s because, no, I have NO idea where they got that!
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _honorentheos »

Billy Sheer continues to land devastating blows to the paper. When Bruce Dale brought up the presence of a calendar as a commonality between the Book of Mormon and The Maya, he readily pointed out the Dales' ongoing issues with confusing broad shared subjects with no details shared as actual misses being my misconstrued as strong hits.

The null hypothesis of the Book of Mormon is that it is a made-up account of a group of proto-Christian Jews who immigrated from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 B.C. These people brought their Jewish/Christian heritage with them, built a great civilization (as evidenced by the then well-known Moundbuilders who had once inhabited North America), and after 1,000 years they fell from grace and devolved into the “savages” that were discovered 1,000 years after that. Anything that is consistent with how Joseph Smith could have reasonably conceived of an epic story of a group of people who went from being pilgrims from Jerusalem to civilized Moundbuilders to savages over the course of thousands of years is completely consistent with this theory.

The Jewish calendar is based lunar months, solar years, and pays particular attention paid to the seasons (that is why Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox), and most importantly, seven-day weeks. This calendar eventually evolved into the Gregorian calendar which Joseph Smith used and is still used today.

Everything regarding dates and calendars in the Book of Mormon is consistent with this. They had seven-day weeks and kept the sabbath holy (e.g. Jarom 1:5, Mosiah 18:25, Alma 32:11). They had lunar months (Omni 1:21). Solar years were carefully counted, sometimes in unlikely ways (e.g. 3 Nephi 5:7). According to this counting, one can easily verify that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C., right before the fall of Jerusalem, that Jesus was then born on cue in 1 BC, and then died, was resurrected, and visited them 33 years later, right on cue. This all seems like it was written by somebody creating historical fiction that needed to calibrate with some events that were predefined and presumed to be historic. The counting is done exactly as somebody using a Gregorian calendar would do it.

In contrast, here are some quotes from Cole: “The Calendar Round of 52 years was present among all Mesomaericans, including the Maya, and is presumably of very great age. It consists of two permutating cycles. One is of 260 days, representing the intermeshing of a sequence of the numbers 1 through 13 with 20 named days…the 260-day count was fundamental…Meshing with the 260-day count is a “vague year” or Ha’b of 365 days…from this it follows that a particular day in the 260-day count, such as 1 K’an, also had a position in the Ha’b, for instance 2 Pop. A day designated as 1 Ka’n 2 Pop could not return until 52 Ha’b (18,980 days) had passed. This is the Calendar Round, and it is the only annual time count possessed by the highland peoples of Mexico….”

But for keeping track of history, the Mayans didn’t count Calendar Rounds, much less “vague years.” Rather, they used Long Counts. Quoting Coe:

“Instead of taking the Vague Year as the basis for the Long Count, the Maya and other peoples employed the turn, a period of 360 days. The Long Cycles are:

20 k’ins = 1 winal or 20 days
18 winals = 1 turn or 360 days
20 turns = 1 k’atun or 7,200 days
20 k’atuns = 1 bak’tun or 144,000 days

“Long Count dates inscribed by the Maya on their monuments consist of the above cycles listed from top to bottom in descending order of magnitude, each with its numerical coefficient, and all to be added up so as to express the number of days elapsed since the end of the last but one Great Cycle, a period of 13 bak’tuns the ending of which fell on the date 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u….”

Analysis: The Book of Mormon keeps track of history in months and years in a way that is indistinguishable from the Gregorian calendar, and is carefully calibrated so that Lehi leaving Jerusalem, the birth of Christ, and the death of Christ can all be reconciled with old-world history. In contrast, the Mayans kept track of historical days using Long Count days, which is really about counting up days since the end of the last “great cycle,” but rather than being “base 10” as we would count, they are counted using k’ins, winals, tuns, k’atuns, and bak’tuns. There is nothing in this that could be construed as months and years, nor could it easily be converted into lunar months and solar years.

Central to Mayan life were 260 day cycles. Central to Book of Mormon life were 7-day weeks.

The calendar in the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the Mayan Calendar. This is very strong evidence that it is not based on Mesoamerican history. I score this a “likelihood ratio” of 50+.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _honorentheos »

His latest post is a nice, narrative caution outlining why the Dales may want to reconsider having this publication attributable to them and easily discovered on the web. I won't quote it, but it's worth a visit to the comments to read.

Anyway, I still have yet to find a hit counted by the Dales that withstood close examination of both texts to see what details showed a correspondence. I don't think Bruce Dale's hope to shift the discussion to the correspondences is going to work out well, either.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

Post by _honorentheos »

Lemmie wrote:
honor wrote:So...what would happen if someone developed and posted an honest attempt at a calculation of a likelihood ratio for one of the 20-odd correspondences Bruce wants to debate? I don't think the problem is one that can be talked away. Otherwise, it would have gone away already. I do think it needs demonstrated away. Like one has to with a not-too-bright student, sometimes walking through the problem up to the point their approach stops working and letting them come to that realization may be the only way to get through. If the Dales could be enticed to do even one LR calculation in full, I suspect it would advance the conversation on the methodology rapidly towards revision.


It would be interesting to see if they really could walk through such a calculation. Once they had the definition that LRs < 1 benefited the Book of Mormon historical hypothesis, and the reciprocals don't, I think they stopped there. Consider this from page 170:
Negative Correspondences between Manuscript Found and The Maya

1. Manuscript Found claims that the manuscript was found in an “earthern box.”

Coe’s standard: “A few probable coffers exist for books, including the recent find of a lidded limestone box” (p. 239).

Negative correspondence from “Manuscript Found”: The manuscript was found in an “earthern box.” See p. 12.

Analysis of correspondence:
This is similar to Correspondence 6.20 in Appendix A, comparing the Book of Mormon to The Maya. We have assigned a likelihood of 0.02 to this fact as a positive correspondence. Thus lack of correspondence, or negative correspondence, in this case must be the reciprocal of the positive correspondence or likelihood 1.0/0.02 = 50.0.

Likelihood = 50.0

Thanks, Lemmie, that's a very interesting find in their thinking. I've been contemplating what it requires to be logically consistent and am not sure how they think that works out. It seems like they treated it like a coin flip with a weighted value so the probability is binary (0.5) in either being wrong or right when comparing the Book of Mormon to MF rather than comparing both separately to The Maya, but also arbitrarily say a heads or tails in a coin flip has a likelihood ratio of 1 in 50 based on?? I don't know. I'm not sure what it means.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Post Reply