The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Lemmie]

Thanks for posting that, honor, that is extremely well written, and properly uses the likelihood ratio.

of course, the argument from Interpreter editors and the authors will be that the denominator goes beyond the scope of their paper (which relies on limiting true statements about what are theoretically Book of Mormon times to those Mayan-related statements found in Coe's book, and assuming they are true, thus limiting the denominator to 1 and all 131 statements to LR < 1).

But they can't logically have it both ways. If they want to investigate the posterior odds that the Book of Mormon is historical, they have to address the evidence as Shears explains.

As their paper stands, they are really just arguing that the Book of Mormon has a lot of random "matches" to aspects of Mesoamerican cultures mentioned in ONE book that range from a time period much longer than that covered by the Book of Mormon story.

(I put "matches" in quotation marks because every time I look closer at one of these correspondences, i find there really is no "match.")

And still, as usual, the "correspondences" are not independent, thus obviating any final calculation of posterior odds by multiplying likelihood ratios.

[Guest]

Arc seems to have gotten it.

Arc got it alright. One can tell from his earlier tutorial on doxxing. Being new and all he was probably trying to be polite.

[_Lemmie]

i mentioned above that the "matches" in the correspondences are very weak, here's an example, with a likelihood ratio = 0.1:

1. Ritual walking in straight roads symbolizes acceptable behavior
Coe’s standard: “At the site of Edzna, … occupants had constructed a massive hydraulic system, consisting of 13.75 miles (22 km) of canals … (resembling aquatic versions of Maya ritual roads)” (p. 90). “Coba is … a whole group linked to a central complex by long, perfectly straight masonry causeways usually called … sakbe (“white road”). … Some have claimed that the Maya [Page 129]sakbe were arteries of commerce, but a purely ceremonial function is far more plausible” (p. 163). “A causeway, or sakbih, 11.25 miles (18 km) long runs southeast from Uxmal through the small site of Nohpat to Kabah, so presumably the three centers were connected at least ceremonially” (p. 182). “Processional routes, the ‘white roads’ or sakbih described earlier, carved straight paths across broken landscapes. To walk along them was to move in acceptable, ritually decorous ways” (p. 242).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See 2 Nephi 4:32; 2 Nephi 9:41; Alma 7:9.

Analysis of correspondence: The correspondence is quite specific in both the Book of Mormon and The Maya, and it is certainly unusual. What religious practice did Joseph Smith know of that resembled this ritual behavior in the least? But details are not provided in the Book of Mormon, so the practice is specific and unusual, but not detailed.
Likelihood = 0.1

So the Mayan construction is referenced, as well as observed physical behavior. The authors define this as "quite specific," but the three Book of Mormon references are referring to a spiritual ritual. Here are excerpts:

"that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road!" and

"prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; " and

"Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him..."

Those in no way correspond to the Mayan physical details given.

As for the Dale's question, "What religious practice did Joseph Smith know of that resembled this ritual behavior in the least?"

How about the King James Bible?

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:14 - Wikipedia

[_Res Ipsa]

Exactly, Lemmie. That's why the Dales' failure to quote the Book of Mormon language they are relying on is so important. Instead of the actual Book of Mormon language, they provide their interpretation of the Book of Mormon language, which favors the hypothesis that they prefer.

[_Morley]

I just found it interesting that reading the post and the article happened at nearly the same time.

Your computer took you there without you even doing anything. Right?





edit: But then, it is the first article that appears if one googles "science doxxing".

[_honorentheos]

I just found it interesting that reading the post and the article happened at nearly the same time.

Your computer took you there without you even doing anything. Right?

edit: But then, it is the first article that appears if one googles "science doxxing".

What's sad is that by bringing it up and thereby associating it with the topic, moinmoin influenced the probability someone might choose to be an unprincipled dick and act in accordance with the suggestion. I say that specifically so anyone entertaining the idea knows it means they're an unprincipled dick.

[_Physics Guy]

"What religious practice did Joseph Smith know of that resembled this ritual behavior in the least?"

The Maya had these huge ancient megaprojects for irrigation and transport which are conspicuously not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, but because the Book of Mormon has cribbed a few of the Bible's many references to roads as symbols of righteousness, the Dales use some rambling about conjectured ceremonial roles for Mayan roads to turn the Book of Mormon's glaring omission of a major Mayan accomplishment into a 10:1 unlikely hit in favor of the Book of Mormon being an authentic portrayal of Mayan society.

Their determination is impressive.

[_Arc]

Your computer took you there without you even doing anything. Right?

edit: But then, it is the first article that appears if one googles "science doxxing".

What's sad is that by bringing it up and thereby associating it with the topic, moinmoin influenced the probability someone might choose to be an unprincipled dick and act in accordance with the suggestion. I say that specifically so anyone entertaining the idea knows it means they're an unprincipled dick.

Thank you Morley and honorentheos. The probability of someone doing this to him is low, but non-zero. Moinmoin may well have increased the probability by saying the words and bringing up the topic.

Good news for the son is that Germans really don't care much about religion in general and Mormonism in particular. Where there are few Mormons, there are few Mormon antagonists, so perhaps there is not much need for concern. On the other hand, even a very low probability event can represent risk to be avoided when the event could lead to catastrophe.

How little Germans care about Mormons is reflected in their church tax system. Basic funding for churches in Germany comes from a constitutionally mandated church tax (Kirchensteuer). The tax collections are allotted depending of declaration of belief by citizens. Declarations of belief do not translate to butts in pews. Most churches in Germany, especially in the more Lutheran north, are all but empty on Sunday.

Collected church taxes are mainly distributed to the Katholisch (Catholic) and Evangelisch (Lutheran and a few other loosely associated protestant denominations) churches. For Jews, and probably now for Muslims as well, there is a worship tax.

When receiving a work visa as a foreigner, the authorities ask for a religious preference. In the past, when Mormons went to fill out the religion question on their a work visa application, they learned that Mormonism is considered a sekte (sect or cult) in Germany. German authorities reason that since Mormons aren't Catholics, they must be Protestants, so Mormons are commonly listed with the Evangelisch.

It is possible to go through a legal process to opt out of paying church tax, but it can raise questions with employers, so most just pay it. That is one reason there are somewhat fewer abandoned churches and cathedrals in Germany and other countries in Europe with a church tax than in the UK.

It is also a reason why there is not so much money and associated corruption in organized religion in Europe as there is in the US. Religion as a business does not play well here.

[_Physics Guy]

You only have to opt out of religious taxes in Germany if you opted into them in the first place—there's a form you have to fill out at some point stating a religious affiliation but you are perfectly free to just declare none. We've only been here about fifteen years and we only know the people we know, so I can hardly speak for all Germans, but for what it's worth my impression is that most people do affiliate and pay the small extra tax. I'd be surprised if many Germans were afraid to opt out because of what employers would think. It's a pretty secular country and anyway employees have job security rights.

My wife and I formally opted out because we had declared ourselves evangelisch without realizing that it entailed a tax, and we ended up attending an English-language Lutheran congregation that isn't part of the state church. Since we were paying to support it we didn't want to pay twice, so we exited. It wasn't hard, though we did have to get some official rubber stamps on some bits of paper.

I think it's true that Europeans don't generally associate religion with constant appeals for donations. Many more people pay small church taxes than actually attend church, even though nobody has to pay the tax, so churches generally get along okay without asking for extra money. A lot of old church buildings are historic sites and get funds for upkeep from the state for that reason. There are no pastors buying business jets.

[_Lemmie]

This one goes back a few days, but i just saw it and i don't recall it being posted here. Maybe there is a lag in the comment approval? Anyway, some more excellent comments about the independence issue and the appropriate populations on which to conduct Bayesian comparisons:

Billy Shears on May 13, 2019 at 10:51 am said:


Hi Brian,

Thanks for the reply.

In response to me saying the null hypothesis should be that he was trying to create a coherent story of a civilization, you replied, “We did apply our method to two other contemporary books that were trying to do essentially that. It turns out to be not as easy as you might think.

“Our evidence shows that such stories are empirically distinguishable from the Book of Mormon. While I accept your point that the separate pieces of evidence are not independent, we tested “coherent stories”, and the Book of Mormon was substantially more accurate.”

A few points. First, it sounds like you concede my point about statistical independence and agree that if you put in the appropriate covariance among these points, the strength of your conclusions would go down by a lot—perhaps over a hundred orders of magnitude.

Second, it sounds like you don’t understand my point about internally consistency. Surely you’d agree that it is easier to write a book that is internally consistent (i.e. consistent with itself) than it is to write a book that is consistent with Mayan Mesoamerica.

The point is that under the null hypothesis (i.e. under the commonly held presumption you are trying to prove is false), Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. The apologists then decided that Mayan Mesoamerica is the best historical fit (or really, the least problematic fit). You then try to demonstrate that since the Book of Mormon fits Mesoamerica better than View of the Hebrews fits Mesoamerica, the Book of Mormon must be historical. But that is a false comparison—the reason you are comparing View of the Hebrews to Mesoamerica is because apologists had already concluded that Mesoamerica is the best fit of the Book of Mormon. If you decided to use Pushing the Bear as another control, you’d conclude that book is false also, because it doesn’t fit into a Mesoamerican context. But like View of the Hebrews, Pushing the Bear doesn’t proport to fit into a Mesoamerican context—that isn’t what it is trying to do.

For the Bayesian methodology you are attempting to use to be valid, the probabilities need to be evaluated over a set of exclusive and exhaustive propositions or models. You are only testing two propositions—the proposition that it is essentially a true historical record, and the proposition that it consists of a series of independent guess about ancient Mesoamerica. Those two propositions aren’t exhaustive. In fact, nobody believes the book is a series of guesses about Mesoamerica; that is a strawman. The only proposition that anyone even believes is the proposition that it is historical. Since historicity is the only non-strawman model in your space of models, it is no wonder the math indicates that one must be the right one.

The real proposition you need to test historicity against is the proposition that a 19th Century Christian wrote the Book of Mormon as part of the then-existing motif that the American Indians were one of the Lost Tribes or otherwise were a remnant of the House of Israel. You would then need to consider all of the evidence in your analysis—not just the evidence of how well it fits into a book about the Mayan.

Thanks,

Billy