The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Gadianton]

It looks like Billy Shears somewhat successfully primed the pump for a Dale to think in terms of a LR instead of just a bare probability, although the priming didn't lead to any math on the Dale's part -- I would put the odds of a Dale doing any real math to justify anything at all in their statistical publication at near the odds of unearthing a Book of Mormon city in Mesoamerica -- he did offer some post-hoc intuition (which I'd bet ultimately comes from Sorenson) to justify their answer. They had originally wrote:

Correspondence 1.6: City of Laman (Lamanai) “occcupied from earliest times”

Coe’s standard: “Far up the New River … is the important site of Lamanai, … occupied from earliest times right into the post-Conquest period” (p. 85).

Book of Mormon correspondence: See 3 Nephi 9:10. The strong tendency is for consonants to be preserved in pronouncing words and names. For example, Beirut (Lebanon) is one of the oldest cities in the world, settled 5,000 years ago. The name derives from Canaanite-Phoenician be’erot and [Page 102]has been known as “Biruta,” “Berytus” and now “Beirut,” while always retaining those three consonants “BRT” in the correct order, and with no intervening consonants.

In the case of the city Lamanai (Laman), all three consonants, and only these three consonants, namely LMN, are found in the correct order and are the same consonants as given for the city of Laman mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This seems to be a “bullseye” for the Book of Mormon. How did Joseph Smith correctly “guess” the correct consonants, and only the correct consonants in the correct order for the name of an important city “occupied from earliest times?”

Analysis of correspondence: The correspondence is specific, detailed and statistically unusual. Likelihood = 0.02

Billy did some impressive if quick and dirty stats:

So, dividing the probability of the evidence assuming the hypothesis is true by the probability of the evidence assuming the hypothesis is false is the likelihood ratio, which for this point of evidence is .22/.0013 = 170. In aggregate, this point weighs against historicity. In other words, while it is unlikely that with only 100 blind guesses at a dartboard with only 250 targets that Joseph Smith would correctly guess the name of a Mayan city, it is even more unlikely that that only one name from Book of Mormon times would have been preserved in a historical record, given the strong tendency of consonants to survive.

Dale gives a long answer, I won't copy the whole thing here but just do a keyword search for "lmn" to quickly find it. The post-hoc mental gymnastics are really astounding:

Both Mormon and his son Moroni, the principal editors of the Book of Mormon, state specifically that not only would victorious Lamanites destroy the Nephites as a people, they would also destroy their records. Certainly the naming of towns and cities with Nephite names would be a record that the Lamanites could and would wipe out.

So, I would expect that the victorious Lamanites would make sure that not a single Nephite-named city would survive with that name. And all the records that could be found of the Nephites would be destroyed. (Coe in fact refers to the practice of systematic destruction of monuments whereby “the eyes and mouths of rulers are often pecked out, as if to cancel their power”. )

Given this background, I think not a single Nephite city name would survive the destruction of the Nephite people described in the Book of Mormon at the end of the 4th century AD. And apparently none did…although the absence of such names is not really very good evidence.

Although we know very little about the Lamanite cities (the Book of Mormon is primarily a Nephite record, after all), we do know that one was named Laman. Since Laman was the leader of the anti-Nephite faction from the beginning, it is certainly reasonable for the principal city of the Lamanites to be called Laman, and the chances are good that that name would survive.

Since I accept a limited geography (and therefore limited power) model for both the Lamanites and the Nephites, it is certainly reasonable to suppose that only one city name would survive, and it would most likely be the principal city of the Lamanite confederation. Which is what we observe, at least by the way that I understand the evidence.

This kind of reasoning is something like saying whatever poker hand you were dealt is called a royal flush. Any particular hand in poker is just as unlikely as any other particular hand, a royal flush is only interesting because it's defined in advance. One could imagine how the reasoning would change with different outcomes as they draw their targets around the landed arrows.

Let's go through the conjecturing and rationalizing:

1) destroy records = destroy city names. Book of Mormon doesn't say that, and Lamanites had taken cities (Nephi) in the narrative without changing the name. 2) destruction is 100% 3) understates what we know of Lamanite cities, we know of several 4) The city called Laman is the principle city of the Lamanites!! (more below) 5) it's reasonable that only one city would survive? It's advantageous to them, for sure (see below)

The city they call a hit, is Lamanai, occupied from the 16th century BC to 17th century AD. The city Laman in the Book of Mormon is mentioned a single time, and it is not mentioned as a hub, so much for "specific and detailed", and it is mentioned with several other cities, all in the context of being DESTROYED at Christ's coming. Read about Laman.

This is the city of Laman. Due to the practice of naming a land by the same name as the city, it is presumed to also be the land of Laman. The city of Laman was next to the city of Josh. Considering that the cities of Jacobugath and Zarahemla were also destroyed by fire, then the cities of Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen would be likely candidates for being in the proximity of these cities and stretching northward of the land of Zarahemla.

Huh, in the same proximity? Any candidates near Lamanai for these other cities?

III NEPHI 4:36 [9:9]: And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of the king of Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire, because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations;

Commentary: This verse references the places of Gad, Jacobugath, Josh, Kishkumen, Laman, and Zarahemla. Being destroyed by fire places it with the other lands that were destroyed by fire. These were the city of Laman, city of Josh, city of Gad, city of Kishkumen, and city Zarahemla. A 'great city' may indicate possibly a large number of inhabitants. Earlier verses called the area a kingdom, which would confirm a great city.

From the evidence we have, it is more reasonable that Jacobagath was larger than Laman. And funny, a charge to destroy Nephites means every Nephite city and reference to it must have been destroyed, but specific mention of the destruction of a Lamanite city means we'd expect to find it as last man standing.

Commentary: This verse references the places of Gad, Jacobugath, Josh, Kishkumen, Laman, and Zarahemla. When places are listed in order in the same verse, they share a border in the order they are listed. So, these cities are located next to each other. However, this is the only verse that describes these cities and no information is provided about their location relative to other places.

Anyway, I assumed that this LMN connection came from another source that wouldn't risk its shaky reasoning by screwing it up, but I still confirmed LMN is the only match by dumping the wiki page of Book of Mormon cities and the wiki page for Mayan cities into text files and scripting a comparison of just consonants. The only exact match indeed, is LMN, and they sure have some precise reasoning for why that is the case after the fact. But, as I had the data, I was curious about hits with 3/4 consonants in a row. Here is the result for anyone interested. I don't want to get too post hoc myself, but it is interesting that the words "Laman" and "Lemual" (not to mention Laban, too bad Smith didn't name a city after him), or rather the, er, cities of Laman and Lemuel, which each get a couple of hits each out of the relatively short list of results. A honorable mention goes to Nahom, which the Nephites could have brought to the new world and it just wasn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

3/4 consonant matches

olmul Petén Department, Guatemala|||Helam, Land inhabited by people of Alma1
Holmul Petén Department, Guatemala|||Lemuel, Lamanite city
Holmul Petén Department, Guatemala|||Lemuel, Lehite campsite near borders of Red Sea
Labna Yucatán, Mexico[37] Labna arco W.jpg|||Lebanon, Middle Eastern Country
El Meco Quintana Roo, Mexico[37] Elmecocun.JPG|||Elam, One of the oldest recorded civilizations
La Milpa Orange Walk District, Belize|||Lemuel, Lamanite city
La Milpa Orange Walk District, Belize|||Lemuel, Lehite campsite near borders of Red Sea
Minanha Cayo District, Belize|||Minon (/'ma?n?n/),[19] Nephite land on west bank of river Sidon
Nohmul Orange Walk District, Belize|||Nahom, Place in Arabian desert
Teleman Alta Verapaz Department, Guatemala|||Laman, City destroyed at the crucifixion
Teleman Alta Verapaz Department, Guatemala|||Laman, River emptying into Red Sea

ETA: something to consider. If the LR denominator is large, approaching 1 as the city of Laman we'd expect to see survive if the Book of Mormon is historical, given the Dale's understanding of the Book of Mormon narrative, then the .02 has to be justified by the numerator. If Billy's math is right, that's .22. They would need to make an argument for why that name is so unusual. If anything, given the above 3/4, taking letter frequency into account, Billy may be giving them the benefit of the doubt.

For those interested in the consonants:

Mayan:

['abjtklk', 'acnch', 'acnml', 'actntnchlmknl', 'actncn', 'elagct', 'agsclnts', 'agtc', 'ak', 'akt', 'almchl', 'altrdlsrys', 'altrdscrfcs', 'altnh', 'laml', 'elampr', "anyt'", 'annl', 'arrydpdr', 'st', 'bkngpt', 'blbrt', 'blkbl', 'blmk', 'blmtn', 'blnknch', 'elbúl', 'bcn', 'bjcl', 'bllt', 'blckmneddy', 'lblnc,ptn', 'blnchn', 'bnmpk', 'bnvst', 'st', 'chlpch', 'clkml', 'cmpch', 'cncn', 'cnscb', 'crcl', 'elcrb', 'csblnc', 'cntll', 'lscrrts-chjj', 'crrqc', 'crrs', 'chcii', 'chcchbn', 'chcmltn', 'chctún', 'chkll', 'chknbkn', 'chkkt', 'elchl', 'chpyl', 'chpdcrz', 'chcnn', 'chchnitz', 'chchml', 'elchczpt', 'chnh', 'chnkh', 'chnkltc', 'chtnmt', 'chclá', 'chjlm', 'elchrr', 'chctp', 'chnchcml', 'chnhhb', 'chnhtz', 'chnlmn', 'chtxtx', 'chtán', 'cvl', 'cvltk', 'cb', 'cmlclc', 'cmtn', 'cnscb', 'cpán', 'lcrn', 'crzl', 'czml', 'cc', 'cll', 'clb', 'st', 'dspls', 'dzhkbtn', 'dzkln', 'dzbnch', 'dzblchltn', 'dzblncc', 'dzbltn', 'dzlm', 'dztblch', 'dzl', 'st', 'edzn', "ek'blm", 'ekb', 'elencnt', 'elencnt', 'clnlesprnz', 'st', 'lflrd', 'flrs', 'st', 'gqtpc', 'gmrcj', 'st', 'hcndhtzc', 'hlkl', 'hll', 'hltnchn', 'lshgs', 'hchb', 'hlctn', 'hlml', 'lhnrdz[77]', 'hltn', 'lshrcns', 'hrmgr', 'hctl', 'hntchml', 'hntchmlii', 'st', 'ichmc', 'ichml', 'ichptn', 'ichpch', 'ikl', 'itsmt-sclk', 'itzmknc', 'itzn', 'itzmt-blnchn', 'ixl', 'ixmch', 'ixkn', 'ixl', 'ixtlh', 'ixtntn', 'ixttz', 'izml', 'izp', 'st', 'jcwtz', 'jnislnd', 'jmbl', "jlj'", 'jnt', 'jydcrén', 'ljync', 'st', 'kbh', 'klkml', 'kmnljy', 'kn', 'knk', 'kntnlkn', 'kxnc', 'kyl', 'knl', 'kc', 'khnlch', 'kmchn', "k'tpn", 'st', 'lbn', 'lcnh', 'ellgrtr', 'lgnprdd', 'lgnt', 'lmn', 'lshtnch', 'lltn', 'lópzmts', 'lsvll', 'lbntn', 'st', 'mchql', 'mng', 'mní', 'lmr', 'mrancn', 'mxcn', 'mypn', 'elmc', 'lmlp', 'mnnh', 'elmrdr', 'mrflrs', 'mxcvj', 'mntalt', 'lmntr', 'mpl', 'mrlrfrm', 'mtldsnjsé', 'mntncw', 'mxvql', 'lmrt', 'mlchc', 'mlchtskl', 'lmñc', 'myl', 'st', 'nchtn', 'njtnch', 'nkb', 'nkm', 'nrnj', 'lny', 'nbj', 'nclásbrv', 'nmlpnt', 'ncchch', 'nhml', 'nhpt', 'st', 'ojdag', 'okp', 'oxctzcb', 'oxkntk', 'oxlhntn', 'oxpml', 'oxtnkh', 'st', 'elpbllón', 'pdrpdr', 'pjrl', 'plnq', 'elplmr', 'elplmr', 'pnhl', 'pntlón', 'elprís', 'elprjl', 'lpsdt', 'psóndlcrst', 'elpt', 'pchl', 'elprú', 'pstc', 'pdgll', 'pdrlbrd', 'pdrsngrs', 'elplr', 'pxy', 'plndaytl', 'lpchtc', 'pll', 'pmn,blz', 'pmn,tbsc', 'pmch', 'elprtón', 'elprvnr', 'elpnt', 'pntdchmn', 'pslh', 'st', '"stq"', 'qnsnt', 'qrgá', "q'mrkj", 'st', 'elrsblón', 'elrtr', 'ríamrll', 'ríazl', 'ríbc', 'rímchl', 'elrsl', 'st', 'sbcch', 'scchn', 'scnct', 'scl', 'slnsdlsnvcrrs', 'snandrés', 'snbrtl', 'snclmnt', 'sndg', 'sngrvs', 'snlrnz', 'snlrnz', 'snmtixttán', 'snpdr', 'sntelnpcunc', 'sntrtcrzl', 'sntrsxtmpk', 'snttn', 'syl', 'sbl', 'shó', 'slvtc', 'smjvl', 'sslh', 'lsfrcy', 'st', 'tb', 'eltbsqñ', 'tklkabj', 'tmrndt', 'tnch', 'tysl', 'tzml', 'tchh', 'tlntnch', 'tlmn', 'eltmblr', 'tnmpnt', 'tnmrsr', 'tkl', 'tl', 'eltntl', 'thck', 'tnlá', 'tnná', 'tpxté', 'trtgr', 'trsisls', 'ltrndddnstrs', 'tlm', 'tnky', 'tzndls', 'tzbnch', 'tzcchn', 'tzm', 'st', 'uxctn', 'uyml', 'ucnl', 'uc', 'utzn', 'ukm', 'lunón', 'ulntn', 'uttln', 'uxbnk', 'uxml', 'uxl', 'st', "wk'", 'wxktn', 'wtzn', 'st', 'xblch', 'xclmkn', 'xcmb', 'xcrt', "x'cstll", 'xcch', 'xcchkx', 'xcrrlch', 'xccsc', 'xclc', 'xlh', 'xclng', 'xklchtzmn', 'xkchmk', 'xkpch', 'xkmbc', 'xkkcn', 'xlpk', 'xmkbtn', 'xnhb', 'xncbc', 'xphl', 'xtmpk', 'xtb', 'xl', 'xltn', 'xnntnch', 'xp', 'xtlh', 'xtxtx', 'st', 'yxhm', 'yklm', 'ylcbkl', 'ylttd', 'yxch-xlbpk', 'yxchln', 'yxcpl', 'yxh', 'yxn', "y'kp", 'yl', 'st', 'zcptn', 'zcl', 'elzpt', 'zptbbl', 'elztz']

Book of Mormon:

['arn', 'ablm', 'agsh', 'ath', 'aksh', 'alm', 'ammnhh', 'amnh', 'amln', 'anthth', 'angl', 'an-ant', 'antnm', 'antprh', 'mnt', 'antm', 'bbyln', 'bshn', 'bthbr', 'bz', 'bntfl', 'bntfl¹', 'bntfl²', 'cln', 'crchmsh', 'chld', 'cmnr', 'crhr', 'cmn', 'cmrh', 'dmscs', 'dvd', 'dsltn', 'dsltn', 'edn', 'edm', 'elm', 'ephrm', 'gd', 'gdnd', 'gdmnh', 'gllm', 'gb', 'gbm', 'gd', 'gdn', 'gdn', 'glgl', 'glgl', 'gmgmn', 'gmrrh', 'hgth', 'hmth', 'hlm', 'hrmnts', 'hshln', 'hth', 'hrb', 'irrntm', 'ishml', 'isrl', 'jcb', 'jcbgth', 'jshn', 'jrshn', 'jrslm¹', 'jrslm²', 'jrdn', 'jrdn', 'jsh', 'jsh', 'jdh', 'jd', 'kshkmn', 'lsh', 'lmn', 'lmn', 'lbnn', 'lh¹', 'lh²', 'lh-nph', 'lml', 'lml', 'mdmnh', 'mnt', 'mnt', 'mnt', 'mlk', 'mchmsh', 'mddn', 'mdn', 'mgrn', 'mnn', 'mb', 'mcm', 'mrncmr', 'mrntn', 'mrntm', 'mrmn', 'mrmn', 'mrmn', 'mrn', "mrn's", 'mrn', 'mrnhh', 'mlk', 'nhm', 'nphtl', 'nzrth', 'nhr', 'nph', 'nph', 'nphhh', 'nphhh', 'nmrd', 'nh', 'ogth', 'omnr', 'ondh', 'ondh', 'onhh', 'rmh', 'rmth', 'rplh', 'rplncm', 'sbs', 'shzr', 'shlm', 'shm²', 'shmln', 'shrrzh', 'shlh', 'shlm', 'shm', 'shmnlm', 'shnr', 'shrr', 'sdm', 'snm', 'srn', 'trshsh', 'tncm', 'wldrnss', 'zrhml', 'zrhml', 'zbln', 'zzrm', 'zrn']

(I didn't weed out the Bible names mentioned in Book of Mormon)

[_Gadianton]

ah hell, as I pasted those names into the screen, my eye caught a lot of "lm"s in there, those lists were truncated on my output. So i have to throw this out too: My linguistics may be way off, but assuming smaller words in a language are combined into bigger words, I pulled out all 3-consanant Myan names, and then looked for those in the total list of Mayn names. The result is a little interesting, if taking into account the commonality in English. Here is every hit of at least 1:


Matches for 3-consant string: tzm
itzmknc
itzmt-blnchn
tzml
xklchtzmn

Matches for 3-consant string: lmn
chnlmn
lmntr
snclmnt
tlmn

Matches for 3-consant string: lmr
elmrdr
lmrt
elplmr

Matches for 3-consant string: scl
agsclnts
itsmt-sclk

Matches for 3-consant string: sbl
csblnc
elrsblón

Matches for 3-consant string: knl
actntnchlmknl

Matches for 3-consant string: lbn
lbntn

Matches for 3-consant string: xlh
oxlhntn

Matches for 3-consant string: yxh
yxhm

[_honorentheos]

Interesting that a Lamanite general with a Hebrew name (Aaron) would systematically destroy all evidence of the Nephite civilization...

[_Gadianton]

When I looked the list of Mayan sites and skimmed down to "Lamanai", which sticks out like a sore thumb, my thought was I'm either missing something really important or the Mopologists are smoking a rare breed of crack. It's obviously a coincidence that a handful of the cities kind of sound the same, because otherwise, these names don't have anything to do with each other.

It seems to me, however, that the basic idea of consonants in order might say something useful about the language, based on the fact that it does appear some consonant-order clusters are very common for both the Book of Mormon city names and others for the Mayan city names. For the Mayan city names, if I take the consonants (in order) for the two-consonant names and the first two consonants of the three consonant names, there are 400 of these clusters throughout all names, 47 variations of the clusters, and only 5 of these are lone examples (1%) -- most appear multiple times. for the Book of Mormon, it's 575, 35, 11.

For the 47 (Mayan) and 35 (Book of Mormon) two-consonant variations, 6 are in common: lm, mn, hl, sb, cl, sh. For example, here is the data for sb:

sb ['sbs'] (Book of Mormon) ['csblnc', 'nclásbrv', 'elrsblón', 'sbcch', 'sbl'] (mayan)

'sh' (Ishmael) is a variation found 25 times in the Book of Mormon, which is the Book of Mormon's largest category. Those 25 guesses result in 4 hits within Mayan city names. Joseph Smith didn't guess anything with "ln", 20 examples in Mayan, or "st", the largest Mayan two-consonant variation, with 30 examples.

It may not be surprising that the two largest shared variations are "lm" (Book of Mormon = 14, Maya = 24) and "mn" (Book of Mormon = 21, Maya = 16).

For Mayan cities, there are 12 variations of 2-consonants with > 10 examples each. For Book of Mormon, there are 4 variations with > 10 examples each. (lm, mr, mn, sh). For instance, tz has 18 examples in Mayan city names and dz has 11 and xt has 12.

[_Lemmie]

Thanks, Gadianton, for the overview of Dale's response, the mental gymnastics are fully on display. This caught my eye.

Given this background, I think not a single Nephite city name would survive the destruction of the Nephite people described in the Book of Mormon at the end of the 4th century AD. And apparently none did…although the absence of such names is not really very good evidence.

No, it's not.

Then there is another problem. From the wiki on Lamanai:

Unlike most Classic-period sites in the southern Maya lowlands, Lamanai was not abandoned at the end of the 10th century AD.[2]

So it seems Lamanai was in the Maya lowlands, right?

However, the Dales make this statement in Correspondence 5.13:

But the Book of Mormon does not claim to be set among the lowland Maya, so this is irrelevant.

So that would mean the Correspondence 1.6, city of Lamanai, is also irrelevant (as well as the 8 or 9 other correspondences specifically relying on Mayan lowland information), and therefore NOT a match.

I agree with Gadianton, Billy Shears' likelihood ratio of 170 instead of 0.02 is generous. (And again, an adequate peer review or even a competent editor would have noted that the Dales were admitting evidence on the basis of Book of Mormon similarities to Mayan lowlands while also using exactly the opposite argument, that the Book of Mormon was NOT set in Mayan lowlands, to also admit evidence! How is that even possible? Does the Interpreter not even proofread???)

[_Lemmie]

When I looked the list of Mayan sites and skimmed down to "Lamanai", which sticks out like a sore thumb, my thought was I'm either missing something really important or the Mopologists are smoking a rare breed of crack. It's obviously a coincidence that a handful of the cities kind of sound the same, because otherwise, these names don't have anything to do with each other.

It seems to me, however, that the basic idea of consonants in order might say something useful about the language, based on the fact that it does appear some consonant-order clusters are very common for both the Book of Mormon city names and others for the Mayan city names. For the Mayan city names, if I take the consonants (in order) for the two-consonant names and the first two consonants of the three consonant names, there are 400 of these clusters throughout all names, 47 variations of the clusters, and only 5 of these are lone examples (1%) -- most appear multiple times. for the Book of Mormon, it's 575, 35, 11.

For the 47 (Mayan) and 35 (Book of Mormon) two-consonant variations, 6 are in common: lm, mn, hl, sb, cl, sh. For example, here is the data for sb:

sb ['sbs'] (Book of Mormon) ['csblnc', 'nclásbrv', 'elrsblón', 'sbcch', 'sbl'] (mayan)

'sh' (Ishmael) is a variation found 25 times in the Book of Mormon, which is the Book of Mormon's largest category. Those 25 guesses result in 4 hits within Mayan city names. Joseph Smith didn't guess anything with "ln", 20 examples in Mayan, or "st", the largest Mayan two-consonant variation, with 30 examples.

It may not be surprising that the two largest shared variations are "lm" (Book of Mormon = 14, Maya = 24) and "mn" (Book of Mormon = 21, Maya = 16).

For Mayan cities, there are 12 variations of 2-consonants with > 10 examples each. For Book of Mormon, there are 4 variations with > 10 examples each. (lm, mr, mn, sh). For instance, tz has 18 examples in Mayan city names and dz has 11 and xt has 12.

Wow, Gad i looked again at your comments on this, also

They would need to make an argument for why that name is so unusual. If anything, given the above 3/4, taking letter frequency into account, Billy may be giving them the benefit of the doubt.

After your posting, I'm thinking Billy's LR=170 is way too low. The Dales' argument is nothing more than a sharpshooter fallacy.

[_Lemmie]

There was a comment in another thread about how some LDS members will rationalize this paper, i thought this quote by a poster from the other board illustrates that quite well:

The problem with criticism's like Billy Shears, is that the model is more robust than the criticism gives it credit for. The model is completely open to disagreements in the assumptions made--and that includes the assumptions of probability. So, rather than simply throw shade, Billy's (and your) burden in disagreeing with the study is to actually go and run the numbers based on your assumptions, and justify those assumptions with the evidence. To the extent that neither Billy nor you have done that, your disagreement--although, perhaps, well-based--is useless.

?? This tells me that this person did not really read Billy Shears' and others comments. He 'ran the numbers' many times, as did honorentheos and others.

So, I say to Billy and everyone else -- your disagreement with the study is immaterial. Unless someone has a substantive problem with the Bayesian analysis (and I don't see that anyone is really attacking the legitimacy of the methodology),

Now its completely obvious he didn't actually read the comments. So many comments have been made about the inappropriateness of assigning likelihood ratio values equal to the guessing probability only, the wildly inappropriate assumption of independence, the arbitrary assignment of numerical values justified by linking them erroneously to the descriptive categorization of actual values, the lack of calculation of the denominator of the likelihood ratios, etc. etc. etc.

[you should]re-run the analysis using your own assumptions. Because there are so many "hits" and so few "misses," the weight of probabilities will simply not change the result.

So this poster does not understand the issues, especially independence and the type of hypotheses used in Bayesian inference at all. No legitimate (as in, peer-reviewed) statistical reading of the paper would have allowed the independence assumption to stand, as the Dales used it. The hypothesis issue could have been fixed, why the peer-reviewing statistician did not catch that as well is a puzzle.

Billy is straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Even if his criticisms are correct, there is no reason to believe that they'd make much (let alone a material) difference in the calculations.

Wrong. Correcting the independence issue alone would wipe out their results. So would correcting the misuse of Bayesian likelihood ratios. The huge inconsistencies and errors, documented in this thread, would do the same. Adequate editing and proof-reading should have fixed the misquoting and the use of contradictory assumptions also.

I would be curious to hear if editor Allen Wyatt still backs his peer-reviewing statistician and meso-americanist. He stopped commenting weeks ago.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sheesh! Pac man is proud of the fact that the analysis is rigged so that the strength of the evidenceis irrelevant. In fact, it’s one of many red flags that the methodology is fatally flawed. The Dales’ methodology forces a conclusion that six pieces of evidence, no matter how weak, outweigh any single piece of evidence no matter how strong. That is utter nonsense. And Bayesian analysis says no such thing. But even worse, they systematically excluded from consideration most of the negative evidence.

Shears only took on the correspondences because that’s what Bruce was challenging people to do. The problems with correspondences are just icing on the cake.

[_Lemmie]

To be fair to the other board, the post immediately after the one i quoted makes very good points:

So, I say to Billy and everyone else -- your disagreement with the study is immaterial. Unless someone has a substantive problem with the Bayesian analysis (and I don't see that anyone is really attacking the legitimacy of the methodology), re-run the analysis using your own assumptions. Because there are so many "hits" and so few "misses," the weight of probabilities will simply not change the result. Whether the chance of invalidity of the Book of Mormon is 1:10,000; 1:100,000, 1:1,000,000, or 1:1,000,000,000, or some other absurdly small number, for all practical purposes, the validity is demonstrated and the differences in probability (due to different assumptions) are immaterial. As an example, if Billy's criticisms about the directions in the Book of Mormon were completely right (and they are not, such as when he misreads 3 Nephi 8:1-2 and the truthfulness of the record as meaning the truthfulness of the calendar, which is actually explicitly assumed to be correct--thus, suggesting it might not be), how would that truly change the end result? Really, it wouldn't.

Oh, but there is a substantive problem with the analysis and it has been raised, both by Billy Shears and myself earlier in the thread. The problem is the analysis is not using an exhaustive set of conditions, which is a requirement for a Bayesian analysis. The analysis assumes that either the Book of Mormon is what it says it is or else Joseph made it up. But there are many, many other possibilities. . . many people who could have made it up besides Joseph. This universe of other potential authors has to be tested against in order for the analysis to be valid. So instead of asking, what is the likelihood Joseph could have made this up, the real question is, what is the likelihood that some person could have made it up? It is only an exhaustive set if everybody in the universe living before the Book of Mormon came forth is considered as a potential author. As I've said before, the Dales have set up a false dichotomy.

[_Lemmie]

Sheesh! Pac man is proud of the fact that the analysis is rigged so that the strength of the evidence is irrelevant.

In fact, it’s one of many red flags that the methodology is fatally flawed. The Dales’ methodology forces a conclusion that six pieces of evidence, no matter how weak, outweigh any single piece of evidence no matter how strong. That is utter nonsense. And Bayesian analysis says no such thing. But even worse, they systematically excluded from consideration most of the negative evidence.

Shears only took on the correspondences because that’s what Bruce was challenging people to do. The problems with correspondences are just icing on the cake.

exactly.