The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Dr Exiled]

A Cautionary Letter to My Friends:

Well, here I am in Vegas, having the time of my life! I met someone last night who I really think is the luckiest person in the entire world.

Let me explain. I first saw him about 1 am, at the roulette table. Later he told me he had been playing Roulette since he got there, around 8 pm. Anyway, I watched him guess a number... and win! What are the odds? Well, just over 2%, according to my "Newbie's Guide to Vegas." Can you believe it?

The next night I went to a show- by myself, my new friend wanted to practice his roulette luck. Well, I met up with him around midnight, just in time to watch him play 4 numbers and win--not once but twice! The odds on that are about 10%, so not as amazing as his win the night before, but then--get this.

On his very next bet, he played Red, and also won! That's about 50/50 odds, but still, right after his 2 other wins? Amazing, right?! I went to bed right after that, but my friend stayed playing Roulette.

This morning, my friend found me at the brunch buffet. I have to say, he looked a little beat, but he said he was up all night playing games, so I can understand.

Anyway, here's my dilemma. My new friend needs to borrow $80,000. I know that's a lot, but he promises he will return it double by tonight. "Remember me and my wins? I'm the luckiest winner you've ever met, so it's not even a risk!" Then he said we can meet up at 8 pm tonight, and that doubling my money will be "the surest bet in the Casino!"

Well, I am thinking hard about this. What are the odds that he won FOUR TIMES this weekend? Each of those wins was totally unrelated to any other win, right? I mean really, what are the odds someone would win four times in a single weekend of gambling? So, if the wins are all independent, I can multiply their probabilities...

.02 x .1 x .1 x .5 = 0.0001.

That means there is only ONE chance in TEN THOUSAND that my friend managed all four wins! I remember reading somewhere about prior odds... before I got here this weekend I would have thought it would be 100 to 1 against a guesser turning out to actually be a... well, a "knower," I suppose!!

Anyway, if I multiply my prior odds by the odds of the four totally independent wins, I get... 0.0001 x 100 = 0.01 or 1 one-hundredth.

So, if i recall correctly what I read in the Interpreter about updating my posterior odds, that means that I now believe that the odds are ONE HUNDRED TO ONE that my new friend "knows" what bet will win at Roulette!

Well, I am off to the bank, there is no way I can pass up odds like this. It will totally use up all of my savings and max out every credit card I have, but since I'll be putting twice that amount back tomorrow, I can live with the high interest rates! (I will tell you that one of the Casino workers overheard my friend talking to me at brunch, and on the way out, she whispered in my ear something like, "ask him how many bets he...." then I didn't hear the last word. It was something like "bossed?" or "cost?" or maybe "lost?" but I don't really know.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I am confident my math is correct, and besides, I got it out of the Interpreter. I am taking into account all the information necessary to determine how good a guesser my new friend really is. Or should I say, KNOWER? Hah hah!!

I mean really, what are the odds I have found the one and only 'Knower' among all the 'Guessers' in Vegas?! I would say, "wish me luck!" but I don't really think I need it.

Yours Truly,

.........................

Brilliant!

[_Gadianton]

that means that I now believe that the odds are ONE HUNDRED TO ONE that my new friend "knows" what bet will win at Roulette!

the best part. when facing dalesque odds, if you get a crack at 100 to 1, it's time to do a wire transfer.

[_honorentheos]

Brilliant, Lemmie.

[_Gadianton]

What are the odds that he won FOUR TIMES this weekend

Right, the facts of the dice lined up with the facts as presented in the state of nevada gaming rules. (and they take these very seriously) There is no scientific basis for talking about any other state of affairs that happened that evening.

[Guest]

I'm not in academia, but a 1 year peer review process seems ridiculously long.

What is the average time period to peer reviewed an article?

One year in peer review is a long time. Here are a two typical (if somewhat dated) sequences:

This sequence is typical for an author known to the journal editorial staff:
- Received: April 24, 2000
- Accepted: August 8, 2000
- Published: December issue, 2000

If substantial revision is required:
- Received: July, 2000
- Revised: January, 2001
- Accepted: April, 2001
- Published: August issue, 2001
So, in this case, a paper could well be in review - revision - review for a year or more.

Since the Dale & Dale paper is such a hot mess, one can safely assume:

1. No (competent) peer review was ever carried out, or

2. Incompetent peer review was done and as a result no revisions were suggested, or (and this seems most likely),

3. The paper was passed around at the Interpreter. Everyone was impressed by the pseudoscientific language and weight of the printed manuscript, but had no clue as to whether or not any of it made sense outside the bubble. However, they figured with odds of "many billions to one" in favor of the main hypothesis, whatever it was, that the conclusions must be mostly right. In fact, one of the co-authors, a real Ph.D., even stated:

We conclude that the Book of Mormon is historical, and is based in fact, with odds of many, many billions to one that this statement is true.

So what choice did they have. Prompted by the spirit and their unwavering faith, they finally decided what the hell and published it.

And now, after more than 600 uniformly negative comments, most by competent professionals, and >16,000 page views of said negative comments on this message board alone, along with the slow motion train wreck on their own comment section, anyone with any responsibility for this debacle must certainly regret having done so (or soon will).

[_Morley]

In fact, one of the co-authors, a real Ph.D., even stated:

We conclude that the Book of Mormon is historical, and is based in fact, with odds of many, many billions to one that this statement is true.

Part of the problem is that the Doctors Dale are working outside their fields of expertise. Some in the so-called hard sciences think that social science, art, and humanities research is an easy, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants sort of thing that could be negotiated by anyone with any type of education. Mixing qualitative and quantitative research can get tricky, especially if you haven’t been trained in it.

[_Morley]

A Cautionary Letter to My Friends:

<snip>

Yours Truly,

.........................

Nicely done, Lemmie.

[_Morley]

Honorentheos, you have certainly done your part over on the Interpreter comment section to highlight the Dale debacle for what it is.

Agree.

[_Lemmie]

Stephen Smoot:

Being, as it is, a witness for the divinity of Jesus Christ and a sign of the prophethood of Joseph Smith, it is fundamentally important that Latter-day Saint expounders or commentators on the Book of Mormon use the utmost care in how they analyze the book with academic or scholarly tools. They must be responsible not to encourage the use of problematic methodologies or to promote unsound (or outright fraudulent) “faith-promoting” arguments. When shortcomings or problems in their methods or arguments are reasonably demonstrated, it is the responsibility of said expounders to honestly recognize their mistakes, disown or refine the problematic elements, and move forward.

Is Smoot referring to the Dales' paper?

It would definitely be good advice, but apparently not:

Sadly, those involved in the production and sale of the AEBOM such as Rod Meldrum have shown no such responsibility when confronted with their errors, but have, instead, doubled down and obstinately refused to acknowledge the glaring problems and weaknesses with their arguments.3

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/ ... art-8.html

[_MonkeyNumber9]

Bruce is really digging in his heels over in the comments section on that ldsphilospher.com (Jeffrey Thayne) critique of his paper:

http://www.ldsphilosopher.com/a-respons ... storicity/

------------------------
Scott Goates
06/05/2019

Thank you for your analysis [directed to the writer at ldsphilosopoher.com] – I agree with everything you have pointed out. Any interest in writing a response to the editor asking for a retraction? Publications of this sort delegitimize the entire field of Mormon Studies. Happy to collaborate!

------------------------

Bruce E. Dale
06/12/2019

Hi Scott:
You are welcome to ask for a retraction if you wish. However, neither my son nor I will retract the article voluntarily and Interpreter has already said that the article will not be retracted.
Bruce Dale