I hadn't really paid much attention to the two control books the Dales used, other than to note that they concluded those books really were fiction, but the issue came up in one of the comments I read today, so I took another look.
To my surprise, the Dales used a completely different methodology in order to reach their fictional conclusions about their control books, the
Manuscript Found and
View of the Hebrews. . In my opinion, we are past errors and unclear statistics; what they did with the two controls is blatantly dishonest.
As a reminder, the method for finding correspondences between Coe's book and the Book of Mormon was specified as such:
Again, it is only rational and honest to compare statements of fact which are dealt with by both books. On statements of fact where one or the other books is silent, we cannot assume either agreement or disagreement. There is no rational scientific basis for doing so because there is no evidence to support our choices.
That was the justification for ending up with 131 positive correspondences; if the statements have to match, then by definition, only "matches," or positive correspondences will be considered. The Dales stretched their rules to allow the 18 negative correspondences from outside Coe's book, but emphasize that they think it is just generosity on their part.
However, when the Dales considered Manuscript Found in Appendix 3, the rules inexplicably changed. After registering 19 "matches," by their technique above, they then considered non-matches found by comparing Coe's book and the Manuscript Found!
The first three negative correspondences:
1. earthen box, as opposed to limestone box.
2. parchment, vs. bark
3. Latin writing, Dr. Coe never mentioned Latin.
The rest of the 20 negative correspondences follow the same pattern.
So not only are differences in the control book comparison allowed to be used as negative correspondences, so also are the complete absence of items from one book while mentioned in the other allowed to be used as negative correspondences! This is completely in opposition to the stated methodology used by the Dales in their Book of Mormon analysis. Not only do the Dales cherry-pick the data to give their favored hypotheses emphasis, they also change the rules between testing methodologies to ensure it. The Dales then have the audacity to lecture on the dishonesty of their approach:
It is a common error (deliberate or otherwise) to consider only a few pieces of evidence when examining the truth or falsity of a given hypothesis. In the extreme, this practice is called cherry-picking. In cherry-picking, evidence against one’s existing hypothesis is deliberately excluded from consideration.
This practice is, of course, dishonest. It is another common error to consider some pieces of relevant evidence as having infinite weight or having zero weight compared to other pieces of evidence. This practice is irrational and unscientific.
These practices of cherry-picking or overweighting/underweighting evidence cannot be allowed in scientific enquiry. They are neither rational nor honest. We must consider all relevant evidence if we hope to make honest, rational decisions.
Yes, Bruce and Brian, "this practice is, of course, dishonest."
You could argue that this was just the mistake of an over-eager beginner, but peer review would have caught that, right? And besides, the Dales have repeated, over and over, how experienced they are in this kind of analysis so the only thing left is dishonesty. The Dales have engaged in an extremely unethical switching of methodology between their Book of Mormon analysis and their two control groups, in order to favor their desired outcome.
Remember that Editor Wyatt stated this paper was peer-reviewed by a statistician. I am finding that impossible to believe, unless that statistician was as lacking in integrity as the Dales.
This bizarre scene just keeps getting worse.
(And, of course, assuming total independence across and between 131 statements from a single book is still the most ridiculous assumption possible.)
