Interpretering Bayesian Analysis

[huckelberry]

They had large beefs with Joseph and they knew very clearly that they would have instant notoriety and a huge following if they blew Joseph's game open.

Those are both assumptions, definitely not givens. And charisma is also not to be taken for granted.

I do not see much reason to think they had any information with which to blow the game open. They were not on the inside of the game.Joseph was.

[kyzabee]

Those are both assumptions, definitely not givens. And charisma is also not to be taken for granted.

I do not see much reason to think they had any information with which to blow the game open. They were not on the inside of the game.Joseph was.

And that's the other option: Joseph somehow tricking the witnesses. I do my best to think through that option as well.

[drumdude]

He decides before the fact that 10 ^ -42 is the number to beat.

I think this needs to be discussed further.

10^-42 is the bullseye drawn around the arrow. There’s no reason it couldn’t be -40, -30, -50, -60 etc. -42 is completely arbitrary.

You can spend all your time describing the flight of the arrow, air resistance, gravity, but at the end of the day it doesn’t change the fact that all you have accomplished is drawing a bullseye around the arrow you fired.

[Dr Moore]

I'm afraid the desire to believe will affect this exercise given how fuzzy subjective beliefs can be.

Probably, just as the desire to disbelieve will impact most of the people here. This project is already doing what I hoped it would, though--providing a common framework for both sides to discuss the evidence in a clear and amicable way.

I wouldn’t say you have provided a common framework for anything, other than for pointing out the perils of misusing statistical tools to rationalize cherry picking and softening the impact of sharpshooter logic.

[Dr Moore]

While I do appreciate the effort to be affable around so much critical feedback, it’s already very obvious to me that Kyler is wasting everyone’s time.

With the volume of critical feedback he’s already received, we have seen zero willingness to adjust process, acknowledge deeply erroneous assumptions, or even to accept an offer to pay for free input from a paid consultant from BYU. Think about how ridiculous that would be in ANY academic setting. “Thanks for your questions but I’m right and you’re biased” is what his messages here amount to.

So… I’m not going to waste the time engaging with him anymore. The whole project might be fun for him, but it clearly isn’t serious.

[kyzabee]

While I do appreciate the effort to be affable around so much critical feedback, it’s already very obvious to me that Kyler is wasting everyone’s time.

With the volume of critical feedback he’s already received, we have seen zero willingness to adjust process, acknowledge deeply erroneous assumptions, or even to accept an offer to pay for free input from a paid consultant from BYU. Think about how ridiculous that would be in ANY academic setting. “Thanks for your questions but I’m right and you’re biased” is what his messages here amount to.

So… I’m not going to waste the time engaging with him anymore. The whole project might be fun for him, but it clearly isn’t serious.

Thanks for the chat Dr. Moore!

[kyzabee]

He decides before the fact that 10 ^ -42 is the number to beat.

I think this needs to be discussed further.

10^-42 is the bullseye drawn around the arrow. There’s no reason it couldn’t be -40, -30, -50, -60 etc. -42 is completely arbitrary.

You can spend all your time describing the flight of the arrow, air resistance, gravity, but at the end of the day it doesn’t change the fact that all you have accomplished is drawing a bullseye around the arrow you fired.

You're right. The prior can be whatever you want it to be. I figured a value that represented double the orders of magnitude that others had applied to things like time travel would be sufficient here, but you can pick whatever value matches your level of belief.

[Philo Sofee]

I do not see much reason to think they had any information with which to blow the game open. They were not on the inside of the game.Joseph was.

And that's the other option: Joseph somehow tricking the witnesses. I do my best to think through that option as well.

More realistic, and certainly probable is Joseph primed them. Dan Vogel's materials on this is absolutely essential for any Bayesian calculations.

[Philo Sofee]

While I do appreciate the effort to be affable around so much critical feedback, it’s already very obvious to me that Kyler is wasting everyone’s time.

With the volume of critical feedback he’s already received, we have seen zero willingness to adjust process, acknowledge deeply erroneous assumptions, or even to accept an offer to pay for free input from a paid consultant from BYU. Think about how ridiculous that would be in ANY academic setting. “Thanks for your questions but I’m right and you’re biased” is what his messages here amount to.

So… I’m not going to waste the time engaging with him anymore. The whole project might be fun for him, but it clearly isn’t serious.

Thanks for the chat Dr. Moore!

You SERIOUSLY *HAVE* to engage his comments. He is correct. If you are just having fun, that is one thing, but if this is any kind of serious, and you really expect others to view you as credible, then you have to be credible. This flippant attitude here concerns me. Am I to even bother taking what you say seriously then? Sure Sic et Non will love you and praise you in high brainwashed fashion, but is that low bar all you go for? Really?! Aren't you even mildly curious about the truth of any of this?

I shall know far better after you bring out your DNA materials and probability analysis of this issue. You need to be seriously good here because there is a lot of ways to cheat, and being here.... you WILL get caught cheating if you do so. Are you up for doing it correctly when that is discovered? I have seen apologists constantly cheating on this issue either with the evidence, or misstating the background knowledge. I sincerely hope you are a better man than they, and yes, I include the FARMS and FAIR idiots who have tried and failed. You truly need to branch out past that to do anything of significance, please. Please do so and be real about this I really want to see your number, and your work showing how and why you get the numbers you do on the DNA stuff. You don't strike me as an idiot like most Mormon apologists are, please don't become one here with the DNA analysis.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

While I do appreciate the effort to be affable around so much critical feedback, it’s already very obvious to me that Kyler is wasting everyone’s time.

With the volume of critical feedback he’s already received, we have seen zero willingness to adjust process, acknowledge deeply erroneous assumptions, or even to accept an offer to pay for free input from a paid consultant from BYU. Think about how ridiculous that would be in ANY academic setting. “Thanks for your questions but I’m right and you’re biased” is what his messages here amount to.

So… I’m not going to waste the time engaging with him anymore. The whole project might be fun for him, but it clearly isn’t serious.

I’d like to see Dr. Rasmussen take one item from his set of values, and ‘run it through’ a Bayesian analysis right here, so Cassius faculty can discuss his process, in a contextual and pragmatic manner. We need to see how one hit or miss is used within Dr. Rasmussen’s process.

- Doc