$30k challenge to Interpreter’s “Team Bayes”

[MG 2.0]

While we’re at it, some thoughts from a run of the mill member of the church:

https://www.justjanasue.com/occams-razo ... of-Mormon/

I am in agreement with most of what she has to say. Don’t slam her too hard because she’s not an academic.

Looking forward to what others have to say in response to my specific questions. Then I’ll give my two cents.

Regards,
MG

Argumentum ad populum. The same claims have literally been given by many cargo cults. Evolutionary biology supports believing things that have not been seen. Conditioning oneself to believe certain tenants can change a person's life. And some people do it without books. How can we tell the difference between the two? How in the world does that support a truth claim that requires a multitude of leaps that are virtually absent in a person's lifetime? The world as we see it does not support angels, telepathic communication, goblins, spooks, and people rising from the dead. If there is a god that directed the restoration he/she/them has to be punking us.

I would actually agree with this wholeheartedly if it wasn’t for the fact that I see the existence of God as being more likely than not. As a result of that determination I look at possible adjustments in everything that comes after that. This being the case, I find it difficult to get beyond this point in discussions like this because we find ourselves branching out in different directions dependent on our presumptions. I’m looking for God in the bigger picture. If I was looking at things from a philosophical view similar to Pointillism in the art world, I’d be more likely to see things from a point of view similar to yours (pun intended).

If I was always standing up close to the painting.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Two responses so far.

Regards,
MG

Start a new thread if you want to run a topic survey on occam’s razor.

I probably won’t do that. Someone else can if they want. For me, Occam's razor comes down to the simple declaration of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. Too many hoops to jump through with all the alternative theories that have been discussed going on almost two hundreds years now.

I know this thread has other directions folks would like it to go, so for now that’s all I have to say unless others contribute something I feel like I should respond to on its merits.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

What KR should do, in order control for global academic bias against Mopologist theories, is find a surrogate project in the outside world.

KR should find a book that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and show that it is ancient by a Bayesian analysis of length, and see if he can convince anybody in the real world that he's right. And what about witnesses? Go out there and prove something else by a similar Bayesian analysis of witnesses and see if anybody takes it seriously.

Yes. These hermetically sealed discussions are becoming increasingly nonsensical. Rasmussen's effort of piling isolated analysis on top of already isolated analysis is becoming painful to watch. Mopologists need a new schtick.

[Gabriel]

What Kyler Rasmussen should do, in order control for global academic bias against Mopologist theories, is find a surrogate project in the outside world.

Kyler Rasmussen should find a book that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and show that it is ancient by a Bayesian analysis of length, and see if he can convince anybody in the real world that he's right. And what about witnesses? Go out there and prove something else by a similar Bayesian analysis of witnesses and see if anybody takes it seriously.

Or he could expand his control group to include all first-time religious/esoteric works of self-proclaimed mystics:

"The Poem of the God-Man" by Maria Valtorta (5000 pages)
"Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson" as dictated by G.I. Gurdgieff (1240 pages)
"The Secret Doctrine" by Helena Blavatsky (1400 pages)
The visionary Emmanuel Swedenborg's first religious book was roughly 20 volumes long.
Joseph Smith's contemporary, the German Catholic Nun Anne Catherine Emmerich, related her visions to two scribes. They total to roughly 2200 pages.

And I am certain that the above list is not exhaustive

One could reasonably argue the merits and demerits and/or elements of fraud in all these examples. Nevertheless, they definitely blow the Long=Ancient argument out of the water.

[Dr Moore]

For those who have been reading the math in Kyler's project, it's obvious enough by now that Kyler's "pet" contains substantial methodological problems. Non sequiturs, cherry picking, and avoidance of basic questions of statistical independence and statistical validity; these abound throughout, clear as day, as shameless as they are ridiculous. His response to criticism, whether delivered warmly or harshly, has been pretty much the same: "thanks for your input, but here's why I'm right." For a project this ambitious, it's a bad look to say the least that Interpreter went to press with such a wholly inadequately peer-reviewed solo act.

However well-intentioned at the outset, the product is at best an ersatz attempt to put Bayesian math behind a few specific apologetic arguments. But even those are so crudely constructed as to render the whole thing utterly meaningless. Like a science project using made-up laws of physics, Kyler's Estimating the Evidence is a waste of time for all involved. It's utterly bad science for those with a critical eye, and it's pornography for uncritical believers.

If Kyler were honest about things, he'd have stopped mid-way, put his pencil down, and acknowledged the folly in attempting to adequately project something like "the Book of Mormon's historicity claim" onto the plane of statistical mathematics. He should have stopped a thousand times and said "it's mathematically intractable, physically impossible to estimate using the tools of statistics; the best answer we've got is Moroni 10:3-5. End of story."

That being said, as I shared with Kyler prior to episode 1 dropping, this project could have achieved a few important singles and doubles for Mopologetics. To do so, he'd have had to limit the scope and seek co-authorship with a trained statistician, and in hindsight, a trained logician from the department of philosophy as well.

I offered a bounty if Kyler would show rigor on just one aspect of his project -- statistical independence. And then I offered to pay for formal peer review and an open collaboration with BYU professors. But Kyler so kindly asked me to pound sand. It's his baby, his baby is perfect, he loves his baby, and no one's going to convince him that his baby is ugly.

He's got a small cadre from Interpreter circles defending the apologetic angles underpinning his arguments, but so far, has a single reputable mathematician or logician come out in public to to defend the merits of Kyler's statistical frameworks? I'm not aware of one.

Of course, he's free to put this Frankenstein project online and Interpreter is free to publish it. But with each passing episode, both parties are unwittingly handing critics bazookas with which to bring down their ziggurat.

I'm tempted to say that this affair with statistics will ultimately go the way of those TITS videos. However well-meaning the intentions, the product is so patently bad, it won't be long before folks in the right places will see that the rigors of math and logic are so damaging to certain apologetic arguments, the negative ripple effects far outweighs any potential confirmation bias effects.

[drumdude]

it's a bad look to say the least that Interpreter went to press with such a wholly inadequately peer-reviewed solo act.

Peterson gave Interpreter an out by describing this endeavor as Kyler's "personal investigation of Joseph Smith."

[Dr Exiled]

it's a bad look to say the least that Interpreter went to press with such a wholly inadequately peer-reviewed solo act.

Peterson gave Interpreter an out by describing this endeavor as Kyler's "personal investigation of Joseph Smith."

Sorry, it's DCP's thing and if he lets the flat-earthers post their crazy theories on the supposed "journal," it sullies his reputation. Also, he's funded the nonsense Early Modern English theory from the start. No, DCP can't evade the silliness by calling this Kyler's personal investigation. The time to distance is prior to publication with what they call peer review.

[Physics Guy]

Blogs publish personal investigations. Academic journals are supposed to have more objective standards.

[Dr Moore]

Blogs publish personal investigations. Academic journals are supposed to have more objective standards.

Bayes is supposed to use objective standards and data too. Compounding subjectivity upon more subjectivity isn't a good way to find useful insights.

[MG 2.0]

If Kyler were honest about things, he'd…[say the] best answer we've got is Moroni 10:3-5. End of story."

I would imagine that if you were to confront him with this, he would agree.

I’ve always found it interesting that Joseph always stayed pretty much out of the fray when it came to how the Book of Mormon was translated. He could have said more, but didn’t. But I’m sure that he wasn’t surprised when folks took him to task for claiming God had a part in it.

Even nowadays there are a lot of people struggle with the idea that “God did it”.

Granted, it left the playing field wide open for faith promoting and non faith promoting versions of the translation narrative which have come and gone over time.

Always room for faith or disbelief.

And no, this is not meant to be a derail. I’m just making my thoughts and feelings known, and making a point in response to something you said that I agreed with.

You are free to ignore me and carry on.

Regards,
MG