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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:06 pm
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.
It really is getting worse. I seem to recall, in an off-hand comment, Kyler even admitting that if he changed the numbers to reflect a correction of one of Billy Spears' issues, he could just adjust other numbers to get right back to his "success." Admitting that says a lot. Combined with PG's illustration of the sharpshooter gimmick Kyler uses when he sets a probability favorable to his argument equal to one, and it's becoming more and more clear the numbers are not being realistically analyzed. Not that there was ever much doubt.
drumdude
God
Posts: 7206
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

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

Post by drumdude »

Lem wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:36 pm
I seem to recall, in an off-hand comment, Kyler even admitting that if he changed the numbers to reflect a correction of one of Billy Spears' issues, he could just adjust other numbers to get right back to his "success." Admitting that says a lot.
That says all you need to know about Kyler.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1889
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

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

Post by Dr Moore »

I find it surprising that Dr. Kyle Pratt hasn't come out in public to defend Kyler Rasmussen's mathematical porn project. Why hide in the darkness when he could lend some real academic credibility to it all?

Well anyway, someone named Kyle Pratt has been posting on SeN and collaborating with DCP for years. And his posts do indicate broad alignment with Kyler's apologetics. Which makes it all the more odd that Kyle isn't a coauthor and hasn't publicly recognized his role in shaping Kyler's Estimating the Evidence.

Here, for example, is Disqus user Kyle Pratt claiming that book length is strong evidence in Joseph's favor.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... lates.html
Kyle Pratt • 8 months ago

The amazing thing about some of the arguments from the critics is that it's so apparent none of their proponents has thought about them for more than five seconds. "The plates would have been too heavy for Joseph to carry them while running." Just find 40-60 pounds of stuff and run around with it for a bit! If someone was even mildly interested in testing the theory, they could have done it in a few minutes. But if one is more interested in lobbing fireballs from an armchair, then all a theory needs is a vague whiff of plausibility for it to become gospel truth.

The claim that Joseph Smith could easily have written the Book of Mormon is similar. No one claiming such a thing has ever tried to write anything of any substance of any moderate length.
And here, Kyle Pratt engages with gemli. Amazingly, Kyle is trashing Richard Carrier -- yes the same Carrier whose methodology served as a muse for Kyler Rasmussen's project.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 5354999925

Kyle Pratt gemli • 5 months ago
You have your experts, they have their experts. Sure. Everybody has an expert who agrees with them. Every attorney who has practiced for any length of time knows that both sides can find expert witnesses that buttress their side and "their facts." The expert witness for the prosecution looks pretty good when questioned by the prosecution.

Cross-examination is a different story. That's where one finds out which expert really knows what's up. Richard Carrier and the Jesus mythicists look pretty bad when cross-examined by their many, many scholarly peers.

Again, people can believe what they want. It's a free country. But when you come around spouting things that are demonstrably, unequivocally false (Jesus is unattested outside the Bible, just for starters), then maybe you can see why it's hard to take you seriously.
So it seems he's been noodling on Bayes and historical evidence for a while. He seems to be an ardent believer and defender. Good for him! But then he's sort of playing an odd game. On one hand, he does appear on SeN to show, implicitly, that he believes and surely appreciates Kyler's analytical effort. Yet, as he observed above, he surely knows that any attempts to argue apologetics using Carrier's methodology (Bayesian math) will inevitably "look pretty bad when cross-examined by their many, many scholarly peers." Ouch!

So who is Kyle Pratt and what does he really believe? Is the project great or is it garbage? Is he happy to see a friend tackle polemics with math, but personally wishes to avoid the unavoidable penalty of total loss of academic credibility? It sure seems that way.

Here on the same day, Kyle shows some good logic about establishing "existence" based on evidence, before one can consider "divinity."
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 5355635869

Kyle Pratt gemli • 5 months ago
The existence of Jesus is separate from, but related to, His divinity. Once one has demonstrated an ability to be persuaded by the evidence for the existence of Jesus, then, and only then, could one start dialoguing about the evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
Fair enough. But it's odd. I mean, Kyle Pratt is an active SeN participant going back quite a few years. He's not a daily contributor, but he does go on and debate with gemli and others from time to time. He sends DCP links to Ben Shapiro articles now and then. Surely he knows when DCP makes a solid shout out. But ironically, he seems to be ultra scarce when it comes to shout outs about Estimating the Evidence. For instance, DCP thanked Dr. Kyle Pratt for "generous efforts" in reviewing Kyler's posts before publication. But no one named Kyle Pratt commented on that thread. I haven't seen anyone named Kyle Pratt comment on any threads about Kyler's project, for that matter. Not at SeN and not at Interpreter's episode pages. He's watching, no doubt, but sort of peeking around the corner, clear of the rocks being thrown?

Here's a recent episode in which DCP and Kyle Pratt team up on gemli. You can sense a little of that Mopologetic distaste for seekers of predictive, tangible evidence, no?
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 5360341673

Kyle Pratt gemli • 4 months ago
Round, and round, and round we go.

DanielPeterson Mod Kyle Pratt • 4 months ago
gemli doesn't make progress. He doesn't read or entertain new ideas. It's just an endless cycle with him.

Kyle Pratt DanielPeterson • 4 months ago
Sad.
And here, Pratt opines publicly about how to give support to Witnesses.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... w_on_sale/

Kyle Pratt • 4 months ago • edited
If Witnesses is not being shown near me, is it more helpful to buy a ticket anyways (and then not show up), or give the equivalent amount to Interpreter directly?
In another thread, Midgley chimes in to insult Carrier as only Midgley can do. And it's a doozy.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 5355081149

Louis Midgley DanielPeterson • 5 months ago
And gemli should also be aware that Dr. Richard C. Carrier has an MA in ancient history (in 1998), and an M. Phil. in ancient history (in 2000), and a PhD in 2008, all from Columbia University. He worked on ancient secular scholarship, including especially Lucretius, but not on the Bible, including especially the New Testament or the history of Christianity. And Dr. Carrier has never once held a teaching position in a university. He is at the best best merely a marginal figure. Bart Ehrman has it that Dr. Carrier is one of only two with the necessary graduate school training to question the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.

Dr. Carrier likes t0 debate. He went up against Dr. William Lane Craig, who is known by Latter-day Saints for reasons I will not go into, but who is no fool. Dr. Carrier had to admit that he got thrashed--he could not keep up with Dr. Craig.
Okay, I just have to point out the obvious here. Carrier is Kyler Rasmussen's inspiration. He's justified all sorts of twisted logic based on "well, Carrier did it." So let's ask -- would Midgley deliver the same excoriation about Kyler Rasmussen's Carrier-inspired Book of Mormon project? I mean, if the shoe fits, right? Is bad science always bad science? Or is bad science allowable when defending the kingdom? Pratt must be wondering about this same question himself and his vanishing act at the start of the show kind of says everything.

Here's a good closing argument from Kyle Pratt:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 5355635869

Kyle Pratt gemli • 4 months ago
The earth is indeed full of divine power and miraculous occurrences. But their purpose is not to compel belief.
Well said. My question to Pratt is, if overcoming 1 in 10^40 odds isn't meant to compel belief, then what is the point of the exercise?
Post Reply