The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_Gadianton]

Res Ipsa: One other thing, the authors conclude that the odds of the Book of Mormon not being a history of the Mayans are orders of magnitude less than less than me being killed by a meteorite.

somebody find this and screenshot it before they destroy the evidence

(i don't have a quote key right now, not in a good research spot)

[_Morley]

This has turned into a really sweet thread.

[_Lemmie]

More Wyatt:

Your entire issue with the Dales’ analysis seems to boil down to “they picked their evidences and therefore their evidences cannot be taken at face value.” If I am distilling your argument correctly, that sounds like a textbook definition of cherry picking, which the Dales address in their paper.

Yes, they did:

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.
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/josep ... -the-maya/

So, in support of their overall conclusion that the Book of Mormon is NOT fictional, but is a true historical record, the authors decided to only compare statements from ONE source, Dr. Coe's book, with the Book of Mormon:

Again, it is only rational and honest to compare statements of fact which are dealt with by both books.

That is exactly what cherry-picking is.

[_DrW]

Got a kick out of the following quotes and comment over on the Interpreter website re: the Dale & Dale paper:
______________________________________________

"The Dales aren’t using “the Bayes Theorem to show a historical Book of Mormon.” You have misunderstood the purpose of their paper.

-Allen (Wyatt)

"The point of the paper is to disprove Coe’s assertions, not to prove the Book of Mormon."

-Allen (Wyatt)

Then:

"The overall weight of the evidence is just overwhelming: the Book of Mormon is historical."

Best wishes,
Bruce (Dale)

Finally:

"Someone needs to get their story straight."

Best wishes,
Arc (Angel? Welder?)

__________________________________

Pretty much sums up the disaster unfolding over there.
----------------

Apologies to Dr. Scratch for the one-time unauthorized use of his official color.

[_Res Ipsa]

Res Ipsa: One other thing, the authors conclude that the odds of the Book of Mormon not being a history of the Mayans are orders of magnitude less than less than me being killed by a meteorite.

somebody find this and screenshot it before they destroy the evidence

(i don't have a quote key right now, not in a good research spot)

Here’s the money quote, Dean Robbers:

Just how small a number is this? No easily grasped comparisons are possible. The mass of the smallest known particle, the neutrino, is about 10–36 kg, while the mass of the observable universe is about 1052 kg. Thus the ratio of the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the entire universe is approximately 10–88. This ratio, the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the universe, is still one hundred thousand, billion, billion times greater than the odds that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

[_Lemmie]

Just noticed that someone identified as "Mr. Blanco" copied my initial post on this thread and, with a few changes to the text, posted it over in the Interpreter comments section. This was done without my knowledge and certainly without permission.

Whoever did that obviously reads this board. To that individual, I would just say that we strongly condemn plagiarism on this board for good reason. (DCP, was that you?).

To anyone who might think that I am also "Mr. Blanco", I would invite you to read my initial post on this thread and compare it to the one posted by "Mr. Blanco" over in the interpreter comments. You will see that the changes (deletions) that were made certainly took the edge off. I suppose this was done to prevent it from being taken down.

If the individual who did this feels that I am being a bit too sensitive about the plagiarism, anonymous as it may be, you are invited to PM me and we can talk about it in private.

(And yes, even you, Dr. Dan)

I just realized my post from earlier today on the likelihood ratio problem was also changed and copied into a comment over there by a Mr. Blanco. Who is doing this? I don't like it any more than DrW. What's going on????

[_DrW]

Just noticed that someone identified as "Mr. Blanco" copied my initial post on this thread and, with a few changes to the text, posted it over in the Interpreter comments section. This was done without my knowledge and certainly without permission.

Whoever did that obviously reads this board. To that individual, I would just say that we strongly condemn plagiarism on this board for good reason. (DCP, was that you?).

To anyone who might think that I am also "Mr. Blanco", I would invite you to read my initial post on this thread and compare it to the one posted by "Mr. Blanco" over in the interpreter comments. You will see that the changes (deletions) that were made certainly took the edge off. I suppose this was done to prevent it from being taken down.

If the individual who did this feels that I am being a bit too sensitive about the plagiarism, anonymous as it may be, you are invited to PM me and we can talk about it in private.

(And yes, even you, Dr. Dan)

I just realized my post from earlier today on the likelihood ratio problem was also changed and copied into a comment over there by a Mr. Blanco. Who is doing this? I don't like it any more than DrW. What's going on????

Hey Lemmie,

Looks as though you are becoming a go-to source for good debate material over at the Interpreter comments section.

Brad borrowed your, "The plural of anecdote is not data" - which is one of my favorite lines so far in this kerfuffle.

Thought I spotted another one of your lines on a quick read through but didn't take time to confirm by crosscheck.

[_Gadianton]

As long as sockpuppets are going around quoting things anyway, I hope that they take this line right where in belongs: before the noses of DCP, Midgley, and Kiwi57 at Sic Et Non. I demand that they answer for it! Midgley was the first to comment demanding critics read the whole paper. The paper has been read, and now they have some explaining to do.

This ratio, the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the universe, is still one hundred thousand, billion, billion times greater than the odds that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction

Can Allen Wyatt please get clarification from the peer reviewers on whether they saw this quote during their review? I'd like to know if they just didn't see it, or if a mathematician at BYU actually endorsed this.

[_Philo Sofee]

More Wyatt:

Your entire issue with the Dales’ analysis seems to boil down to “they picked their evidences and therefore their evidences cannot be taken at face value.” If I am distilling your argument correctly, that sounds like a textbook definition of cherry picking, which the Dales address in their paper.

Yes, they did:

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.
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/josep ... -the-maya/

So, in support of their overall conclusion that the Book of Mormon is NOT fictional, but is a true historical record, the authors decided to only compare statements from ONE source, Dr. Coe's book, with the Book of Mormon:

Again, it is only rational and honest to compare statements of fact which are dealt with by both books.

That is exactly what cherry-picking is.

Oh my gawd you are over the top awesome Lemmie!!!!! Thank you very much for all your efforts to help us grasp how they are misuing Bayes and statistical analysis and whatnot. YOU ARE A GEM!!!!

[_Philo Sofee]

As long as sockpuppets are going around quoting things anyway, I hope that they take this line right where in belongs: before the noses of DCP, Midgley, and Kiwi57 at Sic Et Non. I demand that they answer for it! Midgley was the first to comment demanding critics read the whole paper. The paper has been read, and now they have some explaining to do.

This ratio, the mass of the neutrino to the mass of the universe, is still one hundred thousand, billion, billion times greater than the odds that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction

Can Allen Wyatt please get clarification from the peer reviewers on whether they saw this quote during their review? I'd like to know if they just didn't see it, or if a mathematician at BYU actually endorsed this.

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!