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

[drumdude]

And yes, I’ve seen/read these quotes and others like them over the years.

All I can say is, "not my circus, not my monkeys."

Quotes like those, and modern apologetics need to deal with them and throw them under the bus, are exactly what you would expect from a movement that has no connection to god and is just making up s**t as they go along.

[malkie]

And yes, I’ve seen/read these quotes and others like them over the years.

All I can say is, "not my circus, not my monkeys."

Quotes like those, and modern apologetics need to deal with them and throw them under the bus, are exactly what you would expect from a movement that has no connection to god and is just making up s**t as they go along.

It makes life easy, however, when you can accept or reject whatever your leaders say, according to the need of the moment.

[MG 2.0]

Many would say that the questions make no sense, since god doesn't exist.

True.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

In discussing with Billy Shears in the comments, Kyler suggests:

Your use of the term “made” suggests something far more supernatural than I’m suggesting. God would need to have instructed Nephi on boat building and sailing (and experience would quickly have made experts of all of them), but that’s exactly what the text says happened, and, in my view, is an extremely minimal assumption in terms of what a divine being would be capable of.

he seems to just keep doing this. "it's possible this could have happened..."

"what about this...this, oh, this, and that."

"well God could have made that happen. I mean he's God, so it's still possible and all of that. and the text says that God did it, so I believe God."

IT's like, well yeah...if we assume God did it, then why is anyone evaluating anything. His arbitrary number plugging can't possibly get us anywhere on such assumptions. Once we assume God's involved every probability goes all the way up to whatever number we like.

This is a significant point. When Kyler says this:

Your use of the term “made” suggests something far more supernatural than I’m suggesting..

he is not being accurate. He has made multiple assumptions, starting with a belief in God that is assumed, and that God spoke directly and specifically:

[1]God would need to have instructed

This conclusion is stated as being based on this assumption:

[2]but that’s exactly what the text says happened,

You'll note that Kyler assumes that the text can be relied on as true, in his test of the hypothesis that the text is true.

This is an egregious violation of statistical analysis. You cannot use a conclusion that the hypothesis is true as a step in a proof where you are supposed to be testing whether the hypothesis is true. this cannot be emphasized enough.

[dastardly stem]

In discussing with Billy Shears in the comments, Kyler suggests:



he seems to just keep doing this. "it's possible this could have happened..."

"what about this...this, oh, this, and that."

"well God could have made that happen. I mean he's God, so it's still possible and all of that. and the text says that God did it, so I believe God."

IT's like, well yeah...if we assume God did it, then why is anyone evaluating anything. His arbitrary number plugging can't possibly get us anywhere on such assumptions. Once we assume God's involved every probability goes all the way up to whatever number we like.

This is a significant point. When Kyler says this:

Your use of the term “made” suggests something far more supernatural than I’m suggesting..

he is not being accurate. He has made multiple assumptions, starting with a belief in God that is assumed, and that God spoke directly and specifically:

[1]God would need to have instructed

This conclusion is stated as being based on this assumption:

[2]but that’s exactly what the text says happened,

You'll note that Kyler assumes that the text can be relied on as true, in his test of the hypothesis that the text is true.

This is an egregious violation of statistical analysis. You cannot use a conclusion that the hypothesis is true as a step in a proof where you are supposed to be testing whether the hypothesis is true. this cannot be emphasized enough.

Excellent points, Lem. I agree. He should have presented two options: was it written anciently or was it written in the 19th C? And then left God out of the equation. I think he thinks he did that, but it seems to me the options he has considered are it was written in the 19c or God did it. If God did it there's no reasonable evaluation to do. And that's a problem for his method here.

His comment:

Your use of the term “made” suggests something far more supernatural than I’m suggesting..

This is what's so frustrating about his whole enterprise. What does it mean to be more supernatural than something that is supernatural? Either way, no matter the degree of something being supernatural, he's appealing to God did it. Well if that's what he keeps doing, I'd just ask what's the point of this?

Also, the only items he's even put under evaluation that can possibly have any bearing on the question of anciently written or more modern is DNA, and questionably this boat travel thing. Everything else either can't possibly have any input on the question (like when he said Joseph Smith' first vision claim has something to value on the question) or basically is an appeal to God did it (like his evaluation of the witnesses...the plates weren't said to be used in the translation and fanatical believers claiming a vision of what they wanted to believe is just another way of saying God did it). Ah well, as others have said, we can't really see this as a serious effort.

[Dr Moore]

This is an egregious violation of statistical analysis. You cannot use a conclusion that the hypothesis is true as a step in a proof where you are supposed to be testing whether the hypothesis is true. this cannot be emphasized enough.

In fact, statistics is useless if miracles are allowed at all. Miracles take the least likely thing and make it real.

Nephi learned how to build a boat by a miracle. He can navigate by another miracle (Liahona). Kyler assumes those miracles, but then wants to have some fun with statistical odds of sailing across the ocean? What's the point? He's already allowed for miracles, so statistics is irrelevant. The only reason to even write episode 8 is to show off math porn skills.

[Dr Moore]

Gosh, at this point, how many fatal process errors has Kyler demonstrated? It's only episode 8 out of 23.

1. Failure to establish statistical independence among multiplied probabilities
2. Improperly counting irrelevant evidence
3. Cherry picking, or excluding relevant contrary evidence
4. Allowance for miracles to boost evidence scores
5. Circular reasoning, such as assuming God whilst proving God through statistical treatment

No credible journal would ever publish a project guilty of one of these, much less all five.

I hate to say it, but this is a new low for the Interpreter. They should stick to their lanes of parallelomania and polemics. Team Bayes, with its new team captain Rasmussen, is making the whole organization look like utter fools.

[MG 2.0]

What does it mean to be more supernatural than something that is supernatural? Either way, no matter the degree of something being supernatural, he's appealing to God did it. Well if that's what he keeps doing, I'd just ask what's the point of this?

As a believer Dr. Rasmussen is, by default, going to factor God into any equation that is part of his analysis. How can he not? As a disbeliever you are going to base your analysis on your personal bias/views. Your conclusions are going to be different.

Why fight it?

You will ALWAYS go your way as a disbeliever trying to take God out of the equation. Believers are going to formulaically going to do the opposite. Who’s formula has the bona fides that lead to ultimate truth?

Depends on what you think about the supernatural.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

As a believer Dr. Rasmussen is, by default, going to factor God into any equation that is part of his analysis. How can he not?

Interestingly, no Mormon stats professor at BYU is willing to factor God into this same equation. I wonder why.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What does it mean to be more supernatural than something that is supernatural? Either way, no matter the degree of something being supernatural, he's appealing to God did it. Well if that's what he keeps doing, I'd just ask what's the point of this?

As a believer Dr. Rasmussen is, by default, going to factor God into any equation that is part of his analysis. How can he not? As a disbeliever you are going to base your analysis on your personal bias/views. Your conclusions are going to be different.

Why fight it?

You will ALWAYS go your way as a disbeliever trying to take God out of the equation. Believers are going to formulaically going to do the opposite. Who’s formula has the bona fides that lead to ultimate truth?

Depends on what you think about the supernatural.

Regards,
MG