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

[drumdude]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG

I appreciate having your faithful voice here, it’s not very interesting if we all share the same opinion.

[MG 2.0]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG

And if others chime in I might chime right on back.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG

I appreciate having your faithful voice here, it’s not very interesting if we all share the same opinion.

Thanks drumdude. And I thank you for your civility thus far. As you’ve probably seen there are some folks here that go the other route.

Oh, I played drums throughout my high school years. Jazz, rock, and high school band. I was a drumdude.

Regards,
Mentalgymnast

[Res Ipsa]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG

Your attempts to change the subject are a tactic — not the normal meander of a conversation. We’ve all seen it.

[Lem]

... If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment...

And if others chime in I might chime right on back....

That is a crystal-clear illustration of intent. Res ipsa's definition of your tactic is spot on.

[MG 2.0]

Almost everyone in these parts goes off on a tangent here and there. If I see something that interests me and I want to make a comment on it, I’ll do it. Others can choose to ignore or not comment.

Regards,
MG

Your attempts to change the subject are a tactic — not the normal meander of a conversation. We’ve all seen it.

If that’s the way you see it, that is your right and prerogative. And if you believe that I’m doing it as some sort of tactic…which it’s not…then ignore me, along with others that want to do the same, and I’ll move on. Can’t talk when no one wants to join in.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

And if others chime in I might chime right on back....

That is a crystal-clear illustration of intent. Res ipsa's definition of your tactic is spot on.

Same thing I said to Res.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Your attempts to change the subject are a tactic — not the normal meander of a conversation. We’ve all seen it.

…then ignore me... and I’ll move on....

Ok.

Back to the topic:

I had to go see if episode 9 is out. It is.

Kyler evaluates whether Joseph could have written the book because there is the presence of Early Modern English in the text. Somehow the text including language from a couple centuries before Joseph means it was written anciently, in his eyes. A huge win, he delares:

It looks like we have our first critical strike in the Book of Mormon’s favor, a piece of evidence that meets the statistical bar set by critics for belief in the unusual and the supernatural. Of course, critics would likely beg to differ on that front—evidence against nineteenth-century authorship isn’t evidence of ancient authorship, particularly when that evidence points to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But without a clearly articulated theory that explains the source of this evidence, critics should rightly take pause.

He is misrepresenting the situation, however. He is arguing there is evidence of Early Modern English, but what he presents does not support that. A couple quick examples:

In his link of Carmack and Skousen articles, he fails to link to the last few articles wherein they retracted 60% of their evidence.

Later in his Early Modern English explanation, he finally links to ONE of the retractions, but does it in a very sneaky way. He attached the link to a statement that says there are "26" pieces of semantic evidence. What his link really says is that 'only 26 are left because we were wrong and had to retract more than 30% percent of our original research in this category.'

He completely fails to address the other retractions, where Carmack and Skousen had to retract, respectively, 52%, 81%, and 87% of their research. Overall, 60% of their research so far, across their self-defined categories, has been retracted.

Given the lack of full information, it's difficult to see KR's opening argument as anything but misleading:

Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen have painstakingly documented a strange argument—that much of the language used in the Book of Mormon reflects usage patterns that align with the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, making it unlikely that Joseph or anyone else in the nineteenth century authored the book.

The bolded part is not in any way supported by Carmack's and Skousen's work, especially after the retractions are taken into account.

The statistical case they make is extremely strong. Even assuming that they’re missing a substantial amount of evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative, the probability that Joseph produced those patterns by trying to copy biblical style are vanishingly small (p = 5.24 x 10-24).

That is an utterly nonsensical paragraph, starting with the untrue first sentence and ending with the imaginary final probability.

[Dr Moore]

He has definitely derailed the topic of the thread a bit.

It’s what he does. Thread hijacker who will not stay on topic because he won’t read the upthread posts. But will surely offer generic dismissals of the posts he didn’t read, and then add a mysterious quote or sanctimonious request to go read something he thinks is relevant but can’t be bothered to explain why. In all his posts I never manage to find a substantive engagement with material issues. At least the guys at SeN will read your posts before insulting and dismissing you.

[drumdude]

At least the guys at SeN will read your posts before insulting and dismissing you.

Dan is pretty lazy and will just pick out one sentence like this and do a quick insult.