It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:57 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:21 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
July 5, 3:54 PM (Well after he had the exchange with Simon)

Quote:
If you want to consider it a derail, that's up to you. It's not worth arguing whether or not it is. I've already given my reasons for entering into the thread.

I left the thread because my wife and I left on the 3rd to visit a married son and his wife who had another baby. We're back in Missouri visiting and helping out.

They know how to do fireworks back here. :smile:

But yeah, I'm done on this thread. I made my points, others made theirs. I've stated why I believe stylometric word analysis to be important...along with other things...in regards to the looking a BofM historicity. I don't think that evidence or lack of evidence (DNA) should supplant other efforts/research that are scientifically based. Simon didn't seem to be overly bothered that I entered into the thread to basically state as much. Truth be told, I didn't really expect that it would really go anywhere.

Anyway, I'm off this thread, and I'm glad to see that it continued on. :smile:

Regards,
MG


The blatant lying and contradictions are astounding. And you wouldn't know what context was if it bitch slapped you in the face.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 3674
Mikwut, I thought that was a thoughtful and helpful post. (previous page) thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:19 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 421
Location: Canberra
mentalgymnast wrote:
From your end/perspective it may be difficult to fathom that an active, believing member of the church that has a thinking mind could 'succumb' to belief in the doctrines and teachings of the church. Jesus being the Son of God. Priesthood Authority. Eternal Families. God being the creator of mankind. Etc.
Truth be told, there are more of us than you might think.

Nothing surprises me when it comes to Mormonism. We're talking about one of 3,000 delusions/religions. But you have seen more facts than most. And you admitted that because of your situation you chose to believe. He's a piece of work this Mormon God isn't he? What are the odds that a sane person, well versed in the prehistory of the New World, would believe the Book of Mormon story and convert to Mormonism? Zilch. Why do Utah Mormons get such special opportunities? Back when I was a member we believed it was because they were so special in the pre-existence. But I guess that belief has probably been shelved in the rush to bin the dark skin curse doctrine.
mentalgymnast wrote:
From where I sit, I believe Elder Featherstone's communications to you were pretty much spot on.

https://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/20 ... ional.html

mentalgymnast wrote:
I would invite others reading this thread that haven't already done so, to read Elder Featherstone's letters to Simon and his comments in regards to the council he was given.

Simon, I have to agree, in my heart and mind, with the council given years ago to you by one who was called of God to act in His name as he reached out to you.
MG


Vaughn was doing his job. And I'm sure he really appreciated his salary too. Did you like the bit about him writing to me without even speaking to my Stake President? Was he inspired when he acted on rumour and gossip? Did you like the bit about my stake president being alarmed by the tone of the letter? Did you overlook this because it makes Vaughn look a little too like an ordinary human?

You keep trusting those feelings and doubting those doubts MG. Because its all you've got.

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime it's the cover-up which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:19 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 am
Posts: 421
Location: Canberra
Apologies for the repeated post. This website is messing with me. Yesterday it wouldn't post my comment. Today I post it and it appears twice!

_________________
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime it's the cover-up which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama


Last edited by Simon Southerton on Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Nephi: A can do kinda guy
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:42 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 7379
Res Ipsa wrote:
MG, has the word print methodology been shown to be valid when it is dealing with an author who is deliberately trying to mimic someone else's style of writing?


Bumping for mentalgymnast...

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:07 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28317
Location: Off the Deep End
Simon Southerton wrote:
Apologies for the repeated post. This website is messing with me. Yesterday it wouldn't post my comment. Today I post it and it appears twice!


The system was simply reimbursing you for yesterday's phantom post. ;-)

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15539
mikwut wrote:
Hello MG,

First, stylometry is used in conjunction with the historical evidence and authors thought to have written the piece in question. For example, one of the reasons the Jocker's study is problematic is because Sidney Rigdon's supposed wordprint doesn't match his theology. The portions of the wordprint attributed to him in Jocker's study also attribute to him theology that is literal when his Campbellite theology was figurative. This dissonance is problematic for wordprint analysis which is secondary to known historical fact. Therefore, if DNA (known historical fact) demonstrates the Book of Mormon false this supersedes wordprint analysis not the other way around as your attempting to do. This seems obvious to most, hence the harsh criticism you have received on this thread. This is fairly elementary. Kishkumen makes the valuable point that there is no verification for the Book of Mormon so the falsification isn't even necessary. Your attempting to provide minimal verifying evidence but ignore that DNA evidence is a falsifier and that supersedes verifying type evidences. This is so in this case of the Book of Mormon because if shown to be fiction minimal verifications are not relevant.

Themis' points are well taken. If the Book of Mormon were true there is a translator/editor of Mormon and Moroni and then translator of Joseph Smith and then editing of the manuscript. This is a problem in able to attribute what is translator and what is translator and what is author and what is editing. "It is only when translations of the same author are compared is there any hope for stylometric machine-learning methods to tell translator from translator (Rybicki 2012) http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/confer ... ion.1.html. If we can't tell who is Mormon, Moroni and/or Joseph Smith are because we can't compare translations because we don't have them we certainly can't have confidence in independent authors. John Hilton's BYU article on wordprints only controlled for one translator. http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf.

The Hebrew/Egyptian language that is unknown, and that we have no evidence for its existence, that was apparently used in the Book of Mormon is a problem. As one of the church's most prominent apologists Kevin Barney says, "I have always felt that the basic assumptions underlying Book of Mormon wordprint studies are faulty. I concur with the assessment of John Tvedtnes, who points out that (1) an English translation should reflect the language of the translator rather than the original author, and (2) the particles used in wordprint studies (such as "of") are often non-existent in Hebrew, which tends to use syntax to express the meaning of English particles."

The phrase "and it came to pass" is problematic with the Book of Mormon word print analysis, BYU even agrees with this. http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf. This phrase is just shelved in word print studies. But if it is a translation then the phrase is translating some non-contextual words that were used often enough to help attribute authorship, shelving it is a problem and muddies the analysis. Since your using verifying evidence counter evidence applies. The phrase is more strongly evidence of plagarism from for example The Late War because of the abundance of evidence of 19th century origin that would bolster it as evidence for that.

The use of King James Elizabethan language is problematic because we know Joseph Smith, a possible Nephi - Alma etc. never spoke or wrote in this style. It includes non-contextual words that would confuse analysis particularly without original writings. We don't have authorship in Elizabethan tongue of the possible authors.

We don't know what Moroni/Mormon edited or how they edited, and we know Joseph Smith's work was edited from pretty elementary mistakes.
The influence is unknown and erodes confidence that you are trying to give.

The critic position towards Joseph Smith includes plagarism. This would effect the word print analysis to the degree of the plagarism. This is word substitution of the highest magnitude and so is definitional of a problem for word print analysis. It would also provide an output in analysis of multiple authors. Occam's razor would also swing in this direction.

We know anachronisms exist in the Book of Mormon, how far and how deep is unknown so the effect on word print studies is also unknown but is also a problem.

It is well known that even with computer technology inherent problems with stylometry itself still exists. I am unaware of any wordprint that is immune from James Croft's confession back in 1981 from Book Of Mormon "Wordprints" Reexamined by D. James Croft, Sunstone, March 1981, Vol. 6:2, p. 15-22, "Close scrutiny of the methodology of the BYU authorship study reveals several areas which seem vulnerable to criticism."

That kind, depth and amount of criticism just doesn't exist when it comes to DNA and the Book of Mormon. It is not possible to say that the Asian migration is just wrong through several criticisms. So with all do respect the criticisms you have received on this thread are more than appropriate, your position on a weak piece of evidence as somehow countervailing or balancing a very strong piece of evidence is just inappropriate and misplaced.

mikwut


I'm quoting that because it deserves a thoughtful answer by MG.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:48 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 935
mikwut wrote:
your position on a weak piece of evidence as somehow countervailing or balancing a very strong piece of evidence is just inappropriate and misplaced.

To describe wordprint analytical results as "weak evidence" is a gross overstatement. Such results do not constitute even an infinitesimal amount of evidence. These analytical methods are nothing more than tools, you get out what you put in, garbage in, garbage out. Akin to a ruler. One could use a ruler to measure the dimensions of bigfoot. Volumes of data could be collected. Interpretations offered. Papers produced. Etc. Working backwards the logic could be impeccable. The ruler is sound, the measurements were all good. Data further extrapolated from the measurements equally good. But what was being measured in the first place? Photos of unknown origin? Footprints in the dirt? Skeletal remains that have since been lost?

"But look at how cohesive the data is," the mental gymnast will respond. "We have all this data, collected from all these independent sources, and somehow, coincidentally, it cohesively adds up. There is no way someone could have conceived an anatomically correct skeletal structure such as this. According to apologist expert so and so, who happens to have a Ph.D. in western esotericism from such and such university, bipedal mammals always have a certain ratio between their torso length and their pelvic bone, which is further an indicator of their foot length and running speed. Footprint measurements are a spot on match. And from testimony about camper disappearances, we have a good idea about running speed as well, which also matches perfectly. These are all just too many coincidences. If someone had made this up, there is just no way all the data would fit together so perfectly like this."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:24 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
If wordprint studies are all that, scientific etc. how come when you google it, you get all Mormon links? Here is what it looks like, and they simply go on and on, all having to do with the Book of Mormon. Why aren't there any others using wordprint studies? Where are all the non-Mormon articles on it? It's simply a ridiculous apologetic diversion used by Mormons ...

Image

And at the very bottom of the page...

Searches related to wordprint studies
wordprint analysis

stylometry book of Mormon

what is a wordprint

book of Mormon language analysis

how many authors in the book of Mormon

book of Mormon authorship

book of Mormon statistics

how many words in the book of Mormon

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10478
Location: Multiverse
grindael wrote:
If wordprint studies are all that, scientific etc. how come when you google it, you get all Mormon links? Here is what it looks like, and they simply go on and on, all having to do with the Book of Mormon. Why aren't there any others using wordprint studies? Where are all the non-Mormon articles on it? It's simply a ridiculous apologetic diversion used by Mormons ...

Image

And at the very bottom of the page...

Searches related to wordprint studies
wordprint analysis

stylometry book of Mormon

what is a wordprint

book of Mormon language analysis

how many authors in the book of Mormon

book of Mormon authorship

book of Mormon statistics

how many words in the book of Mormon


That's very revealing. It's like trying to find actual PhDs who acknowledge the historicity of "Reformed Egyptian" or "Nephites". It's clearly a Mormon niche product, not invoked anywhere else because no one else has confidence in it. Kind of like magic rocks in a hat. :lol:

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:54 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Maksutov wrote:

That's very revealing. It's like trying to find actual PhDs who acknowledge the historicity of "Reformed Egyptian" or "Nephites". It's clearly a Mormon niche product, not invoked anywhere else because no one else has confidence in it. Kind of like magic rocks in a hat. :lol:


OMG Mak, I googled "magic rocks in a hat" and this came up, a non-Mormon site! (After that it was all Mormon)...

Hat-Trick - Magic Rock Brewing https://www.magicrockbrewing.com/beer/hat-trick/

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28317
Location: Off the Deep End
grindael wrote:
If wordprint studies are all that, scientific etc. how come when you google it, you get all Mormon links? Here is what it looks like, and they simply go on and on, all having to do with the Book of Mormon. Why aren't there any others using wordprint studies? Where are all the non-Mormon articles on it? It's simply a ridiculous apologetic diversion used by Mormons ...


Jockers et al (2008) is not an apologetic diversion.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 6958
Location: On walkabout
Grindael, use Google Scholar. There are wordprint studies that have no connection to Mormonism. However, most papers seem to be published by LDS folks. Last time I looked, I didn’t see any papers by non-LDS authors that used wordprint analysis the way LDS folks use it with the Book of Mormon.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:27 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 935
grindael wrote:
If wordprint studies are all that, scientific etc. how come when you google it, you get all Mormon links?

A valid point, although being fair there are other search terms as well. Like, "stylometry." Running that search the Book of Mormon doesn't come up until page 3 of the google results. There is plenty of literature on stylometry, see google scholar. The issue is not the tool, but the misapplication. The analytical methods can effectively be applied, but in the case of the Book of Mormon they are not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28317
Location: Off the Deep End
grindael wrote:
If wordprint studies are all that, scientific etc. how come when you google it, you get all Mormon links? Here is what it looks like, and they simply go on and on, all having to do with the Book of Mormon. Why aren't there any others using wordprint studies? Where are all the non-Mormon articles on it? It's simply a ridiculous apologetic diversion used by Mormons ...

Image

And at the very bottom of the page...

Searches related to wordprint studies
wordprint analysis

stylometry book of Mormon

what is a wordprint

book of Mormon language analysis

how many authors in the book of Mormon

book of Mormon authorship

book of Mormon statistics

how many words in the book of Mormon


grindael, look closely at your search results from Google. Dr. Criddle is NOT an LDS apologist. He is one of three authors who created Jockers et al (2008).

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:30 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12466
Res Ipsa wrote:
I didn’t see any papers by non-LDS authors that used wordprint analysis the way LDS folks use it with the Book of Mormon.


That's the real problem. It's a real science even though a weak one, which some apologists have used in ways that cannot work to create an image of evidence in support of a historical Book of Mormon. We can see how well it has worked on some members like MG.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:33 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Jersey, I should have been more specific, I meant Mormon in that they have to do with Mormonism. It's all silly stuff.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28317
Location: Off the Deep End
grindael wrote:
Jersey, I should have been more specific, I meant Mormon in that they have to do with Mormonism. It's all silly stuff.


Are you saying that you believe that Jockers et al (2008) is silly stuff or are you saying that the Book of Mormon itself is silly stuff?

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:58 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
I think it is all silly stuff and a waste of time.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 12510
Location: On the imaginary axis
grindael wrote:
I think it is all silly stuff and a waste of time.


Silly in one sense, yes.

But serious, and even fascinating, when one thinks of the educated and intelligent adult human beings who have built and still build their lives round it. Mormonism is a bit of a test case for religions in general: there is no religion, however obviously ludicrous to outsiders, that does not seem pretty reasonable if it is what your parents taught you.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:41 pm 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 935
Has anybody on this thread taken the time to read some of these wordprint papers? The disparity between the apologetic papers and the non-LDS ones is enlightening. This paper here is a classic example of dishonest apologetics.

https://publications.mi.BYU.edu/publica ... alyses.pdf

First of all, note the tone. From the very first paragraph it starts out with a snarky tone about critics unsuccessfully attacking the Book of Mormon. They even give an example of a critical argument against the Book of Mormon. Out of everything they could choose, here's what they go with,

Apologists wrote:
In 1834 Eber Howe proposed the Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship,2 which asserts that Sidney Rigdon plagiarized an unpublished fictional work by Solomon Spalding to produce the Book of Mormon. He made this assertion even though the Book of Mormon was printed before Rigdon joined the church. Similar allegations and variations on that theme continue today, despite solid historical evidence that the theory is a baseless fabrication.3

Straw man, anyone?

This is a scholarly publication contributing to stylometry? SMH. Then it goes into beginner explanations of what stylometry is. Clearly this is meant to be an apologetic work, for members, who are assumed to be lay people with zero knowledge of the underlying science.

What comes next is interesting. The authors then concede that wordprint studies are kind of useless. Ironically, as far as the current thread is concerned, they even make a comparison against DNA.

Apologists wrote:
Stylometry is a useful tool in authorship attribution, but several limitations are important to keep in mind when interpreting the results of a stylometric analysis. Although stylometry is sometimes referred to as wordprint analysis (implying that it is a linguistic equivalent to fingerprint analysis), it does not have the same identifying capability. The description of stylometry as verbal DNA is an even less applicable overstatement.17 With stylometrics there is no way to perform population studies to determine the general prevalence of word-use patterns. Consequently, all probability assessments in stylometrics are relative only to the specific authors and the texts included in the study.

Although a person’s fingerprint and DNA are unchangeably unique to that person, a writer is at liberty to adapt his or her style to a particular topic, audience, and genre; to use artistic license to try new styles or even imitate others’ styles; and to modify his or her own style over time as writing skills increase or falter. Shakespeare, for example, was famously diverse in his writing style—an ability that is one of the hallmarks of a great author and also one of the things that makes stylometry a challenging methodology to apply successfully.


LOL. So, DNA in the one hand, wordprint study in the other, DNA wins - every time. According to the wordprint apologists themselves. Moreover, they admit the folly of applying such a methodology in situations where an author is "imitating" styles and voices... which is exactly what critics argue is going on! Either the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, an ancient record, or it was authored by modern men writing to "imitate."

That should just be the end of this silly paper right there. Instead it goes on to review the 4 major stylometric analyses of the Book of Mormon, repeatedly contradicting itself, misrepresenting the work being reviewed, and cherry picking whatever makes the Book of Mormon look good.

For example, the review of the Holmes paper. The snarky tone returns in full force, the authors seem to have a personal beef with Holmes. They then misrepresent his findings.

They say,

Apologists wrote:
Holmes concluded from this that he had definitively shown that the writings of Mormon, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, and Moroni were not stylometrically different. He stated, “There appears to be no real difference between Alma’s richness of vocabulary and Mormon’s richness of vocabulary, . . . a conclusion in direct contradiction to the findings of Larsen.” He continued, “This study has therefore not found any evidence of multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon itself,” to which he added, “We may consider the Book of Abraham, the purported authors of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s revelations to be of similar style, therefore, with all the implications that this may have for Mormon doctrine.”33 The first part of Holmes’s statement is prima facie false since the Larsen study utilized noncontextual word frequencies and did not include any findings about vocabulary richness. The rest of the statement is an example of the classic fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam: “I did not find a difference so there must not be a difference.” When a researcher does not find evidence of an effect, he or she can only say, “I did not find evidence of an effect.” The researcher cannot say, “Therefore, the effect does not exist.”


Compare with what Holmes actually says.

Holmes wrote:
An important discovery is the fact that the samples of writings from the various prophets who purportedly wrote the Book of Mormon do not form prophet-byprophet clusters. The dendrogram in Fig. 2 shows that only the two samples from Alma display internal homogeneity. Alma is not claimed to be an engraver of the golden plates; all his words are taken from Mormon's writings. The two samples which are closest to the Alma samples in terms of similarity are samples of Mormon's words taken from the so-called Book of Alma within the Book of Mormon. There appears to be no real difference between Alma's richness of vocabulary and Mormon's richness of vocabulary within the Book of Alma, a conclusion in direct contradiction to the findings of Larsen and the Brigham Young University team who state (Larsen et a/. (1980), p. 240) that since, in their analysis, Alma's writing is different from Mormon's:

'We can conclude that Mormon copied directly from Alma's writings and Joseph Smith translated literally from Mormon's writings'.

The Brigham Young team did admit (Larsen et a/. (1980), p. 242) that they found Moroni 'consistently hard to classify', unlike other prophets. The plots in this study show the two Moroni samples to be in the middle of the prophets cluster, yet they are not close in terms of similarity. This study has therefore not found any evidence of multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon itself. Variation within samples from the same prophet is generally as great as any variation between the prophets themselves.

....

It is my conclusion, from the results of this research and the supporting historical evidence, that the Book of Mormon sprang from the prophetic voice of Joseph Smith himself, as did his revelations and the text of the Book of Abraham. There is little doubt that Joseph Smith was capable of speaking and dictating with a prophetic voice. Brodie (1971), p. 405, describes his evolution from a 'bucolic scryer, using the primitive techniques of the folklore of magic common to his area' to a talented religious innovator, a preacher-prophet, with a substantial and growing following. Roberts (1985) devotes a whole chapter to evidence concerning how Joseph Smith's almost mystical aura could sway and influence practically anyone who listened to him. We have seen that the style of his prophetic voice, as evidenced by the main cluster of the textual samples studied, differs from the style of his personal writings or dictations of a personal nature. This opens up fascinating prospects for research in stylometry, namely the exploration of how a person's prophetic or artistic voice differs in style or richness of vocabulary from his or her everyday vocabulary usage. A by-product of this research would be to look at how the style of dictated material differs from that of written material, within the same author's usage.

The evidence brought forward here should not be regarded as superseding that of the more traditional kind. In attribution of authorship, stylometric evidence must be weighed in the balance along with that provided by more conventional scholarship. Stylometry does, however, have a role to play despite the suspicions of those who mistrust the application of statistical and computing techniques to literature and to the analysis of texts.


Holmes does not say "therefore, the effect does not exist" or anything like this. He also does not state that the Larsen paper considered vocabulary richness. He merely states that his findings, that the same person is behind both Alma's voice and Mormon's voice, contradicts Larsen. He does not even claim that his conclusions are right, and theirs are wrong. He merely states that their findings are at odds. Beyond that it becomes a subjective matter.

The paper then goes on. To discredit Holmes work further, they cite a paper, "Comparative Power of Three Author-Attribution Techniques for Differentiating Authors," by Schaalje et al. Schaalje, who is also author of this review. Looking up said paper, it was published in 1997 and has literally zero citations after 20+ years. Comparatively, Holmes paper is from 1992 and has 143 citations. Pulling up the paper and skimming through it, it's not hard to understand why that is. There is nothing novel whatsoever. No new methods or anything that in any way contributes to the body of knowledge re stylometry. Whether you agree with his subjective analysis of the output of his model or not, Holmes on the other hand, did contribute to the science by developing novel methodology. Not the case with Schaalje et al. They produced nothing for anybody other than apologists to cite. Literally all they do is take Holmes' work, recreate it, and then apply the math out of context to other books willy nilly and then take the irrelevant apples to oranges results and sneer at Book of Mormon critics.

Holmes does not claim VR is a perfect methodology for authorship identification. Nor in his paper is he even attempting to identify the author or authors of the Book of Mormon based solely on stylometry. All he does is compare the text against itself. Regardless of who the authors are, and whether we could identify them out of all the writings available in the world, he is merely comparing the vocabulary of one "author" to another. The Book of Mormon itself identifies distinct authors by saying, "this book was written by so and so." From this we have a list of authors and specific text supposedly written by them. It's reasonable to expect that these distinct authors would draw from very different vocabulary sets. After all, they are separated by a lot of time and culture.

Notably, if you look at the Schaalje et al. paper, they find very different VR results for different authors. While for the books tested, VR served as a poor descriptive model for a particular author, it served as a good descriptive model for distinct authorship. It could not identify who the authors were, but it could identify that there were different books.... ie unique "imitated" authors. In some cases the author behind the scenes happened to be the same, though, as in the case of Twain speaking as if he were Adam vs. speaking as Eve. VR would get confused by this and didn't know Twain wrote both books. Which is expected, because Twain is intentionally speaking with different vocabularies in these two instances.

Also, just because North Carolina or WPR was a better descriptive model for specific authorship in Schaalje et al, does not mean that is the case broadly. It's easy to get an accurate result when your sample size is so small. They're only looking at a few writings between six authors in one case. Each analytical tool looks at completely different properties. The meaning of the output will vary depending on what questions are being asked, what assumptions are being made about Book of Mormon authorship, etc.

What's notable about Holmes work, however, is that his results are like a flat line. As if the numerous authors of all these books were educated with nearly the exact same vocabulary.... regardless of who they're trying to sound like, who they're trying to imitate, their reading levels are all at the same dern grade level. That's odd and not what we'd expect. Twain did a good job of creating different literary voices that exhibited different vocabularies. If we were comparing against all the authors in the known world, sure, if would be hard to classify. However, that isn't what we're comparing against. We're only comparing the text against itself... Book of Mormon author to Book of Mormon author. While it may be statistically difficult to identify a single author within the entire human population, is it statistically difficult to distinguish one author from another among a small yet highly diverse group?

Paper continues.

Apologists wrote:
Later, in a reanalysis of The Federalist essays, Holmes himself found vocabulary richness measures to be comparatively less effective discriminators of authorship than noncontextual word frequencies.


Yes, that's because he was trying to identify a specific author from a sample of authors coming from the exact same time/culture/language/education/vocabulary.

Apologists wrote:
The results of the Holmes study certainly do not nullify the results of the Larsen and Hilton studies nor portend any grave implications for Mormon doctrine, as Holmes suggested. The Holmes study shows only that the Book of Mormon texts, although consistently distinct in terms of noncontextual word usage and word-pattern ratios, display similar vocabulary richness. This might reflect simply that the Book of Mormon texts are the work of a single translator, as Joseph Smith claimed, and thus were limited by his vocabulary.


So, in other words, the Book of Mormon "sprang from the prophetic voice of Joseph Smith?"

Update:

Links

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Scie ... metric.pdf


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Uther and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group