The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[Guest]

I thought Lemmie would get a kick out of Bruce's latest post.

Bruce E. Dale on June 24, 2019 at 6:28 pm said:
Jared, Honorentheos, Billy et al,

As you know, Brian and I have taken quite a bit of flak about our Bayesian probability/likelihood analysis. I have responded to those criticisms elsewhere in this series of posts and will summarize our response to the critics in a later post.

But what I want to point out now is that, whether you know it or not, the three of you are already doing a probability analysis. Our Bayesian likelihood analysis is open and the assumptions are clear. Your probability analysis is not open and the assumptions are not made clear.

I am going to try to correct those errors now.

Under the Book of Mormon as fiction hypothesis, what the author of the Book of Mormon might have known about ancient Mesoamerican Indians, their politics, geography, culture, technologies, religion and so on, and what he actually knew are two very different things.

We cannot reasonably conclude that because someone might have known something, he actually did know it. But that is your underlying assumption, and it has not been made clear. I am making it clear now. Because of my educational resources, I might know a good deal about Thai history. In fact, I know nothing about it.

It is common among contemporary Book of Mormon critics to assume that because (they think) Joseph Smith could (might) have known something, he actually did know it. Those are not the same thing at all. For this assumption to be true would require Joseph Smith to have a first-rate research library—and to know things about the Maya area that Dr. Coe says no one could know in 1830.

It is very interesting that this wonderful research library owned by Joseph Smith has remained hidden all these years. None of the early Book of Mormon critics knew anything about the fabulous library at the Smith home. (At least such a library would account for the near-poverty of Joseph’s family…every spare penny must have gone into feeding Joseph’s book habit.)

In fact, no such library existed. That is simply silly.

Well, back to my point.

Critics of the Book of Mormon are often doing an unacknowledged, naïve probability analysis, as are the three of you. Knowingly or not, they/you are making two big, unwarranted assumptions.

First, they/you are assuming that the probability that Joseph Smith actually knew something that he might have known is 100%. How naïve is that?

Second, they/you are assuming, with 100% likelihood, that because Joseph Smith did know a particular fact, that he would also correctly include it in the Book of Mormon. Again, how naïve is that?

In both cases, your assumptions are also hidden from view…they are not made explicitly and openly.

Well, both assumptions are wrong. Such critics are performing a naïve, unacknowledged probability analysis. They are assuming two consecutive likelihoods, each rated at 100% probability, multiplied by each other to give 100% probability overall.

Nonsense.

Neither one of these assumptions rates a probability of 100%. Do you remember 100% of the facts from the last book you read? Would you know what facts to include in a book about Thailand based on your reading of books about India and Vietnam?

No, you would not.

Let’s try instead for explicit, open analysis of these two sequential likelihoods: 1) that Joseph Smith did know a particular fact, and 2) that he also knew to include that fact in the Book of Mormon. Rate the probability of both steps at 99% and calculate the product of these two probabilities (it is 98%). Raise that product to the 131st power. That gives us an incredibly optimistic, but at least explicit and open, value of 7% likelihood or 7 in 100.

Let’s try another explicit, open analysis, using very optimistic probabilities of both steps, this time 95% for each step: 1) Joseph Smith did know what you assume he knew, and 2) he knew he should include that fact in the Book of Mormon. (To be clear, I think the probability that Joseph Smith did know what you assume he knew was actually very, very small…not 95%)

Calculate 0.95 x 0.95 = 0.90. Raise 0.90 to the 131st power equals about 1 in a million.

Take comfort…at least it is not one in a hundred billion billion or so.

Turns out all of their work is on the table, transparently provided for all to see. Where as all the work Billy put into making his LR estimates? Completely hidden from view. Yup, sounds like what I've come to expect from Dr. Bruce Dale.

[_honorentheos]

And of course Billy answers in devastating fashion.

Hi Bruce,

You said, “Under the Book of Mormon as fiction hypothesis, what the author of the Book of Mormon might have known about ancient Mesoamerican Indians, their politics, geography, culture, technologies, religion and so on, and what he actually knew are two very different things.”

I agree that they are two different things, however they both have one important thing in common: both questions are irrelevant to the ‘Book of Mormon is fiction’ hypothesis..

The broadest, most likely “Book of Mormon is fiction” hypothesis is that it is fiction written by Joseph Smith and/or one of his contemporaries, who were riffing off of the speculation that the American Indians were a remnant of a great civilization of mound builders, who in turn were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. According to this hypothesis, the only source he needed was the Bible.

You said, “Let’s try instead for explicit, open analysis of these two sequential likelihoods: 1) that Joseph Smith did know a particular fact, and 2) that he also knew to include that fact in the Book of Mormon. “

Okay. Starting from the introduction of Coe’s book, Coe says, “All the Mesoamerican Indians shared a number of traits which were more or less peculiar to them and absent or rare elsewhere in the new world: hieroglyphic writing, books of fig-bark paper or deerskin that were folded like screens, complex calendar, knowledge of the movements of the plants (especially Venus) against the dynamic background of the stars, a game played with a rubber ball in a special court, highly specialized markets, human sacrifice by head or heart removal, an emphasis upon self-sacrifice by blood drawn from the ears, tongue, or penis, and a highly complex, pantheistic religion which included nature as well as deities emblematic of royal descent.”

I think the probability that the author of the Book of Mormon knew each of these nine particular facts was about 0%, and 0%^9 is still 0%.

So what? The fact that the book doesn’t mention any of the traits that “all the Mesoamerican Indians shared“ is totally consistent with the hypothesis that he made it up without having any references or specialized knowledge about anything specific about Mesoamerica.

Your list of 131 alleged hits is weak. Most of them don’t match in the details. None of them are things that are really unusual, such as the things Dr. Coe mentioned in the above list. Any one legitimate hit from that list would be more impressive than your 131 quasi-hits put together.

Remember, according to your methodology we are accepting that the statements in fact in The Maya are essentially true. Of course you are going to try and fall back on your claim that “only statements of fact which are dealt with by both books can be rationally admitted to the analysis,” as if we could pretend that like all other Mesoamerican Indians, the ancient Nephites practiced human sacrifice by head or heart removal and emphasized upon self-sacrifice by blood drawn from the ears, tongue, or penis, but they didn’t happen to mention these details in their record for whatever reason.

[_honorentheos]

My minor contribution, to the post directed to me regarding the 19th C. authorship theory being something I claim without making a case, and going outside the bounds of the study:

Dr. Dale,

You went outside of the Maya. I pointed out there are better examples outside of the Maya that match Alma. Billy pointed out The Maya limit the descriptions of the fortresses you cited in Alma to a period centuries later. Jared pointed out there are many similar descriptions of fortifications in other periods of human history and other geogrpahies. You seem to feel that the Cortez reference should be treated as included in The Maya. We’re all working outside the sources you claimed to have bound the study. Mine has the advantage of being contemporary to Joseph Smith in time and geography. I appreciate your concern that I’m not playing by your rules, but really, who is?

...

Honorentheos
on June 25, 2019 at 7:45 pm said:
I want to add to this. The theory the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th Century was presented with evidence that there was a wide spread belief the people who built the mounds/fortifications in North America were a civilized race that was wiped out by the savage “redskins”. If I were to compare the Maya to this claim, the Maya refutes it, as does modern archeology as a whole. If we compare the Book of Mormon to this claim, it is not only included but is the central narrative of the Book of Mormon. It’s a perfect match.

Now, you find the physical description of fortresses by Cortez 1000 years after the Book of Mormon timeframe to be compelling, yet struggle to make a similar match in the Maya in terms of time and place as Billy has shown. I’d point out you note in the correspondence on Gold/silver that the Book of Mormon isn’t claimed to describe the lowlands Maya yet your off timeline examples are lowland examples. OTOH, fortresses in the America’s built by the British IN AMERICA for defense from the French and native americans is another match to the Book of Mormon. That’s a correspondence with the 19th C. setting Smith lived in and drew from. You want to assign a likelihood ratio how probable Smith, who lived with an uncle in Massachusetts as a boy recovering from his leg surgery during the War of 1812 would describe a fort as having a moat, berm, controlled ingress/egress and towers? Well, the information is in his environment, he lived during a war, and it’s been shown what such forts looked like and they align with the description in Alma. So, seems pretty likely. Specific? Sure. Detailed, yeah in the sense it was describing the features of an earthen fort. Unusual? No, because it’s describing a fort design repeated pretty much everywhere where projectile weapons were used. Like Cortez describes. So your scale for that is 10 to 1 in favor of Smith having not guessed this. Recognizing you weren’t able to fit this into the Maya in the time frame of Alma, that’s a miss (Smith described something that wasn’t consistent with The Maya) or The Maya was silent. Either way, point for the 19th C. authorship theory.

[_DrW]

Take comfort…at least it is not one in a hundred billion billion or so.

My first thought when I saw this last evening - 'Could it be, finally, that Dr. Dale Sr. is tacitly acknowledging how ridiculous his originally stated hundred billion billion:1 probability estimate in favor of Book of Mormon historicity actually was?'

(Didn't take much comfort though.)

[_honorentheos]

Given the other evidence I've seen for self-awareness on the part of Dr. Dale, I'd say your lack of comfort is justified. :)

[_Lemmie]

Given the other evidence I've seen for self-awareness on the part of Dr. Dale, I'd say your lack of comfort is justified. :)

You're not kidding. Wow, that probability explanation by Dale you quoted is so amateur it is embarrassing. Given his engineering background, it is beyond professionally embarrassing. I am stunned calmer heads didn't prevail and talk him out of leaving that comment up.

[_DrW]

Take comfort…at least it is not one in a hundred billion billion or so.

My first thought when I saw this last evening - 'Could it be, finally, that Dr. Dale Sr. is tacitly acknowledging how ridiculous his originally stated hundred billion billion:1 probability estimate in favor of Book of Mormon historicity actually was?'

(Didn't take much comfort though.)

Given the other evidence I've seen for self-awareness on the part of Dr. Dale, I'd say your lack of comfort is justified. :)

You're not kidding. Wow, that probability explanation by Dale you quoted is so amateur it is embarrassing. Given his engineering background, it is beyond professionally embarrassing. I am stunned calmer heads didn't prevail and talk him out of leaving that comment up.

Rule #1 when you are in over your head: Stop digging!

[_Lemmie]

Rule #1 when you are in over your head: Stop digging!

DrW, truer words were never spoken. I often have older graduate students (lawyers, politicians, bankers, historians, etc.) who have had established and successful careers, but who are, nonetheless, somewhat new to certain aspects of the technicalities of statistical analysis. The smart ones get themselves into a project group with at least one savvy millennial (or an old woman like me )with the math and stats background, and they LISTEN and LEARN. They contribute ttheir best, but they never stop the math geeks from contributing their best.Those groups succeed.

But when I see an older student insisting that their way works and yes of course they understand probability, but there's NO WAY their common sense is wrong, then I know I have a group that's going to have trouble.

I'm sensing that the Elder Dale might fit that category.

[_honorentheos]

My personal favorite statement from that latest round was this assertion, from Dr. Bruce Dale speaking to Billy, Jared and myself in reference to critics of the Book of Mormon who have claimed alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon other than Smith was given golden plates to translate by an angel -

First, they/you are assuming that the probability that Joseph Smith actually knew something that he might have known is 100%. How naïve is that?

Why do I like that statement? Because the manner in which the Dales used the likelihood ratios dances around the question if each of their correspondences is an assertion Smith was given the information that he didn't personally know or guessed at it. In some of their statements it seems like they are treating the ratios like probabilities that sum to 1 where the opposite evidence, reflected in one of their so-called controls, is determined based on the analogous positive likelihood ratio that Smith "knew" the thing being asserted. But in most cases they seem to view the correspondences more like posterior results where the likelihood ratio is meant to reflect how likely his inclusion of some detail in the Book of Mormon was just due to a guess. Like a roll of a dice seeking a particular result or flip of a coin, they treat the outcome as a hit where the purpose of the LRs is assessing how likely it was that result would have been obtained v. not obtained.

What they never actually do is question how likely it is that the thing being described in the Book of Mormon is actually describing the Maya. It's assumed, 100%, that each correspondence is a posterior "hit" that needs explained rather than information that needs assessed against a background of possible sources.

In other words, they seem to imagine that critics are doing what they did when a correspondence is questioned as either invalid or potentially arrived at by something other than an attempt to describe the Maya.

I don't think Bruce Dale is in a headspace where he is able to comprehend that the assessment is supposed to be about how likely it is that Smith is describing the Maya according to the stated purpose of their paper.

[_EAllusion]

It seems like they are incapable of grasping that a major alternative hypothesis is that the book is a 19th century fictional history based on contemporary mound-builder myths and local religious beliefs written in the genre biblical pseudoepigraphia. Nothing that fits well within this context is comparatively compelling evidence of it being an ancient Mesoamerican document.

I remember a discussion years ago where Book of Mormon apologists were attempting to argue that the existence of elaborate stone thrones in Olmec civilization is compelling evidence of Book of Mormon historicity. Because how could have Joseph known that that they built beautiful thrones? Local native Americans didn't do that. He's not an archaeologist!

Yes, how could a 19th century author writing in the genre of Old Testament-fiction invent a story where a king wants a beautiful throne? Unthinkable.

What struck me about these exchanges was the apologists' total inability to think in these terms. They could only conceptualize it as Joseph playing a historical guessing game where any detail of even loose correspondence was treated as a historical prediction. How could Joseph Smith have known about Olmec throne construction?!

He didn't?