Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Buffalo]

To reflect 19th century (or 15th century) language use is one thing, to reflect 19th century ideas is quite another.

Only if those ideas are unique to the nineteenth century.

Glenn

If any other document produced in the 19th century were filled with 19th century ideas, would you have any trouble attributing as such?

[_GlennThigpen]

If any other document produced in the 19th century were filled with 19th century ideas, would you have any trouble attributing as such?

If nineteenth century ideas were the only ones in the document and those ideas were unique to the nineteenth century, it would be a prima facie case for a nineteenth century production.

If there were ideas and features that were not from the nineteenth century, but unique to other languages or cultures, that is a prima facie case for another provenance.

Glenn

[_MCB]

unique to other languages or cultures,

Sure. The Bible expresses some unique ideas, and you acknowledge that there is Biblical material in it. Some people only had access to the Bible, and then, not to Maccabees.

[_GlennThigpen]

Sure. The Bible expresses some unique ideas, and you acknowledge that there is Biblical material in it. Some people only had access to the Bible, and then, not to Maccabees.

I am not sure what your point is here. It seems though that this thread has strayed off the original purpose of the thread, i.e. a discussion of Bruce Schaalje's paper on extensions to the NSC method of authorship attribution. Maybe another thread should be started to pursue this area of discussion.

Glenn

[_MCB]

No. I'm bowing out of the discussion. I have so many things yet to read for parallels, it's sort of overwhelming

[_GlennThigpen]

No. I'm bowing out of the discussion. I have so many things yet to read for parallels, it's sort of overwhelming

Okay, does anyone actually wish to discuss Bruce's paper? Or are most attempting to digest the information and implications?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

No. I'm bowing out of the discussion. I have so many things yet to read for parallels, it's sort of overwhelming

Okay, does anyone actually wish to discuss Bruce's paper? Or are most attempting to digest the information and implications?

Glenn

I would be perfectly happy to discuss whether or not Bruce's
attribution of the overwhelming number of non-biblical Book of Mormon
chapters to "latent," proves that Joseph Smith and other
19th century persons could not have contributed to the text.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I would be perfectly happy to discuss whether or not Bruce's
attribution of the overwhelming number of non-biblical Book of Mormon
chapters to "latent," proves that Joseph Smith and other
19th century persons could not have contributed to the text.

UD

I don't think that "prove" is the word to use one way or another here. To quote from Bruce's paper:
"Consistent with previous analyses of the Book of Mormon, this analysis shows that based on several sets of stylometric measures, there is little stylometric support for the Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship. Less than 9% of the non-Isaiah chapters were attributed Rigdon or Spalding, and those were randomly distributed throughout the text consistent with multiplicity.
The writing styles throughout the book do not credibly match Rigdon, Spalding, or any of the other candidates, as claimed by Jockers et al. (2008). "

Okay, the ball is in your court.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

....
I don't think that "prove" is the word to use one way or another here. To quote from Bruce's paper:
"Consistent with previous analyses of the Book of Mormon, this analysis shows that based on several sets of stylometric measures, there is little stylometric support for the Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship. Less than 9% of the non-Isaiah chapters were attributed Rigdon or Spalding, and those were randomly distributed throughout the text consistent with multiplicity.
The writing styles throughout the book do not credibly match Rigdon, Spalding, or any of the other candidates, as claimed by Jockers et al. (2008). "

Okay, the ball is in your court.

Glenn

Well, that is an assertion without much proffered supporting evidence.

If I were the managing editor of the Ensign, I wouldn't just yet
announce that less than 9% of the Book of Mormon chapters have any overlap
whatsoever with the word-prints of known 19th century writers.

However, if in the future at least a couple of professional, non-sectarian
writers agree with Bruce, in peer-reviewed journals -- then I suppose
that LDS editor can go ahead and make such a pronouncement.

I would really, REALLY like to see the secondary attributions for
Bruce's chart -- to see what patterns might be evident therein.

For example, if the primary "latent" attributions are masking an
equally widespread secondary attribution for Joseph Smith, I'm
sure that Dan Vogel and Sandra Tanner will be happy to settle
for the "silver" medal, in this case.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Well, that is an assertion without much proffered supporting evidence.

If I were the managing editor of the Ensign, I wouldn't just yet
announce that less than 9% of the Book of Mormon chapters have any overlap
whatsoever with the word-prints of known 19th century writers.

However, if in the future at least a couple of professional, non-sectarian writers agree with Bruce, in peer-reviewed journals -- then I suppose
that LDS editor can go ahead and make such a pronouncement.

I would really, REALLY like to see the secondary attributions for
Bruce's chart -- to see what patterns might be evident therein.

For example, if the primary "latent" attributions are masking an
equally widespread secondary attribution for Joseph Smith, I'm
sure that Dan Vogel and Sandra Tanner will be happy to settle
for the "silver" medal, in this case.

UD

Dale, you keep moving the goal posts. When the Jockers study first came out, you were saying that any response must come in a peer reviewed publication. The paper that is available on the Literary and Linguistic Computing web site is an advance access paper. It will be in the next issue of the LLC magazine. It has passed the peer review process. It was reviewed by at least two different people for LLC. So now, we must have two different non-sectarian writers professional writers, (I hope you mean statisticians) agree with Bruce? In peer reviewd journals of course. And when that happens, what will be your new goal post?
As for wide spread secondary masking of Joseph Smith by the unobserved author, that should not be found. The secondary probabilities should pretty much follow the primary pattern of the original Jockers study.
Oh well, Bruce has provided you link to his data on "the other board".

Glenn