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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 4274
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

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

Post by MG 2.0 »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:51 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:49 am


That’s not what I said. Go back and read for comprehension.

Regards,
MG
You really believe Joseph Smith was a savant, huh? That’s a reach.
What other religious leader of import was a savant? They would meet the clinical requirements?

Or was Joseph Smith one of a kind in this regard?

Regards,
MG
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

Kyler Rasmussen quoting and then replying to Billy Shears:

Kyler Rasmussen on September 1, 2021 at 9:08 pm
Hi Billy!

“This episode is so flawed I don’t have the space here to respond fully, and it is so fundamentally unserious I feel little motivation to do so.”

Your exasperation is a pretty good indication for me that I’m doing something right....
Wow. Talk about not being able to read the room. I cannot imagine how KR is comfortable putting his real name on this work. It can't possibly be something that would enhance his professional reputation.

Here is the first point Billy Shears makes:
Billy Shears on September 1, 2021 at 6:02 pm
This episode is so flawed I don’t have the space here to respond fully, and it is so fundamentally unserious I feel little motivation to do so.

A big issue to get out of the way is the consequent possibility of p = 1. Yes, I’m going to cry foul on this one. What this means, specifically, is that before Carmack and Skousen started this project, i.e. before the experiment was conducted, you declared that if the Book of Mormon is true, then there would be exactly as much Early Modern English as Skousen and Carmack found. You then ran the experiment and behold! Your hypothesis about Early Modern English was precisely confirmed!

This is the most dramatic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy I could imagine. The truth is you drew these tiny targets around the holes in the side of the barn after the bullets hit the barn, not before. That is why they are hits.
This is a huge point. Here is KR's definition:
CH = Consequent Probability of the Hypothesis (the likelihood of observing the evidence given a non-Joseph authored Book of Mormon, or p = 1)
Consider what this means. It means that if Joseph Smith did NOT write the Book of Mormon, it is an absolute certainty, with a probability of 1, that it is a type of Early Modern English text. No other options. It can't be a direct hebrew or Reformed Egyptian or mesoamerican translation, or anything else. It MUST be a "filtered and managed" text that is mostly Early Modern English, but written so that 19th century readers understand the Early Modern English. Without exception.

Maybe Rasmussen is punking us. Because the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred. This really paints apologists into a corner. Is that KR's intent? Or is he just in over his head?
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1855
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

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

Post by Dr Moore »

Kyler’s arrogance toward scientifically legitimate criticism is professionally immature. In essence it’s, “You say I am doing stuff wrong which means I must be doing something right.” This is not a serious person doing serious work.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

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

Post by malkie »

Dr Moore wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:14 am
Kyler’s arrogance toward scientifically legitimate criticism is professionally immature. In essence it’s, “You say I am doing stuff wrong which means I must be doing something right.” This is not a serious person doing serious work.
I think he's been playing with the apologists for too long - anything is OK as long as you pwn the critics.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 4274
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

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

Post by MG 2.0 »

Lem wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:20 am
…the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred.
Joseph Smith plagerized the Book of Mormon or he was a Savant? Which is it? Or is it both? If so, explain how that may have worked/looked like. Do you agree with Dr. Moore that Joseph was a Savant?

Explaining the Book of Mormon away by simply calling the whole product a plagiarism is a reductionist position that doesn’t account for the full picture that we observe when we look at the Book of Mormon in all of its complexity. Plagiarism doesn’t cut it. I think you’re going to have to come up with something else.

I agree with your last sentence.

Regards,
MG
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:09 pm

Explaining the Book of Mormon away by simply calling the whole product a plagiarism is a reductionist position... Plagiarism doesn’t cut it. I think you’re going to have to come up with something else.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you had actually read my post rather than just search for a way to derail, you would have seen my actual point: it is the apologist Rasmussen doing the analysis that has this "reductionist" problem, not me.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 4274
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

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

Post by MG 2.0 »

Lem wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:40 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:09 pm

Explaining the Book of Mormon away by simply calling the whole product a plagiarism is a reductionist position... Plagiarism doesn’t cut it. I think you’re going to have to come up with something else.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you had actually read my post rather than just search for a way to derail, you would have seen my actual point: it is the apologist Rasmussen doing the analysis that has this "reductionist" problem, not me.
You said:
Maybe Rasmussen is punking us. Because the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred.
I took the bolded words to be your opinion. If it is true that you’re simply restating his position…do you agree? Does plagiarism explain the Book of Mormon? And do you agree with Dr. Moore’s assessment that Joseph was a Savant and this has explanatory power to give rise to the production of the Book of Mormon through the artistry and creative genius of Joseph Smith?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

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

Post by Doctor Steuss »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:59 am
What other religious leader of import was a savant? They would meet the clinical requirements?

Or was Joseph Smith one of a kind in this regard?

Regards,
MG
Without implying equality of degree...

Outside of Christianity:
Confucius
Zarathushtra Spitama
Siddhattha Gotama
Baháʼu'lláh

Within Christianity:
Augustin Gretillat
Charles Wesley

Outside of Religion proper though, there are a buttload (to use the very scientific latin term) of other philosophical and/or political savants that could easily be inserted into the realm of religious leader if some type of even casual spiritualism were inserted into their general ideology and teachings.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1855
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

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

Post by Dr Moore »

Lem wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:40 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:09 pm

Explaining the Book of Mormon away by simply calling the whole product a plagiarism is a reductionist position... Plagiarism doesn’t cut it. I think you’re going to have to come up with something else.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you had actually read my post rather than just search for a way to derail, you would have seen my actual point: it is the apologist Rasmussen doing the analysis that has this "reductionist" problem, not me.
The "whole product is a plagiarism" position is not a critical position held by anyone. It is a straw man position fronted by apologists to ease the pain as they paint themselves into a smaller corner. Recent (past 2 years) scholarship has made it impossible to hold onto the "tight" translation theory, while the "loose" translation model contradicts what Joseph and his scribes said happened.

And yes, apologists are admitting, in their own soft-pedaled ways, that Joseph borrowed extensively from a bricolage of writings which are known to have been either in his possession or readily available to him. Recent papers have revealed dozens of such instances, peppered throughout all of his dictated texts.

MG seems to rely on outdated readings because he glosses over posts on this board and dismisses all of it as "tired, old stuff," seemingly unaware of where current apologetics stands on the complexity involved in defending Joseph's translation projects.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

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

Post by Lem »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:02 pm
Lem wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:40 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you had actually read my post rather than just search for a way to derail, you would have seen my actual point: it is the apologist Rasmussen doing the analysis that has this "reductionist" problem, not me.
You said:
Maybe Rasmussen is punking us. Because the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred.
I took the bolded words to be your opinion.
Wrong. I was evaluating Rasmussen's probability, which I already explained, and which you continue to take out of context. Either you still misunderstand, or, a far more likely scenario:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:15 am
Your attempts to change the subject are a tactic — not the normal meander of a conversation. We’ve all seen it.
I'm going with that. See Dr. Moore's post.
Post Reply