Kyler Rasmussen Accuses Dr. Moore of "Trying to discredit my analysis any way he can"

[Doctor Scratch]

Quite an intriguing exchange has been underway over on "SeN." A very perspicacious poster named Professor Sham Wow has laid out the basic premise:

B. Wilson, "I anticipate that very few non-member scholars will be persuaded"

If Skyler can just get a single member statistician scholar to be persuaded, he will be given 30k by a certain Dr. Moore who has previously donated a large sum to the Interpreter Foundation.

So far, Skyler hasn't been able to get a single member statistician, or hasn't bothered. Either way, 30k isn't chump change.

And Kyler responds:

Is that the deal now, exactly as you've worded it here? If so, it's been significantly upgraded.

Kyler, "Is that the deal now, exactly as you've worded it here? If so, it's been significantly upgraded."

My understanding is that you only have to get a single member or non-member statistician to agree that your analysis was properly done according to Bayesian principles. Sure seems like an easy task for 30k.

What is your understanding of the "deal?'

My understanding was that I had to demonstrate that the estimates that I assume independence for were statistically independent, to the satisfaction of a statistics professor of his choosing.

If the deal's as you describe, then I suppose I could have the PhD-level probability theorist that's already reviewed it give him a jingle, but somehow I doubt that he'll be satisfied with that.

Huh. Interesting. So, do we know who this "PhD-level probability theorist" is? Would this person be willing to stake his professional reputation on this "review"? Would s/he be okay with having peers in the field scrutinize this "review"? In any case, Rasmussen goes on:

I've explained in detail, both over there and over here, just how unreasonable that would be, and I'm not likely to explain it again.

"It sure seems easy to get a statistics professor to sign off that your estimates that you assume independence were statistically independent."

I could probably get them to sign off that it's reasonable to assume independence for those sorts of problems. I couldn't get them to sign off that they would 100% be statistically independent in practice, because no one wants to sign their name to an assumption that can't be proven. I doubt our mutual friend would be satisfied with the former. This isn't about what's reasonable or what's true or what's best practice. It's about trying to discredit my analysis any way he can, full stop. Thankfully I find his antics amusing rather than threatening, so power to him.

Very interesting! I thought that Rasmussen's project was entirely about "what's reasonable" to believe. Here, though, he seems to be dismissing Dr. Moore as little more than a pesky "anti-Mormon," which seems very dismissive, and quite weak, to be honest. Rasmussen would come off as less of an ineffectual blow-hole if he would step up and accept the deal. Regardless, it seems that he's definitely been feeling the pressure lately.

[Philo Sofee]

I am so unpersuaded by Rasmussen that I stopped reading after his 3rd installment. He simply has no idea how to do a Bayesian analysis to the Book of Mormon. It's moronic how he is doing this entire charade. And Interpreter is a complete dolt for putting it up. That has no longer become surprising to me.

[Gadianton]

You can't discredit something that has no credibility in the first place.

Credibility comes in different forms. In this case, not a single person with a math background has publicly supported it. Any peer review was done silently, without reviewer comments available to readers. But also, save a handful of the dullest at SeN, there is no credibility in the form of public or even tribal acceptance. A few TBM's passing by have said, "wow neat, stay cool, have a fun summer!" and that's about it.

The very fact that Dr. Moore, Lem, Shears, and Analytics have engaged the work at all gives it his work more credibility than it deserves. Think about Tom's suggestion of Witnesses advertising that 2 star review because having any professional review, even if it isn't good, is a form of credibility.

[Dr Moore]

Kyler is really trying to flip accountability into victimhood. I think he's been spending too much time with the SeN crowd.

This is where I summarized the evolution of my offer to Kyler. He has responded only with accusations of bad faith on my part. I don't get it, though. There is literally no way I could propose a better faith version of paid-for peer review of his hobby project. And as he's admitted several times, it was a toss up between being a personal blog post for friends to have fun with vs a little more distribution through Interpreter. Truth in advertising!
viewtopic.php?p=37025#p37025

And here is a more recent update on the person I think is Kyler's personal "jingle" man, Kyle Pratt. Problem is, Kyle Pratt seems to be willing only to go so far as to be a background figure. Far as I'm aware, Kyle has not been willing to put a public stamp of approval on Kyler's statistical treatment of the variables. No doubt a smart move because doing so would immediately expose him to legitimate accusations of malpractice in his chosen field of expertise. Based on Kyle's past SeN posts, he knows this.
viewtopic.php?p=42442#p42442

It isn't "antics" to offer up real money as a bounty for demonstrating serious work. Antics implies I'm bluffing. It's the opposite. I have a strong hand and I'm calling Kyler's bluff. His hand is weak and he knows it. He really should do himself a favor and just answer all of these inquiries truthfully. I will offer up a canned response which he can use without attribution:

"My Estimating the Evidence project, published with Interpreter, is really just for fun and entertainment among believers, and is not not meant to be a serious scholarly endeavor. My results should not be viewed as a rigorous treatment of a statistical analysis of Book of Mormon truth claims. Even so, I hope you enjoyed my creative writing and my pretty charts."

And this is laughable:

My understanding was that I had to demonstrate that the estimates that I assume independence for were statistically independent, to the satisfaction of a statistics professor of his choosing.

If the deal's as you describe, then I suppose I could have the PhD-level probability theorist that's already reviewed it give him a jingle, but somehow I doubt that he'll be satisfied with that.

Yes I'm sure Kyler would love for me to go away with a quick jingle from his inside guy. How about showing some integrity and ask that guy to give Interpreter a jingle, and publicly attach his name, degrees and training to the project?

Kyler is a smart guy, I think. Which means he understands perfectly well what I've offered and asked in return. He's just not yet willing to admit that his process is flawed top to bottom. From failing to de-correlate Joseph Smith from Joseph Smith, to non sequitur Bayesian, to multiplying probabilities of non sequitur proofs. It's garbage porn and I believe that somewhere in that clever mind of his, he knows it.

ETA: I'm not reading his updated episodes any more either, Philo. It's a waste of time, like asking Physics Guy to read 30 more pages of some guy's perpetual motion machine concept.

[Gadianton]

If Skyler can just get a single member statistician scholar to be persuaded, he will be given 30k by a certain Dr. Moore who has previously donated a large sum to the Interpreter Foundation.

Perhaps Dr. Moore could clarify what the distinguished professor Sham Wow is saying here.

Is the offer for 30k or 10k? I thought it was 10k (20 for 2 other projects).

the member statistician has to be agreed upon by both Kyler and Moore, right? or is it totally More's pick, or totally Kyler's pick.

Is the member expert's commentary and results to be private, or publicly available?

If the expert wholeheartedly sides with Kyler and his analysis is clearly a work of apologetics, is Dr. Moore still bound to pay?

[Dr Moore]

Is the offer for 30k or 10k? I thought it was 10k (20 for 2 other projects).

It’s all laid out in the first link above. This isn’t complicated.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. I don’t know how Dr. Moore is trying to discredit Kyler when he bailed at this point in our back and forth:

Sure.

CH = Consequent Probability of the Hypothesis (our estimate of the probability of observing a lack of DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon, given an authentic Book of Mormon)

CH = Probability of observing no autosomal DNA evidence X Probability of observing no sex-linked DNA evidence

CH = .06 x .02 = .0012

CA = Consequent Probability of the Alternate Hypothesis (how likely it is that we would end up with no DNA evidence of a 6th century BC Middle-Eastern incursion if Lehi didn’t exist, which for our purposes is p = 1.)


Evidence Score = log10(CH/CA)

Evidence Score = log10(.0012/1)

Evidence Score = log10(.0012)

Evidence Score = -3 (rounded)

Here's the link to the study used by Southerton:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209567/

I’m not sure linking me to the study helps me understand what specific population are you pulling the autosomal data set from. I’d like to know the exact population of tested individuals you used in your data set, and then I’d like to see how you took that dataset and integrated it into your Bayesian analysis to arrive at -3. The study linked has a lot of information, but the rough takeaway is that a very small genetic marker will show up way down the line as suggested by their comments regarding the Kalash.

- Doc

That was preceded by this request:

Would you be kind enough to scratch out the math, think ‘back of the napkin’, so we can get a better idea at how you arrived to -3? Also, what specific population are you pulling the autosomal data set from?

- Doc

Which was preceded by this:

Well, yes. To break this down in the simplest manner I can, I don’t see why you can’t identify a ‘hit’ off the top of your head, and then simply reproduce the analysis in a post. At that point you and the folks here can discuss each step and its reasoning with regard to your finding. For example:

1. ‘Cat’ is a hit for the Book of Mormon.

2. Here’s my reasoning.

3. Here’s the math. x+y+z = cat is a hit

4. Discuss x, y, z, reasoning, and result

- Doc

We can do that for the DNA analysis right now, as it ended up being relatively simple on the math side.

The lack of Lehite DNA represents evidence against an authentic Book of Mormon with an evidence score of -3 (decreasing the probability of an authentic Book of Mormon by 3 orders of magnitude).

In terms of how likely we would be to observe that lack of DNA if the book was a fraud, I used p = 1. I have a line that if the book were fraudulent, we'd be as likely to expect Lehite DNA in the Americas as Hobbit DNA in Wales.

In terms of how likely we'd be to observe the lack of DNA if the book were authentic, I split it up into separate estimates for Autosomal and Sex-Linked DNA, which I treated as independent.

For autosomal DNA, I took a look at a study used by Simon Southerton tracking historical migrations worldwide. The simulation data for that study found that 6% of real migrations would've been missed. Despite Lehi's genetic contribution likely having a much smaller proportion of DNA than average, and was at a greater time depth than average (both of which would've made it easier to miss), I used p = .06 as the estimate for the likelihood of not observing Lehi's DNA if his migration was real.

In terms of sex-linked DNA, as faithful, critical, and neutral scholars all seemed to agree that the sex-linked DNA could've been lost to time due to genetic drift and population bottlenecks, and as there are quite a few examples of this occurring in real life, it didn't seem appropriate to use an astronomically low estimate. I made an attempt at modeling it myself using python, and learned some interesting things, but none of my attempts appeared to give me anything realistic. I ended up assigning the lowest Bayes factor as used by the Dales (and secular scholars), which was p = .02 (note that the Dales' own analysis gave DNA as a whole a p = .5).

Doing the math, you can multiply .06 by .02 to make p = .0012, which, when taking the log10 of that value (after dividing by our probability value for the hypothesis of fraud of 1), gives us an evidence score of -3.

I think Philo was seeing the obvious problems manifesting in Kyler’s math when he stated:

I don't see your "work" here. Tell us how and why you get the numbers you do, and what they are based on... why no comparison of Southerton's materials to what FAIR has posted? or anything from FARMS? We need to see HOW you arrive at the numbers, not just giving us the numbers. I'm not at all clear how you are even trying to use Bayes here. I see no comparisons at all. No sources and what you think their numbers are in comparison to the ones you have here. We need to see the actual path you trod to get to here. Did you look at Ugo Perego's materials, and if so, what numbers have you arrived in relation to other work on DNA and the Lamanites? Anything of Tom Murphy? Scott Woodward? David G. Stewart, Jr.? Daniel C. Peterson? Matt Roper? Brent Metcalfe? Dan Vogel? Rod Meldrum? John Butler? Brant Gardner? What numbers of his led you to compare to Southerton in order to arrive here where you are at? Any of the other scholars who are non-Mormon who have had a say in this?

Anyway. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t want to get into the weeds with his process, here, with willing participants, who will lend their eyes and in some cases their expertise. He has a golden opportunity to refine his process which will either lead him to a better working hypothesis, or to scrap it because it’s just not working. Why wouldn’t you want a group of people working together over going it solo? It doesn’t make sense to me.

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

From the OP link:

… I always considered this the academic equivalent of offering my own personal sheaves to be burned on the altar. Doing so was a bit of a sacred experience for me, and though it won't mean much for anyone else, I feel that the offering was accepted. Whatever happens after that point is the Lord's business, not mine.

It’s his way of bearing his testimony, but using science language. Which is fine. On a blog.

[drumdude]

The hilarious irony here is that Dan Peterson just said they won’t publish any heartland theory papers because none of the papers submitted to them have passed their strict (totally not biased rubber stamp) peer review process.

I might add, by the way, that Mr. Jonathan Neville’s claim that we at the Interpreter Foundation “specifically and adamantly exclude” manuscript submissions from Heartlanders is flatly false. We have never discussed, let alone decided to enforce, such a policy of exclusion. The fact is that, to this point and to the best of my knowledge, we’ve received few if any manuscripts arguing for a Heartlander position, and none that our peer review process has deemed worthy of publication. That’s not our fault.

[Philo Sofee]

Doc
Why wouldn’t you want a group of people working together over going it solo? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Of course it does. He wants to bear testimony to get the cheers of his peers. He is after testimony not truth. I have found the exact same thing with the Joseph Smith Foundation. From Mormons, it has never been about actual historic facts, Bayesian indicators, or valid scientific discoveries. It always, I cannot over emphasize this, it always has to end in strengthening of testimony or its not worth a lick of spit or time. Kyler has no interest in the Bayesian solution, and he never did. He wants his home crowd to crow that now they have an answer! It has always been that. The quality of said answer is irrelevant. They can now state mathematically, and scientifically they have an answer. This is simply one of the most definitive and beautiful demonstrations of why I left apologetics. This stupid crap will never stop.
Richard Carrier's Bayesian attempt at the historical Jesus is vastly superior to this sophomoric lunacy at a Bayesian attempt to test the Book of Mormon by Rasmussen. Since he actually claims (I simply cannot believe him on this line either) to have read Carrier, then why on earth did he entirely ignore how to use Bayes Theorem?!? At least Carrier gave it a legitimate try.