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

[_bschaalje]

I'm not yet persuaded of that. Cross-genre tests still seem to be an intractable problem for the method.

I don't know about intractable, but I agree that it's a difficult problem. With this paper published, I hope to look at that problem.

[_MCB]

Cross-genre tests still seem to be an intractable problem for the method.

Yes, that is a problem. Plus the KJE. Your assumption of open set, sets up your means of analysis. The Spaldingites assume closed set, while acknowledging that there are other possible authors available.

The Stanford study lined up fairly well with Dale's previous results. It substantiated partial Spalding authorship in approximately the same textual units where Broadhurst's study predicted they would be found. We will see.

[_moksha]

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).

In future studies with the Book of Mormon, we intend to adjust for the deliberate archaic language used throughout. We also intend to supply measures of uncertainty for the estimated posterior authorship probabilities.

Excellent work. All that it left now is linking the text to Reformed Egyptian writing styles.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

6,894,770,500 people don't care.

[_Kishkumen]

The approach that Jockers and company took was, I think, quite valuable. It was something new - used some good tools, and so on. It had some flaws. This new paper does not destroy the Jockers methodology. It corrects it.

What, you don't agree with your esteemed colleague Nomad in his learned opinion that the publication of the Jockers et al. study represented a failure of peer review?

I can't imagine why. Guffaw.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I don't know about intractable, but I agree that it's a difficult problem. With this paper published, I hope to look at that problem.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Let me clarify my comment. When I say that the basic idea is very good, I come at it from a different perspective than Bruce would - or perhaps you CK. Stylometric investigation is invaluable because it represents a purely internal kind of investigation into texts. And from this perspective, while there are obvious limitations - as you point out - these kinds of approaches make examining texts from a stylometric perspective much more accessible. Some texts will not lend themselves well to this kind of discovery. We may find that some authors do not lend themselves to this kind of discovery. But, the other issue is that a process like this can be fully automated, can be streamlined (e.g. vocabulary lists can be made static), so that we could at some point, compare massive numbers of texts and authors reasonably quickly. Author profiles can be produced, and so on.

[_harmony]

How do the gold plates figure into all this?

[_GlennThigpen]

How do the gold plates figure into all this?

It would seem that the Gold Plate story is more credible than the Spalding/Ridon theory at this point.

Glenn

[_harmony]

How do the gold plates figure into all this?

It would seem that the Gold Plate story is more credible than the Spalding/Ridon theory at this point.

Glenn

Actually, it would seem that the idea that the book was written by a man or men (unnamed at this point) is more credible than it was delivered by an angel... but your mileage may vary.