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

[_MCB]

But how do we explain a noticeable drop in his grammatical ability at about the same time?

particularly in the pronouns and verbs unique to early forms of English (KJE and before)

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Obviously we don't have the ability to be precise
...

We can be mathematically precise when communicating data
which typically lends itself to quantification.

For example, in the past I have determined the percentages of
vocabulary overlap between the Book of Mormon and Spalding,
page-by-page in the "Nephite" text. So long as we all agree that
I have properly represented a significant body of Spalding's writings,
we can be confident in our expressing how "Spaldingish" any
particular section of the 1830 Book's text will be, in terms of a
percentage of shared vocabulary with Mr. Spalding.

It is a bit more difficult to perform the same task for phraseology
overlap -- but I have typically listed any word-string of three
or more shared contiguous words as "shared phraseology." Again,
we can be mathematically precise in communicating that sort of
measure of "Spaldingish" text in the Book of Mormon.

However, in order to get a fuller view of just how well any part
of the Book of Mormon resembles Spalding, I have typically
combined my vocabulary overlap data with my phraseology
overlap data when I web-publish my comparison charts.

Our LDS (and our Smith-alone) opponents continue to complain
that they cannot understand such visual depictions -- but I suspect
that they are generally too lazy and too uninterested to even
read the accompanying explanations.

As an example, let's look at the part of the Book which I have
concluded is the most "Cowderyish" -- and that is Alma 5-7 and
Alma 32-34. Here is one of my charts from that study:



As can be seen in the first bar of the graph, page 205 in the
modern Book of Mormon contains vocabulary overlapping that
found in Oliver Cowdery's preserved writings, by about 93%.
The same page shares about a 30% overlap with Cowdery's
known phraseology.

I've added the two percentages together into a single bar of the
chart --- and perhaps that is what keeps confusing our critics.
However, by placing the two percentages atop one another, we
can instantly get an overview of a large number of Book of Mormon
pages, as to how much they resemble Cowdery, in 2 different ways.

My research tells me that pages 210 and 211 (at the joining of
Alma 5-6-7) constitute the strongest match with Cowdery
in the entire Book of Mormon.

The "match" is a precise one -- whether or not folks care to
believe it has any significance.

At the very least, they can put their fingers on any random
sentence found between Alma 6:60 and Alma 7:10, and have
a fair expectation of discovering practically the same phraseology,
scattered throughout the sundry writings of Mr. Cowdery.

More here:
http://premormon.com/resources/r010/010CowAlma1.htm

Uncle Dale

[_GlennThigpen]

Jockers results largely concur with Dale.

You mean the 2008 Jockers study? The one in which Bruce Schaalje found problems because of a closed set authorship? The one that Bruce enhanced and improved upon, and which Matt Jockers, in a very early post in this thread, said made some important contributions and innovations to the original NSC methodology?
In fact, that was the very reason this thread was started, so many posts ago, to point out that Bruce Schaalje's paper was available in the advance access section of the Literary and Linguistic Computing online magazine.
The April, 2011 edition is now available, with the fully peer reviewed article now published.

When this thread was first started by Daniel Peterson, it quickly veered off that track into areas that S/R theorists are more comfortable with. The Jockers study originally was hailed as a major coup by the S/R crowd, but when Bruce produced his own paper, which did not invalidate the NSC methodology, (it did invalidate some of the conclusions that most S/R proponents had drawn from that study) but rather enhanced it, there has been a marked rectitude by those same proponents to discuss the ramifications and to try to understand what it means for their theory.

In order for the S/R theory to regain any traction, someone must step forward and show scientifically why Bruce's methods and conclusions are flawed enough to be invalid.

Saying that "I don't accept it" just doesn't cut it.

The NSC method pioneered by Jockers et al and extended by Schaalje et al is a scientific method. The Berkley Group study that was a precursor in the wordprint study field had some of the same conclusions. It was the result of almost ten thousand man hours spread over a seven year period. Their baselines that was developed was tested against a known corpus of texts.

Glenn

[_Roger]

All:

Here's an account I'd like you ponder, pray about about and ask God if it's true:

Many years ago, in December, I was laboring for the brother of my father-in-law in a land Northward. He has a bakery from which he sells baked goods to the locals. But it was not a pleasant job, my lot, for the brother of my father-in-law was a cold, hard, uncaring man. External heat and cold had little influence on the brother of my father-in-law. No warmth could warm his heart, and the wintry chill only made it grow colder.

To save on overhead, the brother of my father-in-law insisted on the bare essentials. His employees, though compensated, were paid not a penny more than minimum wage and any tips received were confiscated. The only heat in the building was supplied by the bake oven, most of which vented up through the shabby roof. Normal work hours were never observed, for, in his shrewdness, the brother of my father-in-law knew that running the business 24 hours a day would generate more revenue. His two employees, myself and my handicapped son were expected to keep the business running non-stop. Though we labored cheerfully with sweat and courage, our efforts were never enough to satisfy his expectations for monetary enrichment.

It came to pass that as we were working on the night of December 24th, a youngster entered the bakery. But this young lad did not come to purchase bread. On the contrary, he asked for the brother of my father-in-law and said: "At this festive time of year, sir, it is generally acknowledged that those of good fortune should make some slight provision for the poor and needy among us. May we count on you, sir, to share some of the proceeds of this magnificent bakery for those less fortunate?"

The brother of my father-in-law quickly retorted: "Have the prisons been closed?"

"Why, no sir," came the startled reply, "they are all in full operation."

"And the Unions? Do they no longer function on behalf of the worker?"

"Certainly, they do, sir. But I fear you misunderstand. A few of us are simply endeavoring to buy the poor some food on this festive occasion. As it is written, what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and yet lose his own soul? What, good sir, do you want us to put you down for?"

"I want to be left alone. There is work to be done," retorted the brother of my father-in-law.

And it came to pass that later that same evening, my handicapped son had a terrible accident and I had to rush him to the hospital. Unable to find replacements, the brother of my father-in-law was forced to look after the bakery in our absence. Not long after our departure a personage of shining countenance as bright as the sun appeared to hover over the bakery counter and in a voice as loud as thunder declared to the brother of my father-in-law, "I am Zaph, a Lamanite ghost who does part time work scaring the heck out of misers like you."

"What is your business here?" the brother of my father-in-law managed to reply in terror.

"Your restoration" said Zaph, "Take hold of my Book of Mormon."

And it came to pass that when the brother of my father-in-law grasped the Book of Mormon, he was immediately convicted of his gross wrongdoing. And, behold, it further came to pass that he saw his life pass before him and knew that he had been in the wrong.

"The direction a man follows will foreshadow certain ends," said the brother of my father-in-law to Zaph. "But if his courses be changed, surely the ends must change. Is there still time for me to thus change course, good Lamanite Spirit?"

"Only if you read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover, join the COJCOLDS and get a temple recommend," said Zaph.

"I will, I will!" said the brother of my father-in-law, who stayed up reading the entire evening.

The brother of my father-in-law was, from that point forward, continually engaged in reading the Book of Mormon and, behold, he was captivated by it's unique teaching...until he reached Alma 43 where he began to recognize in it the writings of his great, great, great uncle Solomon Spalding.

"Why this Lamanite Zaph fellow must be a deceiving spirit!" declared the brother of my father-in-law to himself. And it came to pass that as he studied the Book of Mormon further, he began to find more evidence such that whoever had produced the Book of Mormon had obviously borrowed concepts, storylines and phrases from his long departed great, great, great uncle Solomon.

And it came to pass that when my son and I returned to the bakery, the brother of my father-in law recounted all that had passed at the bakery the night before. He told of his encounter with Zaph and the great terror he felt while in Zaph's presence. And he told of the Book of Mormon and how he had seen his life pass before his eyes, and how he had read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover in the space of one evening and in it had discovered the long-lost writings of his great, great, great uncle Solomon.

And it came to pass that he said to me: "Truly these things have come to pass for a wise purpose. You, husband of my brother's daughter, must now go forth and proclaim to the world how this Joseph Smith fellow has adopted the writings of my saintly great, great, great uncle and attempted to pass them off to the world as his own message from God."

Sounded like a good plan to me.

[_Roger]

You mean the 2008 Jockers study?

After 75 pages, Glenn has managed to bring it all back on topic.

[_GlennThigpen]

Sounded like a good plan to me.

So, since you do not have an answer to the science...............


Glenn

[_Roger]

You mean you don't believe my story is true?

[_Roger]

Dale:

Our LDS (and our Smith-alone) opponents continue to complain
that they cannot understand such visual depictions -- but I suspect
that they are generally too lazy and too uninterested to even
read the accompanying explanations.

In my case I'm just too dense. (I realize, of course, what a great signature addition that will make for Glenn and Dan).

I have a feeling this will turn out to be a stupid question, but.... how is it possible to have percentage shared phraseology at over 100%?

[Bedlamite]

You mean the 2008 Jockers study?

After 75 pages, Glenn has managed to bring it all back on topic.

Yes, indeed.

And Bruce has demonstrated that computerized textual analysis
does not PROVE that 19th century writers composed the Book.
Grant him that much.

Then again, members of the Stanford research team have continually
communicated to me that they do not consider their own study and
report to stand as PROOF of a composition by Rigdon, Cowdery, etc.

So -- what does the Jockers study demonstrate? It shows us where the
most likely contributions to the text would occur IF one or more of those
19th century gentlemen ACTUALLY was a contributor to the Book's text.

For my purposes that sort of study is both interesting and useful.

To folks like Ben and Glenn, it makes about as much sense as asking
what parts of the Book most resemble the utterances of Queen Victoria;
assuming that Victoria ACTUALLY did write part of the "Nephite" text.

And, you know what?
That's OK with me. I do not expect any more.
I think that Bruce has done us all a favor, by delimiting the methodology.

Now -- what do I want to see next? I want to see both "open" and
"closed" set NSC analysis for ALL the early Mormons who left behind
sufficient writings to enable their word-printing. That means W.W. Phelps,
Lucy Mack Smith, Orson Hyde, F.G. Williams, Orson Pratt, etc., etc.

It can be done, and it will be done.

The Jockers team at Stanford, in the next couple of weeks, are conducting
an academic workshop on the subject of NSC textual analysis, and will be
making available a software package which will allow even us non-experts
the option of applying computer analysis to 19th century authors' word-prints.

So --- what happens once we have examined and charted out the NSC
attributions for a few dozen more author-candidates?

I predict that Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery, Smith (and perhaps Pratt) will
still dominate the high end of the statistical results --- that they will
continue to be the "likely suspects," even after many, many more 19th
century word-prints are added to the mix.

I also predict that the addition of all of this coming data will serve to
sharpen the "high end" results for those four author-candidates. We may
see fewer Book of Mormon chapters attributed to each of those men,
but the adjusted attributions will be stronger and better "focused" -- that
is, more reliable and more informative.

Of course for those who argue that Queen Victoria (along with Spalding, etc.)
could not possibly have contributed to the text, it will not matter which of
those old Mormons score the highest percentages for probable authorship. It
will not matter if the names are Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, or if they
turn out to be Porter Rockwell and Newell Knight. It will not impress our LDS
critics one whit, if Lucy Mack Smith is discovered to rate a 90% attribution
for six contiguous chapters in 1st Nephi, nor if Brigham Young is credited with
writing all of Enos (instead of Joseph Smith, in that most recent study).

That's OK -- arguments about the Book of Mormon do not convert LDS out of
Mormonism. Members' own bad experiences in the Church serve that purpose.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...how is it possible to have percentage shared phraseology at over 100%?

Let me put it this way.

Let's say that in high school the girls rated your physique
at 8 out of 10 points --- but that they rated your kissing
expertise at 9 out of 10 points.

How might we depict that in a bar chart?
We could average the two ratings and give you an 8.5.

We could subtract one figure from another and make that a 1.0.

There are numerous ways to combine the data -- but let's say
that we simply chose a 200% scale, and added your two
scores, to obtain a 17 out of 20 rating.

Your bar on the chart would thus have an 80% lower color,
topped by a 90% color, making the entire bar 170%.

Of course Glenn's bar would be a 100%, topped by a 60%,
so you would still beat his score.

UD