This thread is full of vague hand waving with few exceptions. This is one. It is very incomplete but does have something specific to say. I wonder if it is correct. I have had questions in my mind about the word studies but I have no expertise. One difficulty is that there have been a variety of them. Even Uncle Dale presented his word studies.
I thought this thread was about wordprints, why all the cliches about testimony and personal character?
Also, what are your thoughts about a short Book of Mormon translation window with 30-40 word blocks of dictation being given at a time, and the likelihood that this process would lean more to multiple authors vs. single author?
And, thank you for your indulgence, are you in alignment with the general thoughts and conclusions of this author?
Years ago I spent quite a bit of time looking through the existing word print studies and found them interesting but found myself wondering how multiple voices made it through the translation process and Mormon’s abridgment. Not to mention…well I am…the short dictation blocks given to the scribes during the daily grind of the translation.
That there are echos of individual authors in the Book of Mormon at all seems to be either anachronistic or a miracle of some sort. Something that almost defies explanation.
Do these studies depend on replicable statistics or do they depend upon a multivariate analysis, subjective linguistics by no linguists, and eyeballing graphs based on multivariate analysis.
Do these studies depend on replicable statistics or do they depend upon a multivariate analysis, subjective linguistics by no linguists, and eyeballing graphs based on multivariate analysis.
The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540)
“The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught.
“For God doth not walk in crooked paths, … neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.
“Remember … that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men” (D&C 3:1–3).
Do these studies depend on replicable statistics or do they depend upon a multivariate analysis, subjective linguistics by no linguists, and eyeballing graphs based on multivariate analysis.
Social skills seem to be lacking around here. No need to get snooty. Being polite can go along way. Fact is, I asked YOU some questions that I thought could be answered prima facie. I’m simply curious as to what you thought about the Hilton study.
A scientific analysis was done by John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley.[1] The "Berkeley Group's" method relied on non-contextual word patterns, rather than just individual words. This method was designed from the ground up, and required works of at least 5,000 words.
The Berkeley Group first used a variety of control tests with non-disputed authors (e.g. works by Mark Twain, and translated works from German) in an effort to:
demonstrate the persistence of wordprints despite an author's effort to write as a different 'character'
demonstrate that wordprints were not obliterated by translation (e.g. two different authors rendered by the same translator would still have different wordprints). The Berkeley Group's methods have since passed peer review, and were used to identify previously unknown writings written by Thomas Hobbes.[2]
With your expertise I was wondering if you thought this study was done in such a way as to be more trustworthy than the others. The Jocker’s study didn’t last long before it was discredited.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe one or more of these studies passes muster.
If any of these studies demonstrates multiple authors as being a strong possibility I think that is important.
Social skills seem to be lacking around here. No need to get snooty. Being polite can go along way. Fact is, I asked YOU some questions that I thought could be answered prima facie. I’m simply curious as to what you thought about the Hilton study.
A scientific analysis was done by John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley.[1] The "Berkeley Group's" method relied on non-contextual word patterns, rather than just individual words. This method was designed from the ground up, and required works of at least 5,000 words.
The Berkeley Group first used a variety of control tests with non-disputed authors (e.g. works by Mark Twain, and translated works from German) in an effort to:
demonstrate the persistence of wordprints despite an author's effort to write as a different 'character'
demonstrate that wordprints were not obliterated by translation (e.g. two different authors rendered by the same translator would still have different wordprints). The Berkeley Group's methods have since passed peer review, and were used to identify previously unknown writings written by Thomas Hobbes.[2]
With your expertise I was wondering if you thought this study was done in such a way as to be more trustworthy than the others. The Jocker’s study didn’t last long before it was discredited.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe one or more of these studies passes muster.
If any of these studies demonstrates multiple authors as being a strong possibility I think that is important.
Regards,
MG
The point that I make is that true wordprint studies depend upon statistical analysis comparing one text to another larger group of texts. For instance, the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's collected writings.
A multivarient analysis is simply a mathematical equation that leads to plotted graphs and does not depend upon statistics. I say that that is inherently unreliable. The BerkelyGroup's methods are the latter. I have previously cited to criticisms of the multivarient analysis.
Social skills seem to be lacking around here. No need to get snooty. Being polite can go along way. Fact is, I asked YOU some questions that I thought could be answered prima facie. I’m simply curious as to what you thought about the Hilton study.
With your expertise I was wondering if you thought this study was done in such a way as to be more trustworthy than the others. The Jocker’s study didn’t last long before it was discredited.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe one or more of these studies passes muster.
If any of these studies demonstrates multiple authors as being a strong possibility I think that is important.
Regards,
MG
The point that I make is that true wordprint studies depend upon statistical analysis comparing one text to another larger group of texts. For instance, the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's collected writings.
A multivarient analysis is simply a mathematical equation that leads to plotted graphs and does not depend upon statistics. I say that that is inherently unreliable. The BerkelyGroup's methods are the latter. I have previously cited to criticisms of the multivarient analysis.
I’m obviously not the expert that you claim to be, but I find it interesting that the Hilton study potentially seems to be the least biased/prejudiced whereas it included researchers that were not LDS.
In 1990,19 John Hilton and a team of researchers from Berkeley (most of whom were not LDS) conducted a study using word pattern ratios and a new method of differentiation based on what Hilton called rejections. This study is especially notable because of its large control samples, which included 26 texts by 9 different control authors and 325 pairwise comparisons. Comparisons were made between texts attributed to Nephi and Alma and those from Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Solomon Spalding.
The findings of Hilton’s research team largely agreed with the results of the Larsen study, leading them to conclude that “it is statistically indefensible to propose Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery or Solomon Spaulding as the author of the 30,000 words from the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma” and also that Nephi and Alma “have wordprints unique to themselves and measure statistically independent from each other in the same fashion that other uncontested authors do.” These results indicate that the Book of Mormon was indeed “multiauthored, with authorship consistent to its own internal claims.”
The Hilton study’s innovative stylometric approach, combined with its thorough statistical controls, make it a landmark study on Book of Mormon authorship. Using a slightly different method, researchers from Utah State University essentially reproduced the results of the Hilton study in 2006.
Whatever one thinks of stylometry and Hebraisms/Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, it’s interesting nonetheless that these patterns show up in the rather complex Book of Mormon narrative. Especially when one remembers also the translation process itself, and the fact that there was an ancient abridgment process that has to be factored in. That is if you want to put any credence into Mormon being an abridger. And the fact that the dictation was given in 20-30 word blocks or ‘text messages’ while Joseph was looking at a stone in a hat compounds things even more.
Anyway, I find it interesting that critics seem to overlook a lot of this and ultimately come down to saying, “Joseph did it.” That seems to be a stretch.
It is also a stretch that a human being could run a mile in four minutes.
You’re really stretching to use this as a comparative example to what is being discussed. If you would care to go into a bit more detail as to why you think your response is relevant/analogous, go for it.
Obviously there are lots of things humans do that are a stretch. That doesn’t mean they are directly related to one another.
By the way, if you haven’t already done so I think that RFM ought to do a series of episodes dealing with stylometry studies if you think that you have any qualifications to do so or can get a balanced panel of sorts to come in and discuss this topic. I think there would be an audience that would listen, and your podcast ratings will only be enhanced by doing so.
