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

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

So, did they receive a few manuscripts, or “if any”? Why does this fool lie so much?

- Doc

[drumdude]

So, did they receive a few manuscripts, or “if any”? Why does this fool lie so much?

It's as natural as breathing for him. I don't think he knows how to make an honest argument anymore.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

So, did they receive a few manuscripts, or “if any”? Why does this fool lie so much?

- Doc

Does he have any other choice? He's an apologist, of course he is going to exaggerate their own views and talents, and diss others, it's the only valid method to gaining a "spiritual testimony." Apologists can't fake that, hard though they try. The thing they fail to grasp, is, the rest of the world truly does see through their charade, from the top in Salt Lake City right down to the chapel Mormons who they have brainwashed. But no one tell them, they really do think they are so clever they pull wool over all eyes. It is so lousily obvious to most 6th grade level thinkers, and ironically, the apologists cannot grasp that. I mean what can I say, that is the miracle of blindness.

[Dr Moore]

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.

Actually, rule following and proper process in advanced statistics is entirely about reasoning, and Kyler is botching it horrifically. From cherry picking to non sequiturs to non-independence, he’s put out a piece of work that uses words of science but are actually gobbledygook in terms of a scientific process.

I have no need to do anything, much less do it “any way” I can, to discredit him. He’s done that thoroughly and convincingly to himself.

[Philo Sofee]

Actually, rule following and proper process in advanced statistics is entirely about reasoning, and Kyler is botching it horrifically. From cherry picking to non sequiturs to non-independence, he’s put out a piece of work that uses words of science but are actually gobbledygook in terms of a scientific process.

I have no need to do anything, much less do it “any way” I can, to discredit him. He’s done that thoroughly and convincingly to himself.

Well said.

[Dr Exiled]

From the opening post:

Rasmussen wrote: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.

I think this is where we should head for the exits.

[drumdude]

I could probably get them to sign off that it's reasonable to assume independence for those sorts of problems

No, Kyler, you couldn’t. That would be asking them to sign off on assuming the conclusion of the argument in order to prove the argument.

If you can assume any arbitrary set of things is independent without limits then you can prove false equals true.

The fact is Kyler either doesn’t realize that he is assuming his conclusion is true at the beginning of his project, or he is purposefully ignoring it.

[drumdude]

If he'd be fine with a statistician of his choosing commenting on my points above, he's welcome to do so, but that'll be his business, not mine.

It would be devastating to his project if we got one or more statisticians who don't have a dog in this fight to weigh in on this BS.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

1. I can't demonstrate statistically that the things I treat as independent are actually independent, to the point where a statistician would say "yes, independence has been demonstrated."

2. In cases where it's not feasible to demonstrate that two things are independent, it is permissable to assume that they're independent, provided there is no logical or conceptual reason for why they should be dependent. For the kind of exploratory thought-experiment I'm attempting here, I'm confident that a great many statistical experts would back me up on this.

For the more learned among us, #1’s highlighted portion. What is that? Is that common among folks using Bayesian analysis to just up and designate something as ‘impossible to demonstrate as independent’, so you just call it independent any way because you just do? That strikes this lay person as really, really problematic.

with regard to #2’s highlighted portion, is the first sentence in #2 something ‘a great many statistical experts’ do?

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

1. I can't demonstrate statistically that the things I treat as independent are actually independent, to the point where a statistician would say "yes, independence has been demonstrated."

2. In cases where it's not feasible to demonstrate that two things are independent, it is permissable to assume that they're independent, provided there is no logical or conceptual reason for why they should be dependent. For the kind of exploratory thought-experiment I'm attempting here, I'm confident that a great many statistical experts would back me up on this.

For the more learned among us, #1’s highlighted portion. What is that? Is that common among folks using Bayesian analysis to just up and designate something as ‘impossible to demonstrate as independent’, so you just call it independent any way because you just do? That strikes this lay person as really, really problematic.

with regard to #2’s highlighted portion, is the first sentence in #2 something ‘a great many statistical experts’ do?

- Doc

He's hypothesizing about earning professional approval for work he hasn't even done. (!!!) While Kyler does make a qualitative case for independence among a few obviously independent processes, he fails to do so for an overwhelming majority of his probability functions.

Greater N means more work to argue independence. To multiply N probabilities you need to establish -- qualitatively or quantitatively -- statistical independence between N * (N-1) / 2 unique pairs of variables.

For 23 episodes, that's at minimum 253 paired instances of Bayesian functions for which Kyler has to take time to articulate a basis for assuming statistical independence. So yes, Kyler is theorizing about approval from "a great many statistical experts" (whatever the hell that means) for work he hasn't even bothered doing. Not with data AND/OR with well-reasoned arguments.

Notably, he's never addressed the obvious common, correlated, causal factor which is the mind, imagination, memory and creativity of Joseph Smith, whose influence cannot be mathematically uncorrelated from Kyler's Bayesians. It's laziness or intellectual dishonesty the way Kyler pretends at academic rigor while skipping the most essential steps in the recipe.