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

[drumdude]

Kyler's analysis in a TL:DR meme:

d6d.jpg

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ah. I think I’m understanding the methodology. For example, if you take Kennewick Man here:



decolorize his image and then slap the title ‘Nephite’ over the image like so:



you claim his identity can’t be independently verified because forensic facial reconstruction isn’t an exact science, but because you slapped the word ‘Nephite’ over the image you can confidently asses the odds of the Book of Mormon is true at 1. Or crap, man. >1.

- Doc

[drumdude]

We've already found Zarahemla!

Untitled.jpg

Every Latter Day Saint was encouraged to read Stephens' book and to regard the stone ruins described in it as relating to the Book of Mormon.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

Excellent point! Ironically, it is precisely Bayes Theorem which is supposed to help you out to avoid this amateur error. This is yet more proof Rasmussen simply does not grasp the basics of Bayes Theorem.

[Gadianton]

Thanks for the quote, Dr. Exiled.

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

My guess is that he demonstrates what he can, and if the professor agrees with the reasoning and agrees that any further requirements are absurd, then I'd think that, he wins? right?

I think the situation is intentionally being misrepresented.

[Moksha]

Bet you could find a number of LDS statisticians if you threw in $30,000 and a sister-wife.

[Dr Exiled]

Thanks for the quote, Dr. Exiled.

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

My guess is that he demonstrates what he can, and if the professor agrees with the reasoning and agrees that any further requirements are absurd, then I'd think that, he wins? right?

I think the situation is intentionally being misrepresented.

Apologists love the hasty conclusion and Sr. Rasmussen PhD will want to declare victory as soon as he can. I think the highlighted goes to the garbage in/garbage out comparison that Dr. Moore related. No statistics prof will put his/her name on this as it is based on unprovable assumptions, as in, he is pulling numbers out of his _____ and telling us that they smell like roses.

[Dr Moore]

It’s an odd thing, that someone educated and connected to other educated people would choose to put out garbage science, all in the hope the Lord would use that garbage to lift someone’s faith.

Rather sounds like lying to me.

[Gadianton]

It’s an odd thing, that someone educated and connected to other educated people would choose to put out garbage science, all in the hope the Lord would use that garbage to lift someone’s faith.

Rather sounds like lying to me.

It shows no faith or real commitment to the cause to believe something because it's true, or because the evidence is good. If I'm a prophet with followers, and I declare something is true and there is good evidence for it and my followers believe it because of the evidence; I then have to wonder, what will they do when what I say isn't backed by evidence? If I lie and its obvious, those "all in" on the lie, or those who invent their own obvious lies to justify me are the ones I mark as my true believers.

[Dr Exiled]

It’s an odd thing, that someone educated and connected to other educated people would choose to put out garbage science, all in the hope the Lord would use that garbage to lift someone’s faith.

Rather sounds like lying to me.

Lying for the Lord for sure. Some might be misled into believing that bayes proves the Book of Mormon when it really just adds a fake rigor to predetermined belief. No historian uses bayes theorem in their work because history cannot be proven to the certainty needed to use it.

Perhaps Dr. Rasmussen should at least put that disclaimer on his work, showing that it is based on numbers he guesses at and that bayes was really meant to deal with known quantities, other than history? That would help make his endeavor more honest.