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.
Yes he should, and also when asked by inquiring message board users.
I suggested an open source disclaimer up thread. He’s free to use it without attribution.
“Dr. Moore” wrote:
What Kyler Rasmussen should say when asked...
"My Estimating the Evidence project, published with Interpreter, is really just for fun and entertainment among believers, and is not not meant to be a serious scholarly endeavor. My results should not be viewed as a rigorous treatment of a statistical analysis of Book of Mormon truth claims. Even so, I hope you enjoyed my creative writing and my pretty charts."
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.
Yes he should, and also when asked by inquiring message board users.
I suggested an open source disclaimer up thread. He’s free to use it without attribution.
“Dr. Moore” wrote:
What Kyler Rasmussen should say when asked...
"My Estimating the Evidence project, published with Interpreter, is really just for fun and entertainment among believers, and is not not meant to be a serious scholarly endeavor. My results should not be viewed as a rigorous treatment of a statistical analysis of Book of Mormon truth claims. Even so, I hope you enjoyed my creative writing and my pretty charts."
Love this part.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
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.
Yes he should, and also when asked by inquiring message board users.
I suggested an open source disclaimer up thread. He’s free to use it without attribution.
“Dr. Moore” wrote:
What Kyler Rasmussen should say when asked...
"My Estimating the Evidence project, published with Interpreter, is really just for fun and entertainment among believers, and is not not meant to be a serious scholarly endeavor. My results should not be viewed as a rigorous treatment of a statistical analysis of Book of Mormon truth claims. Even so, I hope you enjoyed my creative writing and my pretty charts."
Yes: they've been trying to have it both ways. They want "Interpreter" to be a "serious" "scholarly" "peer-reviewed" enterprise, and yet Rasmussen has admitted that he's just screwing around. I mean, *we* all know the truth, but the basic deceit of what they're doing is incredibly shameful.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Yes he should, and also when asked by inquiring message board users.
I suggested an open source disclaimer up thread. He’s free to use it without attribution.
Yes: they've been trying to have it both ways. They want "Interpreter" to be a "serious" "scholarly" "peer-reviewed" enterprise, and yet Rasmussen has admitted that he's just screwing around. I mean, *we* all know the truth, but the basic deceit of what they're doing is incredibly shameful.
I am largely in agreement here with this sentiment Dr. Scratch, on the other hand, who really doesn't see through the charade? Perhaps chapel Mormons, but even to apologists, those are their bread and butter. All others who have done a smidgin of reading are realistically at least telling Sic et Non behind the scenes to pull their heads out already as being acquainted with actual scholarly materials, the differences Sic et Non keeps posting are blatant and obvious. It would not surprise me in the least if there are several voices behind the scenes telling Peterson (for real now) that they know he can do better than the debacle of Kyler Rasmussen. It would not surprise me at all if Robert Smith was one of those who is attempting to at least steer Peterson in a more realistic direction. Surely Smac97 sees the idiocy of Sic et Non "scholarship." Now, realistically, sure Midgley can't see the obvious amateurish attempts, since he is part of the problem, but many others are sure to see the difference. Even in my "apostate" and Holy Ghostless life and in my reading I can see it quite clearly. Those other Holy Ghost totin Mormons will see it even better - if we can give them the benefit of the doubt. Peterson may very well be putting together as we type, a new and much more accurate scholarship at Sic et Non.
