Probability and NHM

[asbestosman]

Maximum Likelihood is interesting, but it isn't always the best solution. It seems to rely on how you split up categories. We could ask which particular theory is most likely, in which case Maximum Liklihood works quite well. On the other hand, we can ask ourselves whether we should expect this particular event to happen or not. We would have to say that we expect no particular event to happen, but we still expect at least one of them to happen.

That is precisely the value I see in an MLE approach and why I offered that example; in MLE calculations, the specific events that are observed tend to be enormously unlikely, regardless of the actual values of the parameters being estimated. But despite the minuscule scale of the likelihood function, some estimates are a lot less likely than others.

Fair and true. The problem is that I think the possible reasons are numerous. In fact, I think the situation is one of degrees to which certain things influenced the translation process. In such a situation I think Maximum likelihood is not going to be the best bet.

Maximum likelihood is the strategy I'd use if I only get rewarded for being right, not for being close. Is that really the best way to handle this situation? I think a better option is to withold judgment.

But the whole object of the exercise is to come to a judgment; that is the question! What

[Dan Vogel]

Dr. Peterson,

What surprises me is not the fact that there are various estimations of NHM's evidentiary weight, but that you are apparently unwilling to grant it even the slightest smidgin of evidentiary value in favor of the Book of Mormon's antiquity.

Or have I misperceived your position?

I understand weighting it fairly highly. I also understand granting it relatively little importance as evidence. But I confess that an assignment to NHM of absolutely zero evidentiary weight strikes me as remarkably rigid and dogmatic.

It probably won

[gtaggart]

It probably won

[DonBradley]

I don't know about the probability of a direct hit on NHM, but how about the probability of Helaman nailing Dan Vogel?

Well, Tag, given the pattern of God repeatedly smiting those who seek signs and deny his truth, as established in the Book of Mormon, it seems like the resurrected angel Helaman, or God, or someone ought to have pushed either the "Mute" or "Delete" button on Dan V. years ago. In fact, this should have happened not only to Dan but also to hundreds or thousands of others. That this hasn't happened in the real world we can actually observe makes the world of the Book of Mormon text - where this thing is run-of-the-mill - seem rather unlikely.

by the way, is an astounding statement.  Not any evidence?  None?  Nothing?  Unbelievable.  Apparently, when Sterling McMurrin* speaks the thinking has been done.

*In case my little reference is too obscure, McMurrin famously dismissed the Book of Mormon with "you don't get books from angels."

While I do see some evidence favoring the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and thus disagree with Dan on this point, I find your "little reference" more obtuse than obscure. Dan's recent biography of Joseph Smith demonstrates years of engagement with the Book of Mormon's text and the environment of its English dictation. His views on the subject don't copy anyone else's. They are quite original.

Don Bradley

[Daniel Peterson]

It probably won

[Bob Bennett]

It probably won

[juliann]

It probably won

[gtaggart]

I don't know about the probability of a direct hit on NHM, but how about the probability of Helaman nailing Dan Vogel?

Well, Tag, given the pattern of God repeatedly smiting those who seek signs and deny his truth, as established in the Book of Mormon, it seems like the resurrected angel Helaman, or God, or someone ought to have pushed either the "Mute" or "Delete" button on Dan V. years ago. In fact, this should have happened not only to Dan but also to hundreds or thousands of others. That this hasn't happened in the real world we can actually observe makes the world of the Book of Mormon text - where this thing is run-of-the-mill - seem rather unlikely.

Don Bradley

Don, you misunderstood my first point, probably because of my choice of words. Rather than "nailing," maybe I should have used the word "predicting" or some such.

by the way, is an astounding statement.  Not any evidence?  None?  Nothing?  Unbelievable.  Apparently, when Sterling McMurrin* speaks the thinking has been done.

*In case my little reference is too obscure, McMurrin famously dismissed the Book of Mormon with "you don't get books from angels."

While I do see some evidence favoring the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and thus disagree with Dan on this point, I find your "little reference" more obtuse than obscure. Dan's recent biography of Joseph Smith demonstrates years of engagement with the Book of Mormon's text and the environment of its English dictation. His views on the subject don't copy anyone else's. They are quite original.

Again, you missed my point--and I'll accept responsibility once again. Though my point assumes something not in evidence at this juncture, it seems fair to ask which came first the chicken or the egg. That is, did Dan arrive at his conclusions after considering both sides or as with Bro. McMurrin, do all of his "original" views flow from his conclusion that, well, "you don't get books from angels"? As dismissive as he is of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and of any and all evidence that contradicts his ideas, I'd bet on the latter.

[DonBradley]

Ah, I definitely misunderstood, Tag.

Obviously Dan can and probably will answer for himself here. But one thing I'd like to point out that I discovered about Dan - to my surprise - while I was very much a believer is that Dan began as an apologist. While searching through papers in the Marquardt collection at the U of U, I discovered a file of correspondence between Dan Vogel and Wesley Walters, correspondence probably given to Marquardt by his research partner Walters. In this correspondence, Dan defended the truth of Mormonism, arguing, for instance, that Brigham Young teaching the "Adam-God" idea would not disqualify him from being a prophet, since even a prophet can make mistakes.

My understanding from Walters' writings is that when Dan lost his faith in Mormonism, he was still open to the possible truth of other faiths. If so, your conclusion that Dan first rejected the supernatural, and therefore rejected Mormonism would be incorrect.

I object to this sort of guesswork regarding other "apostates" in part since I know it would lead to wrong conclusions about me and about others I personally know. It is all too easy to argue along the lines of, "Of course Phil N. DeBlanc doesn't believe in Mormonism/the Book of Mormon/the Book of Abraham, he doesn't believe in God/Jesus/the historical existence of Abraham in the first place." (I've seen the Abraham argument applied to Stephen Thompson, for instance.) In my experience, this usually puts things exactly backwards. One usually loses belief in a specific religious claim before rejecting the supernatural altogether.

In my own case, the shift to nonbelief in Mormonism occurred piecemeal, over a period of some fourteen years, followed by a few years of continued, though also gradually eroding, belief in God and the supernatural.

Don Bradley

[cdowis]

>Mr. Vogel still doesn't think there is ANY evidence for the Book of Mormon historicity. It simply boggles the mind.

An admission that there is a *possibility* opens the door that the existence of angels lies within the realm of the possible.

The story of an angel delivering the plates to JS, for some, completely precludes even the possibility that there is any evidence at all for its historical validity. Once one has turned his back on and rejected the supernatural, there is no turning back.

I guess my mind is not boggled at all because I have spoken to several such individuals. To admit that there is any evidence at all for the BOM opens the door to the possibility of the existence of angels.

[e=mc2]

Bob Bennett:

This is an astounding statement. In all of Sorenson's book 'An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon', in all of the FARMS papers and books on the topic, in all of the other research, in spite of the testimonies of three and eight witnesses, Mr. Vogel still doesn't think there is ANY evidence for the Book of Mormon historicity. It simply boggles the mind.

Well, I mean the worse of it is this. In my personal library (and I don't have quite everything FARMS has published), there are well over 30,000 written pages dealing with various kinds of evidences. Granted, not all evidences are of the same quality and value.........but that absolutely none of this means anything really is stretching credulity in my mind.....really.

[Dan Vogel]

Dr. Peterson,

It probably won

[Dan Vogel]

Bob Bennett,

It probably won

[Dan Vogel]

Tag,

I don't know about the probability of a direct hit on NHM, but how about the probability of Helaman nailing Dan Vogel?

Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites, and began to depend upon their aown strength and upon their own wisdom, saying:

Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken. Helaman 16: 15-16 (emphasis mine)

I don

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

It probably won

[Dan Vogel]

Don Bradley,

In my own case, the shift to nonbelief in Mormonism occurred piecemeal, over a period of some fourteen years, followed by a few years of continued, though also gradually eroding, belief in God and the supernatural.

My evolution was similar, although much quicker. Let

[asbestosman]

So, maybe I

[DonBradley]

I define "evidence" as any information that makes a given hypothesis more or less likely. On this definition, the NHM find would constitute evidence, since such a find would be given a greater probability on the hypothesis of Book of Mormon historicity than it would on the "null hypothesis."

I hope Analytics will chime in here and give this conception of evidence a far better Bayesian exposition than I could.

Note that on this same definition of evidence there is abundant evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, since there are plenty of facts we would predict with a higher likelihood on the hypothesis that the BoM is not ancient than we would on the hypothesis that it is ancient.

I'm interested in hearing Dan V.'s definition of evidence, since it seems to be different from and more restrictive than the one I use.

Don Bradley

[cdowis]

Dan Vogel,

Since you are obviously following this thread, to the extent that you have presented a personal response to several individuals, let me repeat myself in the form of a question directed to you:

In your worldview, is it within the realm of possibility that angels -- messangers from a Divinity -- could exist. Specifically is it in any means or manner possible that an angel could have delivered a message, could have delivered a physical object to anyone on this planet earth?

JS claimed that an angel delivered gold plates into his possession.

Is this within the realm of possibility, regardless of any evidence that may be presented to you for the historical veracity of the Book of Mormon itself.

Thank you in advance for your response.

[Daniel Peterson]

It

[Gervin]

Daniel Peterson seems to offer a very reasonable position with regard to NHM evidence supporting a historic Book of Mormon: "weak to the point, almost, of non-existence."

[Bob Bennett]

Vogel:

I

[Mighty Curelom]

Since I (obviously) don't regard the question as definitively settled either way (on the level of publicly available empirical evidence), that seems to me to indicate a premature dogmatism on your part.

But you do find the matter definitively settled by means of personal revelation/spiritual experience. Your constant accusations of dogmatism are so hypocritical because you're just as dogmatic as anyone you've applied the label to. Your dogmatism simply arises from (what you believe to be) revelation rather than empirical data.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel Peterson seems to offer a very reasonable position with regard to NHM evidence supporting a historic Book of Mormon: "weak to the point, almost, of non-existence."

Superficially clever, but insubstantial.

Oh. Wait. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not referring to NHM. I'm talking about your comment.

Since I (obviously) don't regard the question as definitively settled either way (on the level of publicly available empirical evidence), that seems to me to indicate a premature dogmatism on your part.

But you do find the matter definitively settled by means of personal revelation/spiritual experience. Your constant accusations of dogmatism are so hypocritical because you're just as dogmatic as anyone you've applied the label to. Your dogmatism simply arises from (what you believe to be) revelation rather than empirical data.

You're quite right, in a way. (Had a bad day, MC? Feeling nasssssty?)

I do regard the matter as settled for me, in a private, non-publicly accessible and noncommunicable way that I do not use as support for any argument. In argument, I never invoke testimony as evidence for anybody else. I argue on the basis of inferences from empirical data.

It's easy to contrast my position with Mr. Vogel's. He is unwilling to grant that any evidence is known that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to grant that unanswered questions and problem areas remain with regard to my position -- unanswered questions and problem areas that constitute evidence against Book of Mormon historicity. (This is precisely the same situation as exists with every other rationally contestable historical claim.) I simply don't regard them as lethal, and I see other evidences that, in my view, counterbalance and even outweigh them.

Furthermore, whereas I am personally certain of the truth of the Book of Mormon because of what I accept as personal revelation to me, any fully analogous but opposite certainty is blocked to Mr. Vogel because he rejects the existence of such personal revelation. His dogmatic absolutism, far more extreme than my confidence, rests not on superempirical revelation, which he disallows, but on . . . er, on . . . well . . . on something else.

[Confidential Informant]

I don't actually believe in either alien abductions or Bigfoot -- in fact, I'm quite confident that neither one exists

Try sitting in the woods at 2:00 a.m. on a moonless night when you hear a big "thump". Suddenly, the reality of Bigfoot becomes very easy to believe and the level of evidence required suddenly becomes infinitesimally small!

C.I.

P.S. Speaking from a legal standpoint, the NHM evidence is decent. Not conclusive and certainly attackable...but still decent.

ci