Wordprint Studies On The Book Of Mormon

[phaedrus ut]

Grego,

It may seem redundant asking, but I've directly asked him before but never got an answer.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

Give you a link to the article? You're the one making declarations of agenda and bias. I would assume you'd know how to find it. Assuming you've read them. Have you read them?

Phaedrus

Many years ago I read his article, in its entirety. I remember specifically how shocked I was to read his comments on JS, considering that this was supposedly an unbiased, scientific study. "How could these comments pass the editors of this journal?"

Perhaps it was on the Tanner's website. I don't remember, but it is not available today except for cost.

I do not have access to the article today, but I stand by my statement.

It specifically says that Hapax Legomena/Dislegomena are "generally accepted by scholars as reliable measures of lexical repetition and lexical richness".

And note what they do NOT say. They do not say it is accepted as a method to determine authorship, ONLY a measure of "lesical repetition and .... richness". This simply means that it measures what it claims to measure.

======What does that mean in our discussion here?=======

Do you think me a fool? Did you really think you could pull this off?

"accepted by scholars", indeed.

Yes I've read it many times. It's a good discussion of the issues.

OK, do you stand by Holme's methodology and conclusions, or are you just blowing hot air.

[Chris Smith]

Perhaps it was on the Tanner's website. I don't remember, but it is not available today except for cost.

The Tanners merely wrote a summary. They did not post the whole article.

And note what they do NOT say. They do not say it is accepted as a method to determine authorship, ONLY a measure of "lesical repetition and .... richness". This simply means that it measures what it claims to measure.

======What does that mean in our discussion here?=======

Do you think me a fool? Did you really think you could pull this off?

Lexical richness is widely used in authorship attribution.

If you want a copy of the study I can email it to you.

-Chris

[cdowis]

The Tanners merely wrote a summary. They did not post the whole article.

Lexical richness is widely used in authorship attribution.

If you want a copy of the study I can email it to you.

-Chris

From the article previously cited:

"Holmes argued that his technique must be preferable to that of

Larsen et al. because his method used all textual words in its calculations,

but he provided no support, empirical or theoretical, to

validate this statement.7 It is interesting, therefore, that in a recent

paper Holmes reversed his position and praised the use of noncontextual

word frequencies when he found that authorship attribution

based on vocabulary richness was not able to segregate

Federalist Papers texts attributed to Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

as clearly as the method based on rates of use of common noncontextual

words.8"

Why don't you read the article and give us your response. Compare the validation studies, the comments in this article, and give your assessment on Holm's technique.

OK? This is getting very tedious when you continue your argument without responding to this article.

[cdowis]

The Tanners merely wrote a summary. They did not post the whole article.

-Chris

As I said I read the entire article but do not recall where I got it.

[phaedrus ut]

And note what they do NOT say. They do not say it is accepted as a method to determine authorship, ONLY a measure of "lesical repetition and .... richness". This simply means that it measures what it claims to measure.

======What does that mean in our discussion here?=======

I've provided you with how many academic citations supporting my point ? 5 or 6 and all you can give in response is retyping your opinions. Yes they do say it's a method for determining authorship thus the name of the article Function Words in Authorship Attribution Studies. Here we are again with you saying what they do "NOT" say. Did you possibly read this article or are you just stating your opinion?

Do you think me a fool? Did you really think you could pull this off?

I have no idea what you're suggesting what I'm trying to "pull off". I'm challenging your assertion that Holmes' methodology was never validated and based on his own ideas. I've thoroughly demonstrated that the methodology was a recognized seasoned approach both prior to his publication and remains so today.

"accepted by scholars", indeed.

OK, do you stand by Holme's methodology and conclusions, or are you just blowing hot air.

I fail to see how I may have been "blowing hot air" I've backed up my statements by reference and citation.

As far as backing his work and conclusions I would say yes I generally do. In one his papers Holmes concluded that Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Book of Abraham share a common author. I'd say I also agree with that conclusion.

However for a believer that's not completely a deal killer. The common point for all is Joseph Smith. If you can move away from the BOM as a tight translation it could merely be the inspiration and translation limited by and filtered by the translator/revelator (Joseph Smith).

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

Do you intend to discuss the FARMS article, and the specific citation that I quoted? Or do you just want to argue.

[Dale]

My understanding is the studies cannot be used for or against the Book of Mormon.

I understand John Tvedtnes objection. But I wonder if the study still doesn't have merit for showing Joseph smith wasn't the author of the Book of Mormon. The study still compares various english author's with the english author of the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith was only the english author of the Book of Mormon then the studies should confirm that. The Book of Mormon should not have any Hebrew characteristic's outside co-incidence, the citing of chapter's from the Bible, or any indications of multiple author's. This makes me think John Tvedtnes objection though having a merit did not totally invalidate Hilton's studies.

[Uncle Dale]

My understanding is the studies cannot be used for or against the Book of Mormon.

I guess that depends upon what you mean by "for or against" --- On another message board I have

posted excerpts, graphics and links to my own studies, in which I have attempted to determine which

parts of the Book of Mormon most resemble Solomon Spalding's known writings, in terms of style,

phraseology and vocabulary. In one instance I added some supplementary data from non-contextual

word studies.

So -- is that sort of reporting "for or against" the Book of Mormon?

I would say neither --- but such research lays a possible groundwork for offering reasonable answers

to the old Mormon question of where else could the text have come from, other than from Nephites.

In my studies I have been accused by some Latter Day Saints, of working "against the Book of Mormon."

But I reject that implicit condemnation, and continue to do research.

As I see things, making new discoveries about the text is not working "against the Book of Mormon,"

but, rather it is working against possible misconceptions concerning the text and its origins.

From Page 11 of On-line Discussuon, "DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY" :

The red-colored sections on the charts were determined by a rough quantification of word-strings, not by

an undifferentiated shared vocabulary count. That is why I posted the 3-part chart (Alma XX-Helaman I)

earlier in this thread. I'll repost it now, in order to clarify things.

This chart of the "Book of Solomon" has been reduced in size to fit easily into this web-page,

but the full-sized original is also available for viewing here:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/phrchrt2.gif

The vocabulary count you are speaking of, CK, is indicated by the upper graph line, which roughly varies

from a low of about 90% (on p. 395) to a high of about 98.2% (374, 385) in the pages of this section of the

1830 BoM. In other sections of the book, that upper graph line dips down to as low as 80-85%

Uncle Dale

[phaedrus ut]

Do you intend to discuss the FARMS article, and the specific citation that I quoted?

Are you changing the subject? I'd be happy to discuss the BYU studies article you provided in the link. This is the first you've mentioned it to me. I'm familiar with it and I'm not in disagreement with it. If you look back to previous discussions on BOM wordprints I generally refer to Hilton's work.

Or do you just want to argue.

You're the one accusing me of trying to "pull something off" and "blowing hot air". I stayed on topic and addressed the issues you raised directly. I can't see how that can be argumentative.

Phaedrus

[Luigi]

How have critics responded to the stylometry study done at BYU that concluded the Book of Mormon selections they did not resemble any suggested 19th century authors, including Joseph Smith? (Larsen, Wayne A; Alvin C Rencher & Tim Layton (spring 1980), "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints", BYU Studies 20: 225â??51) I know the Tanners challenged it but then there was a second study done confirming the first one. (Hilton, John L (1997), in Noel B. Reynolds, "On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship", Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins: 225-253). According to Wikipedia, that same study concluding the selections of Nephi and Alma had separate authors.

How is this explained away? Someone write it that they didn't compare it to? Was Rigdon or Spalding compared? Or was there yet another conspirator hidden away?

I would like to address this point made in the FARMS article:

Our wordprinting technique has shown that most highly skilled authors (e.g., Twain, Johnson, Heinlein, etc.), when intentionally trying to imitate the writings of different persons, are unable to successfully change their own free-flow noncontextual word patterns enough to simulate a different wordprint. Because of the mind's inability to consciously recognize the extent of word patterns that are tabulated in the computer-assisted wordprint measurement, wordprinting is practically immune to deception by a forger

While I think this part of the article makes an interesting case for the ability of stylometry to identify authors even if they are imitating other individuals it is still hard to compare to the BoM. Twain, Johnson, and Heinlein were probably still using their contemporary language to imitate contemporaries. The Book of Mormon tries to imitate a writing style which is 400 years old and if indeed a fraud Joseph or whoever wrote it would have relied heavily on the KJV, as is evident from the text since many phrases, large or small, are identical to Bible language. This unique set of circumstances would make it very difficult to find comparable examples for meaningful empirical comparison. While I still think internal consistency might be effectively measured with stylometry in the BoM I really doubt it's effective in eliminating a potential 19th century author.

[William Schryver]

The so-called Berkeley Group continued its work to refine wordprint analysis throughout the 1980s. John Hilton reported on its progress a few years back in an article now available online from the Maxwell Institute:

Read it here.

Speaking specifically of some of Uncle Daleâ??s observations concerning the possibility of redaction and KJV passages corrupting the study, Hilton notes:

Our new conservative measurements incorporate six points which were not used in earlier Book of Mormon wordprint studies. These points contribute to improved reliability when 5000-word texts are tested. They are (1) measuring the author's wordprint by studying the use rate of sixty-five noncontextual word-pattern ratios as proposed by Morton (1985); (2) abandoning the commonly accepted statistical assumption of "normality" of word distribution and instead using the Mann-Whitney nonparametric statistic, which does not require the unverifiable normality simplification; (3) developing a "wrap-around" word-group counting method which helps break apart clusters of similar words in the sampled text words (this method helps provide the statistically required word-group homogeneity); (4) making comparison measurements between just two texts at a time; (5) using the oldest extant Book of Mormon manuscripts (the texts used do not include the repetitive use of the phrase and it came to pass, nor do they include significant direct quotations from the King James Bibleâ??including such text would distort the noncontextual word counts for each author); and (6) verifying the sensitivity of the computer coding and measurement methodology by measuring a diverse set of texts of nondisputed authorship which represent the appropriate literary parameters.

Emphasis mine (See above link for source of this quote.)

Much of the criticism in this thread is being directed towards the methodologies used in the 1978 and 1980 studies. Thus, most of the criticism is irrelevant, having been obviated by the improved methodology of the much later studies being reported by Hilton in the above article.

I am still searching for the source I have of where Holmes acknowledged the superior methodology of the Berkeley Groupâ??s later wordprint analysis programs. As I recall, Holmes himself has now converted his own methodology to a â??non-contextual wordsâ? basis, essentially adopting the conclusions of the Berkeley research. When I locate the source, I will post it.

[Luigi]

(the texts used do not include the repetitive use of the phrase and it came to pass, nor do they include significant direct quotations from the King James Bibleâ??including such text would distort the noncontextual word counts for each author);

I don't think anyone is accusing them of using large chunks that quote word for word the KJV(such as the Isaiah passages), just that the use of noncontextual words would be greatly confounded by the attempt of an alleged fraud to use similar speech of the Bible-especially if one assumes the perpetrator has a KJV on hand. Perhaps stylometry cannot be confounded by such an attempt but there really isn't empirical evidence to back that up. As stated in my previous post the Hilton study relied on passages from Twain and other authors to demonstrate that authors imitating other characters couldn't effectively disguise their wordprint. However, these characters were most likely near contemporaries of the authors using the author's contemporary language. I highly doubt there are currently enough examples of authors under circumstances similar to the alleged circumstances of the BoM to effectively use stylometry rule out a 19th century author. I suppose such examples could easily be created-just give 100 students the term project of writing a narrative using Biblical language and then compare it to another paper they've written in modern english using stylometry-it would be an interesting experiment.

[William Schryver]

I don't think anyone is accusing them of using large chunks that quote word for word the KJV(such as the Isaiah passages), just that the use of noncontextual words would be greatly confounded by the attempt of an alleged fraud to use similar speech of the Bible-especially if one assumes the perpetrator has a KJV on hand. Perhaps stylometry cannot be confounded by such an attempt but there really isn't empirical evidence to back that up. As stated in my previous post the Hilton study relied on passages from Twain and other authors to demonstrate that authors imitating other characters couldn't effectively disguise their wordprint. However, these characters were most likely near contemporaries of the authors using the author's contemporary language. I highly doubt there are currently enough examples of authors under circumstances similar to the alleged circumstances of the BoM to effectively use stylometry rule out a 19th century author. I suppose such examples could easily be created-just give 100 students the term project of writing a narrative using Biblical language and then compare it to another paper they've written in modern english using stylometry-it would be an interesting experiment.

Actually, your criticisms don't even touch the logic of the methodology involved. You should read the Hilton article. It's not that long. Using the methodology of the Berkeley Group, the computer program in question could distinguish 5000 word documents from each of the 100 students in your scenario. It wouldn't matter that they were all trying to write something like the Bible.

[Luigi]

Actually, your criticisms don't even touch the logic of the methodology involved. You should read the Hilton article. It's not that long. Using the methodology of the Berkeley Group, the computer program in question could distinguish 5000 word documents from each of the 100 students in your scenario. It wouldn't matter that they were all trying to write something like the Bible.

Well I found these statements from the paper interesting:

However, if the author consciously imposes an external structure, the free flow of the author's wordprint pattern is modified, and accurate wordprint measurements become more difficult to obtain.

Further, deliberately writing to an externally imposed pattern which restricts the normal noncontextual word choices of the writer or repetitively using normally noncontextual words in textually important ways can also change the wordprint patterns.

[William Schryver]

Well I found these statements from the paper interesting:

I agree that, if someone had an understanding of the methodology, they could artificially manipulate the results.

As Hilton said:

... deliberately writing to an externally imposed pattern which restricts the normal noncontextual word choices of the writer or repetitively using normally noncontextual words in textually important ways ...

But he is referring to someone actually being conscious of their noncontextual word usage, something that the scenario you proposed does not assume. Why would a group of 100 students, asked to write a story in the style of the Bible, alter their normal usage of noncontextual words? Obviously, they wouldn't. In fact, their use patterns of noncontextual words would probably remain constant regardless of the style in which they were attempting to write. That is the underlying strength of the noncontextual basis of the program. Writers are judged to generally be unconscious of their use of noncontextual words, and therefore even someone like Mark Twain, who is writing stories with multiple characters -- each with his or her own distinct style of speech -- can still be distinguished from any other author.

Now, if someone knew the logic underlying the wordprint analysis, then I agree it could be fooled. But that's not what we're talking about here.

[Luigi]

I agree that, if someone had an understanding of the methodology, they could artificially manipulate the results.

As Hilton said:

But he is referring to someone actually being conscious of their noncontextual word usage, something that the scenario you proposed does not assume. Why would a group of 100 students, asked to write a story in the style of the Bible, alter their normal usage of noncontextual words? Obviously, they wouldn't. In fact, their use patterns of noncontextual words would probably remain constant regardless of the style in which they were attempting to write. That is the underlying strength of the noncontextual basis of the program. Writers are judged to generally be unconscious of their use of noncontextual words, and therefore even someone like Mark Twain, who is writing stories with multiple characters -- each with his or her own distinct style of speech -- can still be distinguished from any other author.

Now, if someone knew the logic underlying the wordprint analysis, then I agree it could be fooled. But that's not what we're talking about here.

The quote I gave didn't say anything about the person being conscious of their noncontextual word usage (He does mention this in regards to people trying to create intentional forgeries). He seems to suggest that any attempt to impose an external structure (which I'm assuming KJV style writing would be an external structure) would confound someone's wordprint. That makes sense to me since many phrases that one would borrow, even in snippets, would include noncontextual words.

[cdowis]

I am still searching for the source I have of where Holmes acknowledged the superior methodology of the Berkeley Groupâ??s later wordprint analysis programs. As I recall, Holmes himself has now converted his own methodology to a â??non-contextual wordsâ? basis, essentially adopting the conclusions of the Berkeley research. When I locate the source, I will post it.

Perhaps this is it.

David I. Holmes and D. I. Forsyth, â??The Federalist Revisited:

New Directions in Authorship Attribution,â? Literary and Linguistic

Computing 10 (1995): 111â??27.

[William Schryver]

Perhaps this is it.

David I. Holmes and D. I. Forsyth, â??The Federalist Revisited:

New Directions in Authorship Attribution,â? Literary and Linguistic

Computing 10 (1995): 111â??27.

I think you're right Charles. Do you have the text, or just the reference? I remember distinctly that Holmes acknowledged and endorsed the findings of the Berkeley Group's later studies.

[phaedrus ut]

I think you're right Charles. Do you have the text, or just the reference? I remember distinctly that Holmes acknowledged and endorsed the findings of the Berkeley Group's later studies.

I've actually spoke to Holmes last year on the subject. What he told me that the methdology has advanced so that the work could be done completely different now. However, he said he has avoided the subject ever since due to the unpleasantness he got in response from "BYU people".

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

I think you're right Charles. Do you have the text, or just the reference? I remember distinctly that Holmes acknowledged and endorsed the findings of the Berkeley Group's later studies.

It was the reference from the article that I quoted earlier.

I've actually spoke to Holmes last year on the subject. What he told me that the methdology has advanced so that the work could be done completely different now. However, he said he has avoided the subject ever since due to the unpleasantness he got in response from "BYU people".

"Unpleasantness" is an interesting way of putting it, considering his unprofessional comments in his original article, and the flaws in his study. At least he now acknowledges that his methods have "advanced".

Considering your comment above, I find it instructive that you spent so much time and effort in defending his methods, and only now, finally admitting that he personally told you that he had "advanced" those methods.

Once again, I guess you just wanted to argue, blowing hot air when you had the truth told to you personally by the man you were defending.

That's truly pathetic. I will now exercise the ignore option, and ask that you do the same.

[Chris Smith]

It was the reference from the article that I quoted earlier.

"Unpleasantness" is an interesting way of putting it, considering his unprofessional comments in his original article, and the flaws in his study. At least he now acknowledges that his methods have "advanced".

Considering your comment above, I find it instructive that you spent so much time and effort in defending his methods, and only now, finally admitting that he personally told you that he had "advanced" those methods.

Once again, I guess you just wanted to argue, blowing hot air when you had the truth told to you personally by the man you were defending.

That's truly pathetic. I will now exercise the ignore option, and ask that you do the same.

Charlie,

You have consistently failed to provide evidence of Holmes' bias and now his "unprofessional comments" and "flaws in his study." I don't know enough about authorship attriution techniques to find "flaws in his study" (I find none that are obvious, unlike the Hilton study), but I am fairly capable of detecting bias and "unprofessional comments", and I do not find them in Holmes' paper. I am guessing that your accusation of bias is based on Holmes' rejection of the Book of Abraham and his failure to consider your favorite theory, the Tvedtnes/Crapo mnemonic device theory. It is telling that that theory has been basically discarded even by the BYU crowd (though they occasionally grant it a footnote or two). I think that Holmes would be guilty of bias (namely pro-Mormon bias) only if he accepted the obviously strained Tvedtnes/Crapo theory. As for "unprofessional comments" in the study, I can find none. Phaedrus ut has provided references for his assertions. You have provided none. Your use of the "ignore" feature, then, is lacking in charity.

Best,

-Chris

[phaedrus ut]

It was the reference from the article that I quoted earlier.

"Unpleasantness" is an interesting way of putting it, considering his unprofessional comments in his original article, and the flaws in his study. At least he now acknowledges that his methods have "advanced".

Considering your comment above, I find it instructive that you spent so much time and effort in defending his methods, and only now, finally admitting that he personally told you that he had "advanced" those methods.

Once again, I guess you just wanted to argue, blowing hot air when you had the truth told to you personally by the man you were defending.

That's truly pathetic. I will now exercise the ignore option, and ask that you do the same.

I'm not surprised you fail to recognize the difference. The fact that there are now more modern techniques does not invalidate the original work. As I thoroughly illustrated in my earlier posts the original methodology has not been invalidated, shown to be flawed or deficient in some way. That's why it's still a valid and active tool used for authorship attribution.

However, there remains the possibility that even though I've actually read the works we are discussing and discussed them with the author, then provided numerous examples to support my points, that I'm truly pathetic trying to pull something off by blowing hot air.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

Charlie,

You have consistently failed to provide evidence of [1] Holmes' bias and now his "unprofessional comments" and [2] "flaws in his study."

Chrissy,

[1] If you will read my post, you will note that I have referenced **my memory** on his unprofessional remarks. If you are truly interested in the details, you can pay to get his article online and we can read the exact words in his article.

You may be right. Perhaps I made the whole thing up, and your investment will pay off handsomely as you will be able to "show me up" for the drooling moron that I am. But I have better things to do with the money.

[2] Please read the article that I referenced, including his own admission.

[Chris Smith]

Charles,

I apologize for the condescending tone of my post. Now that I look back at it, I realize that I was to a certain extant trying to "get you back" for past posts in which I felt you were patronizing me. Getting even, of course, is not in the spirit of Christian charity, and I was out of line. Again, I am sorry.

I already have the Holmes Book of Mormon article in digital format, and offered earlier in this discussion to email it to you. That offer still stands. As for the more recent article, I'll try to find it down at the library when I get a chance.

-Chris