David Holmes' Compter Analysis - Comments?

[Glenn101]

A further observation is that Joseph Smith worked on the Book of Mormon well before he did the bulk of the D&C and the Books of Moses and Abraham. Therefore, his prophetic voice would be influenced by his work on the Book of Mormon as demonstrated by this study. Since his prophetic voice is unique from his personal voice, it supports the idea that his prophetic writings are not his solely, but have an influence by an other(s), but obviously excluding Ridgon, Cowdrey, et al.

Could that "prophetic voice" be that of the Holy Ghost?

I have often wondered how much of the Lord's language and style(s) we see in the scriptures and how much reflect the author's own style, grammar, etc. This also gives me pause to wonder just how effective can an analysis of a prophet's work be? But that is probably something for another thread.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Nice background information Glenn. Did Holmes attempt to revise his work on Joseph Smith with his improved model?

I have not been able to find any information either way about it. I would like to see him do so. I am not afraid of what science will show about the Book of Mormon.A study by Holmes or some one else who uses accepted scientific methods that have gone through the peer review process would only help us.

Although the Berkley Group has non-LDS members, too many critics dismiss their work as somehow being tainted and unreliable because any LDS was involved. However, it does seem that serious academics are not in that group. I'm going to do some more digging.

Glenn

[MormonPeasant]

Could that "prophetic voice" be that of the Holy Ghost?I have often wondered how much of the Lord's language and style(s) we see in the scriptures and how much reflect the author's own style, grammar, etc. This also gives me pause to wonder just how effective can an analysis of a prophet's work be? But that is probably something for another thread.Glenn

Gee, was it that obvious in how I phrased that?!!! You got my point exactly.I, too, would be interested in seeing an analysis of the Lord's style. I especially would like to see how the D&C correlates in that study.

I have not been able to find any information either way about it. I would like to see him do so. I am not afraid of what science will show about the Book of Mormon.A study by Holmes or some one else who uses accepted scientific methods that have gone through the peer review process would only help us.Although the Berkley Group has non-LDS members, too many critics dismiss their work as somehow being tainted and unreliable because any LDS was involved. However, it does seem that serious academics are not in that group. I'm going to do some more digging.Glenn

I understand. I still don't understand how our enemies do not need to be objective, but LDS scholars are presumed biased in spite of their training and being peer reviewed.

[MormonMason]

I am not so sure about your reasoning or conclusions there. If Joseph Smith had been learned in reformed Egyptian and was applying his own interpretive skills to the text, his imprint as an interpreter should show up in the resulting works. But if he was merely (merely?) dictating the text as it appeared to him through the Urim and Thummin or the seer stone, one should not expect to see Joseph's imprint in the resulting work. (You would expect to see scribal errors, copying errors, etc.) This is in the case of the Book of Mormon. The method of translation or rather transmission of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses is much less clear than that of the book of Mormon, so I do not know what to expect of those texts.

Of course, my opinions are subject to revision with more information. I am sure there are many things I do not know about the Book of Mormon and how it was translated or maybe transliterated.

Joseph Smith's imprint is all over all three works. Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian. However, translation involved the use of the mind in studying it out. You know the Doctrine and Covenants scripture. It has been discussed on this board several times since I have been here. If Joseph Smith's mind was involved in the translation process, his imprint inevitably would be there as his mind projected the translation and he dictated what his mind caused him to see.

Joseph Smith would regularly become fatigued during translation because he had to make a lot of effort to focus his mind as he worked. The Urim and Thummim and his seer stone required mental effort to work and distractions caused failure in translation from time to time, such as the instance in which David Whitmer records that Joseph got into a fight with his wife and was unable to translate until he reconciled with his wife.

So, no, if Joseph Smith's mind was involved my reasoning is sound.

The link that I used in an earlier post pointed out that Holmes had later revised his opinions a bit when he applied his techniques to the Federalist papers and compared them to the techniques used by the Berkley Group. He was honest enough to acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis and if I understand it correctly, began using a modified set of word print techniques in his own work.

One of the important things I feel came of this is that the Berkley group was using criticisms of the Larsen, Rencher work to improve the methods. The Holmes study came out a little later than that of the Berkley Group and he seemed to be unaware of that study. But once he (Holmes) noted how his work could be improved, he was eager to implement those improvements.

Glenn

Thank you for this additional information. It is true that his methodology could be improved but it has also the potential to be used as a weapon against anyone claiming that the Book of Mormon was written by others rather than being the product, at least in part, of Joseph Smith's mind as were the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. There is no problem to me in claiming that Joseph Smith's mind played a part in the bringing forth of scripture. Even Joseph Smith implied as much when he claimed that one must use one's mind in translating. I only wish he had provided additional details for the record.

It is useful in this manner and in a manner that the critics who cited the results thereof did not suspect.

[phaedrus ut]

The link that I used in an earlier post pointed out that Holmes had later revised his opinions a bit when he applied his techniques to the Federalist papers and compared them to the techniques used by the Berkley Group. He was honest enough to acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis and if I understand it correctly, began using a modified set of word print techniques in his own work.

One of the important things I feel came of this is that the Berkley group was using criticisms of the Larsen, Rencher work to improve the methods. The Holmes study came out a little later than that of the Berkley Group and he seemed to be unaware of that study. But once he (Holmes) noted how his work could be improved, he was eager to implement those improvements.

Glenn

Where did Holmes "acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis"? And how exactly did Holmes note his work can be improved? I've not seen this can you cite your source here.

Phaedrus

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not a Mormon. As I read through the BoM, D&C, Moses, Abraham, etc., it just seems to me that one can see a common thread throughout - some of the phrases are the same, and the manner in which the books are written (an attempted duplication of King James English) just seems so contrived.

They do all have the same author...God! This would explain the "common" language.

[Obiwan]

Sorry, but I don't consider "debunking" from a non-neutral source to be worth the paper it's written on.

I'm guessing then in your world you've never heard of studying things out FOR YOURSELF, and then judging the "merits" thereby.

Further, by your own standard do you consider ex-christians and atheists to be "objective"?

Even further, by just outright discounting something without studying it, tells us you believe in being "brainwashed".

Even more..... Your telling us that to learn of Catholisism (for example) we SHOULD NOT study any Catholic theologians, teachers, etc. in order to understand that faith more perfectly. That we should simply rely on "outsiders" to interpret a Faith.

Such a position you hold here is kind of hypocritical and a double standard, as well as NON INTELLECTUAL don't you think?

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't know whether this has been mentioned:

David Holmes's initial study appeared, if I'm not mistaken, in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, or something like that. (I haven't looked at the article since it first appeared.) Dr. G. Bruce Schaalje, who was at the time a government statistician in Canada, responded directly to Holmes in a subsequent issue of the same journal.

[Glenn101]

Where did Holmes "acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis"? And how exactly did Holmes note his work can be improved? I've not seen this can you cite your source here.

Phaedrus

Here about work Holmes did on the Federalist papers.

You'll have to take their word for it unless you want to pay for the privilege of reading the abstract. I could not find a free copy on the internet.

However this link describes some work he did in 2000. One excerpt in particular stands out:

"Using frequencies of large sets of non-contextual function words (a proven methodology in stylometry), and multivariate statistical techniques such as principal components analysis and cluster analysis, the methodology was first tested on the known material. The letters home from Generals and Privates separated out by author, intriguingly the variation between Generals and Privates being greater than the variation within these two categories. With Georgeâ??s known works, the personal and the official material appeared broadly similar in their usage of function words, leading to the identification of a "George Pickett" style or wordprint. LaSalle Corbell Pickett, by contrast, displayed two distinct styles, one emerging in her published works and the other in her private letters. Together, three distinctive styles had emerged for our two candidates."

Hope this helps.

Glenn

Edited to ask "Where is Bibletruth?"

[phaedrus ut]

Here about work Holmes did on the Federalist papers.

I've read Holmes work on the federalist papers before. I'm looking for something to back up your claims above.

Don't know whether this has been mentioned:

David Holmes's initial study appeared, if I'm not mistaken, in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, or something like that. (I haven't looked at the article since it first appeared.) Dr. G. Bruce Schaalje, who was at the time a government statistician in Canada, responded directly to Holmes in a subsequent issue of the same journal.

I posted it earlier in the thread. Those curious can read Schaalje's response here

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

I've read Holmes work on the federalist papers before. I'm looking for something to back up your claims above.

I posted it earlier in the thread. Those curious can read Schaalje's response here -here

Phaedrus

That was in the second link to a paper Holmes did in 2000 titled "A Widow and Her Soldier: The Case of the Pickett Letters". I quoted an excerpt from it describing the stylometry methods he used. One of them was "Using frequencies of large sets of non-contextual function words (a proven methodology in stylometry)". In this abstract, Holmes does not use any form of his vocabulary richness methodology but is using additional stylometry distinguishing tools in addition to the non-contextual function words.

Glenn

[phaedrus ut]

That was in the second link to a paper Holmes did in 2000 titled "A Widow and Her Soldier: The Case of the Pickett Letters". I quoted an excerpt from it describing the stylometry methods he used. One of them was "Using frequencies of large sets of non-contextual function words (a proven methodology in stylometry)". In this abstract, Holmes does not use any form of his vocabulary richness methodology but is using additional stylometry distinguishing tools in addition to the non-contextual function words.

Glenn

I'm still looking for you to answer my original question. Where did Holmes "acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis"? And how exactly did Holmes note his work can be improved?

Are you just inferring this from his later work and putting words in his mouth?

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

I'm still looking for you to answer my original question. Where did Holmes "acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis"? And how exactly did Holmes note his work can be improved?

Are you just inferring this from his later work and putting words in his mouth?

Phaedrus

Here is the link I provided in an earlier post. I will amend my comments a bit to read {start revised comments} G. Bruce Schaalje, John L. Hilton, John B. Archer in 1997 noted that David I. Holmes had acknowledged the superiority of the Berkley Group word print methodology versus his vocabulary richness methodology. I quote "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" {end revised comments}

I noted in that post that unless one is willing to pay to read the abstract David I. Holmes and D. I. Forsyth, "The Federalist Revisited: New Directions in Authorship Attribution," Literary and Linguistic Computing 10 (1995): 111â??27, one will have to take the words of the team that wrote the article I have linked to.

I was not directly quoting Dr. Holmes. therefore I was not putting words into his mouth. Since I have not access to the referenced article, I did find other later work that Dr. Holmes has performed and noted that he is now using non-contextual words as part of his methodologies and has added other methodologies also. The fact that he does not use the vocabulary richness method in this work may or may not indicate that he has abandoned it. But the methods that he was using in 2000 would seem to corroborate the statement I linked to.

I would be happy to consider any evidence to the contrary that you may have.

Glenn

[phaedrus ut]

Glenn,

I've actually spoken with David Holmes regarding this issues so I was surprised by what you were claiming. The reality is that Hapax Legomena/Dislegomena as a tool for literary identification was valid and is still used to this day. See Homeland Security: Applying Authorship Analysis to Extremist-Group Web Forum Messages.

Holmes doesn't consider his original work flawed, or his original conclusions incorrect. Holmes remains a often published & cited expert on literary style analysis and stylometry. For example the Magazine of the American Statistical Association, Chance publish "Who was the author? An introduction to stylometry" Chance, Holmes, D.I., and J. Kardos. That seems to be a pretty good measure of where he stands in the field.

Why is it you think that work of the "Berkley group" wasn't published outside of FARMS?

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

Glenn,

I've actually spoken with David Holmes regarding this issues so I was surprised by what you were claiming. The reality is that Hapax Legomena/Dislegomena as a tool for literary identification was valid and is still used to this day. See Homeland Security: Applying Authorship Analysis to Extremist-Group Web Forum Messages.

That article seemed to indicate that arabic poses some problems for the vr techniques. But I do not recall saying the Dr. Holmes had abandoned those techniques. From what I have been able to determine, Dr. Holmes used the vr techniques, the non-contextual words technique, and another method in his work on the Federalist Papers. It was this work that, according to the FARMS team, demonstrated that the non-contextual word method was able to differentiate between authors more effectively than the vr method.

Holmes doesn't consider his original work flawed, or his original conclusions incorrect. Holmes remains a often published & cited expert on literary style analysis and stylometry. For example the Magazine of the American Statistical Association, Chance publish "Who was the author? An introduction to stylometry" Chance, Holmes, D.I., and J. Kardos. That seems to be a pretty good measure of where he stands in the field.

Why is it you think that work of the "Berkley group" wasn't published outside of FARMS?

Phaedrus

I was not able to read the complete article by Dr. Bruce Schaalje because I do not have a subscription to the Oxford Journal. As for the article you list, it is concerning the abstract by Dr. Holmes that I linked to. That is the one where he used non-contextual function words, "a proven methodology in stylometry" as one of his techniques.

Is your last question your method of dealing with the scholarship that FARMS has produced? Why is Doctor Holmes using non-contextual function words now?

Glenn

[John D the First]

Why is it you think that work of the "Berkley group" wasn't published outside of FARMS?

If anyone knows the answer to this question I would be curious to know. I read their study and for someone who doesn't really know about this subject the methodology seemed sound. They laid it out in detail and they seemed to have valid controls. The team was composed of Mormons and non-Mormons. Did they try to submit it to any mainstream journals? If so, on what grounds was it rejected? Was it rejected simply by virtue of its conclusions?

[phaedrus ut]

Is your last question your method of dealing with the scholarship that FARMS has produced?

Nope, just asking your opinion. I've heard opinions on the work from those I consider experts in the field. I was just wondering what you think the answer is.

Why is Doctor Holmes using non-contextual function words now?

I could ask him, but I'll assume it's because it's a valid technique among the dozens available. For example Holmes also used neural networks for author attribution on the Federalist Papers. Just because someone uses a particular tool doesn't invalidate the previous work or other available classification techniques. A recent article in Literary and Linguistic Computing suggests there are currently thirty-nine different types of textual measurements used in attribution studies.

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

On why the Berkley Group's work was not published outside FARMS.

Nope, just asking your opinion. I've heard opinions on the work from those I consider experts in the field. I was just wondering what you think the answer is.

I do not have an answer. I do not know. I do know that several members of FARMS do write articles that appear in other media outlets. But I am not going to get into a my expert can beat your expert battle. Whatever opinions that those you have talked to have, it would be helpful if they would publicly engage the scholarship that has been produced by FARMS if they have a critique that would be helpful in understanding or even rebutting the work that has been done.

The non-contextual function word technique has passed peer review, else I do not think that Doctor Holmes would be using it.

On why Doctor Holmes is using the non-contextual function word technique in his work now:

I could ask him, but I'll assume it's because it's a valid technique among the dozens available. For example Holmes also used neural networks for author attribution on the Federalist Papers. Just because someone uses a particular tool doesn't invalidate the previous work or other available classification techniques. A recent article in Literary and Linguistic Computing suggests there are currently thirty-nine different types of textual measurements used in attribution studies.

Phaedrus

That was exactly the idea that I have. The stylometry work, I don' t think it is quite a science yet, is so much further along than it was in the eighties. That is something that I noted in an earlier post, i.e. that Doctor Holmes is moving forward in his work, using several different techniques to improve the accuracy and reliability of the results.

Glenn

[ed2276]

In my opinion it is. And it often alternates between "thys" and "yours." Showing the author was a 19th century speaker.

There we have it! Bibletruth is of the opinion that it is, therefore, owing to his amazing neutrality and unbiased opinion, we may declare it to be so.

Next!

[ed2276]

All those "thys" and "yers" gave it away. Joseph should have known better than to use "thys" instead of "thy. Did he also include "thems" ,"theze uns" and "thoze uns" in the text too? Is that what clued you in?

Next!