Spin-off from the Spalding-Rigdon Thread

[phaedrus ut]

I invite anyone who wishes to read and comment on our LLC paper.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thanks for providing the link to your paper. I do have one comment regarding Appendix A. You wrote:

Previous studies used multivariate statistical tools together with relative frequencies of non-contextual words (Larsen et al. 1980), word-pattern ratios (Hilton 1990, Morton 1978), and vocabulary richness measures (Holmes 1992). The studies used different text sizes and different methodologies, but together they suggest that the Book of Mormon is the product of multiple authorship in which the styles of the various authors are characterized by non-contextual word usage and word-pattern ratios, but not by vocabulary richness. The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested.

I can't understand your suggestion that the 1992 paper by Holmes supports "The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested." In Holmes' paper he states his conclusion as:

It is my conclusion, from the results of this research and the supporting historical evidence, that the Book of Mormon sprang from the prophetic voice of Joseph Smith himself, as did his revelations and the text of the Book of Abraham. (A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts,D. I. Holmes,Journal of the Royal Statistical Society., No. 1. (1992),

Is Joseph Smith not a modern candidate for authorship for the BOM? And the language that the studies "together they suggest the Book of Mormon is the product of multiple authorship" even though you put the qualifier of "but not by vocabulary richness" seems vaguely worded to the point where a reader might infer support of multiple authorship from the Holmes paper. I might be splitting hairs here but I had to re-read the section closely to get that you weren't technically saying it was one of supporting citations for multiple authorship and I doubt reader not familiar with the subject matter would reach that conclusion.

Phaedrus

[Bruce Schaalje]

Bruce,

Thanks for providing the link to your paper. I do have one comment regarding Appendix A. You wrote:

I can't understand your suggestion that the 1992 paper by Holmes supports "The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested." In Holmes' paper he states his conclusion as:

Is Joseph Smith not a modern candidate for authorship for the BOM? And the language that the studies "together they suggest the Book of Mormon is the product of multiple authorship" even though you put the qualifier of "but not by vocabulary richness" seems vaguely worded to the point where a reader might infer support of multiple authorship from the Holmes paper. I might be splitting hairs here but I had to re-read the section closely to get that you weren't technically saying it was one of supporting citations for multiple authorship and I doubt reader not familiar with the subject matter would reach that conclusion.

Phaedrus

Thanks. That's a good point. I need to clarify that Holmes did NOT find evidence of multiple authorship. He thought that this meant that his findings nullified those of Larsen and Rencher. He wrote: There appears to be no real difference between Alma

[MCB]

A colleague of mine in statistics here at BYU told his students that as a Mormon, he is disturbed somewhat by Holmes' paper. As a statistician, however, he said he is completely embarassed by Holmes' paper.

Yeah, I just read it. Conclusions seem discrepant from data.

I sometimes get frustrated with the intellectual dishonesty of some LDS people, and generalize excessively.

[Uncle Dale]

(citing/paraphrasing Holmes):

...Joseph Smith obviously had a prophetc and a personal authorship style.

...

I can entertain that notion as a possibility.

But, without compelling evidence, it remains pure speculation,

and appears to be an ad hoc explanation, pulled out of thin air,

in an attempt to rationalize and justify a personal opinion.

Not the best demonstration of the scientific method we've

ever encountered, eh?

UD

-----

(corrected, with Glenn's clarification)

.

[Glenn101]

Bruce Schaalje, on 14 June 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

...Joseph Smith obviously had a prophetc and a personal authorship style.

I can entertain that notion as a possibility.

But, without compelling evidence, it remains pure speculation,

and appears to be an ad hoc explanation, pulled out of thin air,

in an attempt to rationalize and justify a personal opinion.

Not the best demonstration of the scientific method we've

ever encountered, eh?

UD

Dale, I do not think you did this purposely, but that quote from Bruce's post is not what Bruce is advocating. That is the conclusion David I. Holmes came to to explain the difference between the vocabulary richness differences he found between the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's own personal writings. He (Holmes) postulated that Joseph Smith had a "prophetic voice" that he used when writing the Doctrine and Covenants, and I assume the Book of Mormon which would account for the difference that he found in his VR studies.

Glenn

[phaedrus ut]

Thanks. That's a good point. I need to clarify that Holmes did NOT find evidence of multiple authorship.

Bruce

I think that clarification would help quite a bit as I can see it as a issue easily raised in the review process.

Would you also agree on the point regarding the statement "The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested" is also incorrect regarding Holmes' paper?

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

Bruce Schaalje, on 14 June 2010 - 08:09 PM, said:

Thanks. That's a good point. I need to clarify that Holmes did NOT find evidence of multiple authorship.

Bruce

I think that clarification would help quite a bit as I can see it as a issue easily raised in the review process.

Would you also agree on the point regarding the statement "The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested" is also incorrect regarding Holmes' paper?

Phaedrus

Phaedrus, I assume that you have read this.

Glenn

[wenglund]

I sometimes get frustrated with the intellectual dishonesty of some LDS people, and generalize excessively.

I see your quandry given that generalizing excessively is, itself, intellectually dishonest. It must be frustrating to frustrate yourself. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[phaedrus ut]

Phaedrus, I assume that you have read this.

Glenn

Yes. I've read most published work on this subject matter. I've even read the Letters to the Editor that Bruce Schaalje wrote to the Royal Statistical Society in response to Holmes' 1992 paper. I suspect you don't recall but you and I had this same conversation 2 years ago in a thread on the same subject.

Phaedrus

[MCB]

I see your quandry given that generalizing excessively is, itself, intellectually dishonest. It must be frustrating to frustrate yourself. LOL

I think when dialogues like this take place, all experience some of the same feelings of frustration.

Phaedrus, I assume that you have read this.

That is fascinating, as translator effects are an area of interest to me.

[Glenn101]

Yes. I've read most published work on this subject matter. I've even read the Letters to the Editor that Bruce Schaalje wrote to the Royal Statistical Society in response to Holmes' 1992 paper. I suspect you don't recall but you and I had this same conversation 2 years ago in a thread on the same subject.

Phaedrus

I do remember the conversation. I do not recall whether you said that you had read the article, that was why I asked.

Glenn

[MCB]

I do remember the conversation. I do not recall whether you said that you had read the article, that was why I asked.

Glenn

Is that thread still available?

[phaedrus ut]

Is that thread still available?

David Holmes'Compter Analysis

If you search I think there have been a few more over the years.

Phaedrus

* the embeded link somehow is showing up. It's

[Glenn101]

glennthigpen, on 15 June 2010 - 12:47 PM, said:

I do remember the conversation. I do not recall whether you said that you had read the article, that was why I asked.

Glenn

Is that thread still available?

I don't know. I don't even remember what the thread was all about, i.e. the name, etc. It could have been started due to the first reports of the Jockers NSC study. I do seem to recall there was some discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various wordprint studies and algorithms.

Glenn

[MCB]

I don't know. I don't even remember what the thread was all about, i.e. the name, etc.

Glenn

No, they apparently wipe out anything more than a month or so old. Even the archives section is only two pages long.

[noel00]

Noel,

A possible reason why Book of Mormon chapters cluster as distinctive in some views of the data is because its 19th century authors shared a common goal: to imitate the style of the Bible. This included copying many phrases from the Bible verbatim, perhaps according to the preferences of the 19th century author. The Tanners (1998) have shown that the Book of Mormon draws heavily from New Testament, and Wes Walters (1990) has shown that the Book of Mormon draws heavily from the Old Testament. Many witnesses alleged that Spalding deliberately imitated the "old style" of the Bible in his writing of Manuscript Found. There is reason to believe that other candidate 19th century authors would have also sought to imitate the Bible.

Several years ago, I used the work of the Tanners to carry out a cursory analysis of Biblical usage patterns in the Book of Mormon. There were significant differences in usage patterns among the various books of the Book of Mormon. For example, Biblical attributions for 1 Nephi break down this way: 15% of the borrowed Biblical phrases comes from the Book of Matthew, 15% from the Book of John; 22% from the Book of Acts, and 15% from the Book of Revelations. This was quite different from chapters often attributed to Spalding (Alma 55-59, for example) where about 33% of the Biblical borrowing comes from Acts , 12% from Galatians, and 15% from Hebrews.

This is a hypothesis that could explain some of the different cluster analysis results. It would need to be tested.

Craig

[Uncle Dale]

...

This is a hypothesis that could explain some of the different cluster analysis results. It would need to be tested.

...

Bruce has already said something here about Holmes' notion of

Smith possessing both a personal voice and a prophetic voice.

He will no doubt be rolling his eyes, when we suggest that now

it is Rigdon whose voice can be either personal or biblical.

Don and Chris will jump for joy at this suggestion -- that we

cannot track word-prints through the Book of Mormon, because

the writer was able to change his word-print at will.

This new explanation will be a hard row to hoe.

UD

[Bruce Schaalje]

I think that clarification would help quite a bit as I can see it as a issue easily raised in the review process.

Would you also agree on the point regarding the statement "The styles do not match those of any modern candidates that have been suggested" is also incorrect regarding Holmes' paper?

Phaedrus

Yes I agree that I need to change this section. But it

[MCB]

He will no doubt be rolling his eyes, when we suggest that now

it is Rigdon whose voice can be either personal or biblical.

This new explanation will be a hard row to hoe.

UD

But Craig's messenger recently wrote that they tested Rigdon's word-print extensively, because of the personal/biblical voices, and found it to be consistent. It definitely is a difficult issue.

[Glenn101]

Bruce has already said something here about Holmes' notion of

Smith possessing both a personal voice and a prophetic voice.

He will no doubt be rolling his eyes, when we suggest that now

it is Rigdon whose voice can be either personal or biblical.

Don and Chris will jump for joy at this suggestion -- that we

cannot track word-prints through the Book of Mormon, because

the writer was able to change his word-print at will.

This new explanation will be a hard row to hoe.

UD

It is pretty much established that an author can change styles, which would also probably change the vocabulary richness aspect also. However the Larsen Rencher Layton and the later (post Holmes) Berkley Group study use algorithms that survive an author's change of style. I expect that the NSC method as extended by Bruce might be able to do this also.

By the way, Holmes did some work on the Pickett letters authorship. Here is an excerpt concerning the methods he was using:

"The

[phaedrus ut]

Yes I agree that I need to change this section. But it

[Uncle Dale]

But Craig's messenger recently wrote that they tested Rigdon's word-print extensively,

because of the personal/biblical voices, and found it to be consistent. It definitely is a difficult issue.

If these Stanford folks wish to spend the time and effort to isolate

BoM voices INDEPENDENTLY of any study of 19th author candidates, then

I wish them good luck.

Only when such work is completed could they logically cross-compare the

results back against the 19th century writers, looking for match-ups.

I'm not even sure they can get THAT far -- but, if they do, then the

BoM voices most like Rigdon's known writings could be tested in various

ways, and perhaps some evidence might be found for a Bible-quoting

Rigdon voice in the BoM, which matched up closely with Rigdon's personal

voice, once all the "and it came to pass" verbiage was separated out.

Who knows -- the end result might be dueling pca charts, in which the

Stanford team created yet another professional paper for publication,

including reconstructions of Bruce's own charts.

The problem with that approach is that he intends to publish in a

Maxwell Institute journal -- and that literature might not be very

digestible by Jockers' peer-reviewers. A brief glance of the Provo

material might convince scientists that it was supernatural-promoting.

UD

[Bruce Schaalje]

Noel,

A possible reason why Book of Mormon chapters cluster as distinctive in some views of the data is because its 19th century authors shared a common goal: to imitate the style of the Bible. This included copying many phrases from the Bible verbatim, perhaps according to the preferences of the 19th century author. The Tanners (1998) have shown that the Book of Mormon draws heavily from New Testament, and Wes Walters (1990) has shown that the Book of Mormon draws heavily from the Old Testament. Many witnesses alleged that Spalding deliberately imitated the "old style" of the Bible in his writing of Manuscript Found. There is reason to believe that other candidate 19th century authors would have also sought to imitate the Bible.

Several years ago, I used the work of the Tanners to carry out a cursory analysis of Biblical usage patterns in the Book of Mormon. There were significant differences in usage patterns among the various books of the Book of Mormon. For example, Biblical attributions for 1 Nephi break down this way: 15% of the borrowed Biblical phrases comes from the Book of Matthew, 15% from the Book of John; 22% from the Book of Acts, and 15% from the Book of Revelations. This was quite different from chapters often attributed to Spalding (Alma 55-59, for example) where about 33% of the Biblical borrowing comes from Acts , 12% from Galatians, and 15% from Hebrews.

This is a hypothesis that could explain some of the different cluster analysis results. It would need to be tested.

Craig

Craig,

As you well know as a scientist, when forming elaborate theories, one has to be really careful about testing them. Given enough leeway in testing a theory, almost any theory can be verified. If it can

[Bruce Schaalje]

Who knows -- the end result might be dueling pca charts, in which the

Stanford team created yet another professional paper for publication,

including reconstructions of Bruce's own charts.

I'm all for this. Sounds like fun.

The problem with that approach is that he intends to publish in a

Maxwell Institute journal -- and that literature might not be very

digestible by Jockers' peer-reviewers. A brief glance of the Provo

material might convince scientists that it was supernatural-promoting.

But then again. I've already sullied myself by publishing in that literature. Maybe that's why review of my LLC paper is taking so long.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I'm all for this. Sounds like fun.

...

Or -- perhaps not. You may have to get out the old magnifying glass and

search for your name in the critical apparatus. "Fun" is what you make of it.

...

But then again.

...

Blessed art thou when men shall revile you...

Your Uncle Dale

.