Jockers et al

[Uncle Dale]

...

All you need is for the Jockers study to be validated.

If it is, game over. but if the jockers study is found to be flawed,

then you are back at square one and hope that serious scholars

will endorse ancedotal information as evidence.

Glenn

This is more or less where I began, back in 1980, by proposing

that the entire set of witness statements and supporting factual

evidence be placed on the "back burner," while the texts themselves

were examined, compared and reported upon.

But, I was immediately told (by both RLDS and LDS responders) that

comparing the texts was a waste of time -- that they could tell us

nothing useful about authorship attribution. AS late as Oct., 2010

Ben still seems to take that stand.

However, the Stanford researchers did not take any such pro-Nephite

advice seriously, and went ahead with their comparisons.

Jockers' methodology -- as employed in his second (2010) study --

will be found "flawed.".....

.... but not fatally "flawed." The experts will suggest a few alterations

and additions, probably in the form of many more author-candidates. But,

in the end, Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon will retain their high degree

of linguistic comparison with major sections of the Book of Mormon text.

So -- where might we go from that point, to learn more?

Bruce says that author-candidate testing via NSC classification

must entail comparing the word-prints of known contributors to the

body of texts under examination. Fine, then ---- we simply include

BOTH Joseph Smith's word-print AND his 1830 "Preface" in the next

round of author candidate testing. That gives us ONE known contributor.

Besides him, we also have contributions that we KNOW came from Isaiah,

Malachi and Matthew ---- so, include them as candidates 2, 3, and 4.

We can also derive word-prints for at least a couple of the ostensible

"Nephite" contributors ---- so, include them as candidates 5, 6, etc.

We now have a selection of author-candidates that Bruce can live with,

I'd guess. We then re-run the NSC and Delta testing upon the text,

applying the word-prints of those KNOWN CONTRIBUTORS, plus a couple of

"controls." I say run the testing twice, and include Spalding as a "control"

in the first run and Rigdon as a control in the second run.

If, after all of that experimentation, Spalding and Rigdon still retain

their authorship attribution "lead" for a substantial number of the BoM

chapters, then we can go back to the historical search, and try to

learn more, previously unknown, facts about those people.

UD

[4truth]

UD wrote:

If, after all of that experimentation, Spalding and Rigdon still retain

their authorship attribution "lead" for a substantial number of the BoM

chapters, then...

When we get to that point, I predict still more protests from LDS apologists, though on what grounds I can't, for the life of me, predict. If I were to guess... it might be something along the lines that we cannot be certain until writing samples from every literate human in the state of New York in 1828-29 are included in the tests.

[Uncle Dale]

UD wrote:

When we get to that point, I predict still more protests from LDS apologists, though on what grounds I can't, for the life of me, predict. If I were to guess... it might be something along the lines that we cannot be certain until writing samples from every literate human in the state of New York in 1828-29 are included in the tests.

I think that what the Mormons are expecting, is that Bruce's upcoming

trio of rebuttal papers will knock the steam out of Jockers' methods,

leaving him dead in the water, henceforth and forever.

In private conversation an LDS apologist has predicted that the

non-LDS statisticians will all side with Bruce, after his papers

are published, and thus Jockers will be left with no professional

support whatever, in his attempts to apply NSC classification to

literary authorship attribution.

Perhaps so. If that is what happens, then of course Jockers and

his team should be dismissed from their professional positions --

for actually having produced a "rigged for Rigdon" experiment,

and sticking by its "rigged" results in the face of massive

scholarly backlash.

Seems a bit strange that three successful academics would risk

their professional reputations in producing and defending a 2008

sham study (as well as a 2010 expanded study, soon to be printed) --

don't you think so?

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps so. If that is what happens, then of course Jockers and

his team should be dismissed from their professional positions --

for actually having produced a "rigged for Rigdon" experiment,

and sticking by its "rigged" results in the face of massive

scholarly backlash.

I don't think they should be dismissed in any stretch. I've never seen anyone argue they deserve such a thing. That would be downright silly. I don't see any intentional malice in their work, just a hasty and misguided jumping to over-confident conclusions. If academics got fired anytime they made some mistake we'd have none left.

[Glenn101]

I think that what the Mormons are expecting, is that Bruce's upcoming

trio of rebuttal papers will knock the steam out of Jockers' methods,

leaving him dead in the water, henceforth and forever.

In private conversation an LDS apologist has predicted that the

non-LDS statisticians will all side with Bruce, after his papers

are published, and thus Jockers will be left with no professional

support whatever, in his attempts to apply NSC classification to

literary authorship attribution.

Perhaps so. If that is what happens, then of course Jockers and

his team should be dismissed from their professional positions --

for actually having produced a "rigged for Rigdon" experiment,

and sticking by its "rigged" results in the face of massive

scholarly backlash.

Seems a bit strange that three successful academics would risk

their professional reputations in producing and defending a 2008

sham study (as well as a 2010 expanded study, soon to be printed) --

don't you think so?

UD

Dale, I have said enough on this subject for now. The Jockers team are not incompetent academics. And their work in the NSC are and stylometry is groundbreaking. However any academic work is subject to improvement. The Larsen, Wrencher, Layton efforts received their share of criticism, although the basic premise is sound, and others have improved upon their work since. The Hilton Berkley group study was one such improvement, but it also has its limitations. For one it requires fairly large chunks of text in order to produce results that the authors felt were valid.

As one poster somewhere has said, Jockers and Witten have no axe to grind. Craig Criddle is the only one of the group to have an emotional interest in the results, and has admitted his bias.

I think that any academic will welcome enhancements that improve the quality and reliability of their methods. And that is what Bruce has done, in my estimation. He is not declaring the NSC method invalid, but is proposing some extensions to the model to overcome some very valid criticisms of the original algorithms. His extensions have been reviewed by at least two different people and he has made some changes to his original work and it has been submitted to the LLC magazine. Further conjecture on my part as to what the fallout will be is futile, because I just do not have the skills to assess the validity of his statistics and math. I can only follow the logic. The professionals who reviewed his work will give us an assessment which we can chew on when it appears in print.

Glenn

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dale, I have said enough on this subject for now. The Jockers team are not incompetent academics. And their work in the NSC are and stylometry is groundbreaking. However any academic work is subject to improvement. The Larsen, Wrencher, Layton efforts received their share of criticism, although the basic premise is sound, and others have improved upon their work since. The Hilton Berkley group study was one such improvement, but it also has its limitations. For one it requires fairly large chunks of text in order to produce results that the authors felt were valid.

As one poster somewhere has said, Jockers and Witten have no axe to grind. Craig Criddle is the only one of the group to have an emotional interest in the results, and has admitted his bias.

I think that any academic will welcome enhancements that improve the quality and reliability of their methods. And that is what Bruce has done, in my estimation. He is not declaring the NSC method invalid, but is proposing some extensions to the model to overcome some very valid criticisms of the original algorithms. His extensions have been reviewed by at least two different people and he has made some changes to his original work and it has been submitted to the LLC magazine. Further conjecture on my part as to what the fallout will be is futile, because I just do not have the skills to assess the validity of his statistics and math. I can only follow the logic. The professionals who reviewed his work will give us an assessment which we can chew on when it appears in print.

Glenn

You've nailed it. Bruce's response is not simple counter-attack, but an improvement on what went before.

[4truth]

Ben:

It's not a competition Roger because one theories failures do not make another theory more likely. You cannot keep propping up issues that I have addressed in detail by simply saying that you haven't seen anything more likely.

When there are a limited number of possible explanations, yes, one explanation's weaknesses can be a plus for the other explanations--which also explains why you want to make S/R appear weak. I understand that, and I'm not at all complaining about your use of that tactic... I'm merely exposing it and applying it back at you (in spite of your vociferous and oft repeated objections, of course).

Let me ask you a question though - since you seem to be hell-bent on maintaining this facade. In one of the 1833 accounts, we read about the tragic story of Laban. I have written extensively about the tragic story of Laban. You can find my article here:

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=475

Now tell me, what part of that story was written by Solomon Spalding (and so recorded by your 1833 witness) and which part was written by the more recent author collective - and, who was responsible for the literary allusion - was it Spalding, or was it the more recent authors? I would like your opinion on that.

I will have to take a look at that when I have time. No promises. Care to give me a brief summation of your opinion on that here?

If the "Book of Mormon is of modern authorship" then what other authors should be included in Jocker's tests as being more likely candidates than the ones already there?

How many people were living in New York in 1830?

It is a legitimate question. You can't, after all, give us any kind of real proof that Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript. He could have stolen any number of other manuscripts that were there (like Spalding's) at the printers ... you have bought so heavily into the Spalding Theory and its speculative narrative that you simply don't see any other options, do you.

So (for the purpose of this discussion) you're saying ANYONE in New York at the time is a more likely candidate to be the 19th century author of the BOM than Joseph Smith?

The fact is by your own logic, resting on your own previous concession about 19th century authorship, for the purpose of this discussion, we can reliably conclude that the BOM was primarily authored by Spalding and Rigdon with possibly a little help from Cowdery, Smith & Pratt.

Nope. This only makes sense if I buy into your assumptions that you simply cannot justify.

My assumptions? My assumptions have nothing to do with it. You stated:

I will (as I have said before) simply concede the point that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship for the purpose of this discussion.

...and...

Now, when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable. And the second paper I mention above supports this notion in test cases quite well (that is, it doesn't seem to throw out real authors when they are included in the potential author list).

There are none of MY assumptions in there anywhere at all. That's all Ben.

But, I do wish that you would get off this point and get back to addressing the primary question -

Of course you do. But it's a pretty valid point. And this is, after all, a thread about the Jockers study. That's what happens when--for the purpose of discussion--you refuse to stand up for what you really believe while still attempting to make the opposing case appear weak. You want to make it appear as though you're not willing to defend Mormonism because the critics are allegedly predisposed to reject the supernatural out of hand. So you magnanimously concede--but only for the purpose of discussion--that the BOM "is of modern authorship" and--wellah!--you are magically no longer expected to defend a position. Instead you can simply take pot-shots at the competition while being shielded from anything coming back at you.

YOU conceded that the BOM is "of modern authorship" for the purpose of this discussion. We'll, we're having this discussion. So IF the BOM is of modern authorship and IF, as you plainly state, NSC is reliable when the real author is among the candidate authors, then it sure looks like we have a winner--actually a few of them.

Your only way out of that little conundrum is to ask, "How many people were living in New York in 1830?" Since you have reduced the discussion to that level (while claiming I'm the one who's fixated on one position!), I don't know how much more debate is necessary. You even argue that that is a valid question (!) Well, if it's a valid question, then please tell me who YOU think is a more likely 19th century author for the BOM than Joseph Smith and why? "The entire state of New York prior to 1830" only qualifies as evidence of desperation on your part.

If and when I get some extra time I will look at your Laban article and try to figure out the point you are making--unless you want to save me the trouble and sum it up here.

All the best.

[canterdogs]

Dale, I have said enough on this subject for now. The Jockers team are not incompetent academics. And their work in the NSC are and stylometry is groundbreaking. However any academic work is subject to improvement. The Larsen, Wrencher, Layton efforts received their share of criticism, although the basic premise is sound, and others have improved upon their work since. The Hilton Berkley group study was one such improvement, but it also has its limitations. For one it requires fairly large chunks of text in order to produce results that the authors felt were valid.

As one poster somewhere has said, Jockers and Witten have no axe to grind. Craig Criddle is the only one of the group to have an emotional interest in the results, and has admitted his bias.

I think that any academic will welcome enhancements that improve the quality and reliability of their methods. And that is what Bruce has done, in my estimation. He is not declaring the NSC method invalid, but is proposing some extensions to the model to overcome some very valid criticisms of the original algorithms. His extensions have been reviewed by at least two different people and he has made some changes to his original work and it has been submitted to the LLC magazine. Further conjecture on my part as to what the fallout will be is futile, because I just do not have the skills to assess the validity of his statistics and math. I can only follow the logic. The professionals who reviewed his work will give us an assessment which we can chew on when it appears in print.

Glenn

But this is of course what has been implied... with statements like their study is "fatally flawed" etc... Jockers and co have been studying the theory for many years, yet they fail to see things the way the apologists do, therefore their study is worthless.

Criddle may be biased, but the other authors are not... at least he has the discipline of other authors who do not have any vested interest in the results of the study. on the other had mormon apologists are totally biased. Now you tell me which group of researchers is more objective.... I'm going for Jockers et al... The Jockers study has achieved something that the Maxwell Institute has not - i.e. publish explicitly on the BoM in a non-LDS peer reviewed journal (i understand that LDS scholars, in the course of their BoM research, find out interesting things that they do publish in non-LDS forums - but not explicitly on their BoM conclusions. And this is understandable because the rest of the scholarly community (and, I would say, the rest of the community in general) does not take the BoM as a ancient text, fiction or not fiction).

[canterdogs]

One of the interest things to come out of the Jockers paper is a footnote on chiastic structures in the BoM.found on pp488-489:

NSC assigned Alma chapter thirty-six to Oliver Cowdery. This chapter is a chiasm:

an inverted parallel literary form. According to Edwards (2004) the pattern

of the chiasm found in Alma thirty-six

[Uncle Dale]

One of the interest things to come out of the Jockers paper is a

footnote on chiastic structures in the BoM.found on pp488-489:

...this seals the deal for me.

It has been alleged that both Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt

spent some time during the mid-1820s as itinerant peddlers. However,

it should be kept in mind that official LDS sources (such as Oliver's

half-sister) make no mention of this pedestrian peddling. While it

is probably factual, we have no details to back up the allegations.

At least we know that the two young fellows were capable of walking

from upstate New York to the borders of Indian Territory (Kansas)

during the winter of 1830-31 -- a trekking feat of some magnitude

for a tenderfoot city dude, but more likely for an experienced

countryside walker.

If Oliver peddled pamphlets, booklets, tracts, etc. during the 1820s

he probably saw printed sermons and other ephemeral publications

which featured "reverse parallelism" in their structure. It was not

at all an unknown mystery at the time. What was more or less obscure,

was the potential for injecting chiasmus into faux Hebrew "translations"

in an attempt at antique verisimilitude.

Solomon Spalding, studying Divinity at Dartmouth College would be a

more likely candidate for such clumsy interjections. Dartmouth at

that time was one of the very few colleges offering courses in

Biblical Hebrew. A student for the ministry in those days had a

better opportunity for picking up "Hebraisms" than just about any

other person in America.

So, it is a tenuous path -- trying to move from Cowdery the

possible publications peddler, to the fabrication of

ersatz Hebrew orthography for the purposes of Gold Bible fraud.

I'd like to see some sort of confirmation of the BoM Cowdery

contributions, before I jump very far into that rabbit hole.

UD

.