Bom Names: What Are The Chances?

[TAO]

Clearly I have not explained myself very well. It is the common default position in the sciences when testing whether or not a given effect is signficant. To assume the effect is generated by random chance and then calcuate how likely the given effect would be assuming it is produced by a random process.

Truly random processes aren't proven to exist yet though =p.

If the likelhood of observing an effect is low assuming random chance they you reject the hypothsis the generating process was random.

That can't really apply to this subject though. Chance is great and all - but for most things, it's pretty much incalculable (because nearly everything in the world relates to other things. This means you have to show:

A) How likely it is to come up with a bunch of coincidental names (pretty much impossible to calculate considering the possibilities of names that exist, not to mention that whether something is considered a name or not is debatable, as well as certain names being more common than others)

B) how likely it was that the names came from the text (also impossible to calculate, because of how many possible events can happen, even if you set events to only happen every second).

So ultimately, this means, you have incalculable number compared to incalculable number, no? Because you can't calculate - or even roughly evaluate the numbers relating to the problem, you can't assume a default value.

If the likely of observing an effect is high assuming random chance you can't assume the process is random but you certainly can't claim the process was nonrandom. The point is until such tests are made simply assuming or asserting something is non random is not warranted.

Not quite. Asserting isn't warranted, yes. But, you are assuming random chance already. Thus, people are not bound by your results. They can assume anything they want, no?

In any case I can see I am making little traction and I will be off line for the weekend. So I will likely not respond and if I do it won't be until Monday.

Lol, it's okay. I'm very stubborn. Don't get too discouraged. ;-)

Best,

Uncertain

You too

-TAO

And now, for a funny pic which doesn't really relate to the thread (but is awesome):

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, is there anyone in this thread that thinks the two examples from Zakusa's original post are more likely to be tied to the Book of Mormon through ancient cultural descendancy as opposed to the contemporary Mormon settlers?

I mean, this discussion of philosphy and probability is interesting in an abstract sense, but for the subject at hand, there seems to be a pretty good indication that both "Limhi" and "Lehi" were called such because of the nearby Mormon settlers (who were familiar with Book of Mormon names) and had there been no Mormons in the area, those names wouldn't have been in use.

Review the links in posts #10 and #49 in case you missed them.

Edited May 5, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

For "Lehi," the jury's still out, as post #49 does not actually show that they were the same people, despite Volgadon's speculation - apparent in his use of the word "appears" and "think" - that they might have been. Without that necessary link, it's spitting in the wind, so far as evidentiary value goes.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

You are attempting to shoehorn science, inappropriately, into someplace where science does not, and cannot, inform any view. This is the realm of history, literature, and comparative culture. The best you can do is draw parallels and compare them and see which you find more convincing. Once you start attempting to use the language of probability and statistics in these issues, you have actually defined yourself outside of the conversation on these topics.

In other words: you are committing a category error, as I illustrated in post 81, and as you illustrated in post 86.

Bingo!

[mfbukowski]

Just so I'm clear, is there anyone in this thread that thinks the two examples from Zakusa's original post are more likely to be tied to the Book of Mormon through ancient cultural descendancy as opposed to the contemporary Mormon settlers?

I mean, this discussion of philosphy and probability is interesting in an abstract sense, but for the subject at hand, there seems to be a pretty good indication that both "Limhi" and "Lehi" were called such because of the nearby Mormon settlers (who were familiar with Book of Mormon names) and had there been no Mormons in the area, those names wouldn't have been in use.

Review the links in posts #10 and #49 in case you missed them.

The entire point of the discussion which I guess you have not followed is that there exists no methodology which could discover such an alleged "truth" scientifically- or at least that has yet to be shown on the thread. That is the "abstract sense" you are ignoring.

The bottom line seems to be "your guess is as good as mine".

If uncertain can show where his alleged "methodology" is accepted as a scholarly method used in similar circumstances, then that might be another story.

But at this point I don't see how that can possibly happen.

Edited May 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

The bottom line seems to be "your guess is as good as mine".

Really? Someone points out a parallel or connection and it all comes down to "your guess is as good as mine"?

If that's the level of analysis necessary for something to qualify as a Book of Mormon "evidence", then I weep for the future of LDS apologetics.

Edited May 6, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Really? Someone points out a parallel or connection and it all comes down to "your guess is as good as mine"?

If that's the level of analysis necessary for something to qualify as a Book of Mormon "evidence", then I weep for the future of LDS apologetics.

A fine rhetorical answer which sounds wonderful but doesn't even address the point I made. In other words- the usual.

That answer was of course based on the groundless methodology being proposed which you apparently do not even understand, and was taken out of context.

Indeed, the usual Hollywood garbage. You have chosen your name well.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

For "Lehi," the jury's still out, as post #49 does not actually show that they were the same people, despite Volgadon's speculation - apparent in his use of the word "appears" and "think" - that they might have been. Without that necessary link, it's spitting in the wind, so far as evidentiary value goes.

My cautious verbiage aside, can you show that there were two Shoshone Chief Lehis in the same area at the same time?

[Log]

My cautious verbiage aside, can you show that there were two Shoshone Chief Lehis in the same area at the same time?

Can you show there weren't?

Be it known I have advanced no claim. Also be it known that your source citation is not available for examination.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[bcuzbcuz]

For "Lehi," the jury's still out, as post #49 does not actually show that they were the same people, despite Volgadon's speculation - apparent in his use of the word "appears" and "think" - that they might have been. Without that necessary link, it's spitting in the wind, so far as evidentiary value goes.

Using the consonants and vowels of the Shoshone language, put together the name Lehi or Limhi. Or for that matter, use the vowels and consonant sounds of the Uto-Aztecan languages to construct the same names. I think you'll find the letter "l" was not used. They have a nasal "n" which puts the tongue behind the upper teeth, in the same position as an European "l", but lacks the tongue curl, so is only an approximation of the letter "l". No letter "L", no Lehi.

http://www.native-languages.org/shoshone_guide.htm

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Uto-Aztecan_languages

[volgadon]

Can you show there weren't?

And you were going after me for speculating, or "spitting in the wind"?

Be it known I have advanced no claim.

A good thing, as your evidence is nil.

Also be it known that your source citation is not available for examination.

While I would be glad to have more available, the relevant portion is availablefor examination. I am also going to email the author, we'll see if he replies.

[Log]

And you were going after me for speculating, or "spitting in the wind"?

Ah, it makes sense now: you've taken something personally, have you?

A good thing, as your evidence is nil.

What other form would evidence for no claim take, one wonders?

While I would be glad to have more available, the relevant portion is availablefor examination.

Not via the link you provided.

[volgadon]

Ah, it makes sense now: you've taken something personally, have you?

No, it is just that your response was predictable, you want me to prove a negative whilst claiming that I have no evidence for my position.

What other form would evidence for no claim take, one wonders?

Don'tlets be so coy, shall we. You are claiming that there was more than one Chief Lehi, aren't you?

Not via the link you provided.

If the snippet view isn't working, type this into googlebooks. "Te-ah-to-wah, Snag's brother, renamed Lehi;28 Mopeah, "Horn of hair in the forehead," and Eas-e-to-roat, both Bannocks"

Edited May 6, 2012 by volgadon

[Log]

No, it is just that your response was predictable, you want me to prove a negative whilst claiming that I have no evidence for my position.

Where did I say you have no evidence for your position?

Don'tlets be so coy, shall we. You are claiming that there was more than one Chief Lehi, aren't you?

I'm not sure how many other ways there are to say "I am advancing no claim" in English. Perhaps someone who knows other ways might restate it to your satisfaction.

If the snippet view isn't working, type this into googlebooks. "Te-ah-to-wah, Snag's brother, renamed Lehi;28 Mopeah, "Horn of hair in the forehead," and Eas-e-to-roat, both Bannocks"

Ok! That worked.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

Where did I say you have no evidence for your position?

"it's spitting in the wind, so far as evidentiary value goes" is pretty close.

I'm not sure how many other ways there are to say "I am advancing no claim" in English. Perhaps someone who knows other ways might restate it to your satisfaction.

We can try it this way. "For "Lehi," the jury's still out, as post #49 does not actually show that they were the same people, despite Volgadon's speculation." Do you think that there were two Shoshone chiefs named Lehi in the same area in the same years? If so, do you have any evidence for it?

[TAO]

Volgadon, that isn't a claim, or at least it isn't in the sense that Log was referring to as 'claim'. Actually, it's a claim that we don't know, which is appropriate for this situation. We don't assume default null, rather, we assume we can't say for sure (though there may be certain cases which are more likely than another and those should be mentioned).

Edited May 6, 2012 by TAO

[Log]

"it's spitting in the wind, so far as evidentiary value goes" is pretty close.

It's a swing-and-a-miss for Volgadon!

We can try it this way. "For "Lehi," the jury's still out, as post #49 does not actually show that they were the same people, despite Volgadon's speculation." Do you think that there were two Shoshone chiefs named Lehi in the same area in the same years? If so, do you have any evidence for it?

The jury's still out on that question - and shall be until you show that your authorial reference and the one in the OP are reliant upon the same source, ultimately - another way of saying "you have yet to prove your case."

Or what TAO said.

[volgadon]

It's a swing-and-a-miss for Volgadon!

And another petty swipe from Log.

The jury's still out on that question - and shall be until you show that your authorial reference and the one in the OP are reliant upon the same source, ultimately - another way of saying "you have yet to prove your case."

Or what TAO said.

You are dodging the question. Do you think that there were two Shoshone chiefs named Lehi in the same area in the same years? If so, do you have any evidence for it?

[Log]

And another petty swipe from Log.

Doesn't quite compare with your own, I grant.

You are dodging the question. Do you think that there were two Shoshone chiefs named Lehi in the same area in the same years? If so, do you have any evidence for it?

I am advancing no claim.

אני מתקדמת כל טענה.

Явпередне претендует.

So, I'm not dodging the question: I'm flatly refusing to consider even answering it. What part of "I am advancing no claim" is so difficult to understand?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

Doesn't quite compare with your own, I grant.

Don't be so modest.

I am advancing no claim.

אנימתקדמתכל טענה.

Явпередне претендует.

So, I'm not dodging the question: I'm flatly refusing to consider even answering it. What part of "I am advancing no claim" is so difficult to understand?

I appreciate the laugh. Google translator is hilarious.

Forget the whole "I am making no claim" routine. You insist that my evidence is extremely weak. I am asking you if you consider that there were two Shoshoni chiefs in the Lemhi area named Lehi, during the same generation. If you want to cast aspersions on my evidence yet refuse to discuss it,be my guest.

Edited May 6, 2012 by volgadon

[TAO]

You are dodging the question. Do you think that there were two Shoshone chiefs named Lehi in the same area in the same years? If so, do you have any evidence for it?

Volg, he's kinda saying he doesn't know. On the other hand, I believe he is kinda saying you don't either, right? =p.

Edited May 7, 2012 by TAO

[volgadon]

Volg, he's kinda saying he doesn't know.

Then why doesn't he come right out and say so?

On the other hand, I believe he is kinda saying you don't either, right? =p.

Sounds about right.

[blackstrap]

Do Shoshone names follow a generalized pattern? In my culture people are named after relatives,Biblical characters,celebrities,fruit etc. In Shoshone culture,what was the trend and would Lehi stand out in stark contrast to the norm? If so, then that is evidence against it as a legitimate native name,no?

Kind of like Mahonri Moriancumer or Fiddlesticks Slamdunk

Edited May 7, 2012 by blackstrap

[TAO]

Then why doesn't he come right out and say so?

Well, generally, at least when I do this sorta thing, the reason usually is because I am afraid someone will misinterpret something; that is, they'll interpret 'I don't know' as 'I'm wrong' or something like that lol. That's why I usually do it. I can't guarantee that is his reason... so we'll have to wait for him to post.

He has said 'The jury is still out', which is somewhat related to 'I don't know', one could say.

Sounds about right.

And it's right for me too =). I have no clue either =D.

Edited May 7, 2012 by TAO

[Log]

Yes, "the jury's still out" means I have no position on the matter. If Volgadon can show his source and the source the OP is using have a dependence on the same historical sources, then Volgadon will have, so far as I care, proven his case - but he hasn't done that yet.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log