strappinglad Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 This is not really a discussion topic but a query . Does anyone of the members of the board who are stats experts know if any Bayesian analysis has been done with reference to the authorship of the BoM? If so can you link to such studies . You can PM me if wanted. Thanks
smac97 Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-bayesian-cease-fire-in-the-late-war-on-the-book-of-mormon/ 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) In response to a critique by Stephen Robinson, Blake Ostler has said: Assertions such as AGod exists,@ or AGod caused this earthquake,@ or Athe Holy Spirit inspires me@ are not subject to empirical falsification. However, such assertions as Aa civilization descended from Israelites existed in ancient America,@ or Athis book is a translation of an ancient record,@ or Aa person named Jesus lived in Galilee@ are empirical and are subject to empirical investigation. Robinson has made a logical category mistake to the same extent as one who assumes that all questions are scrutable by empirical methodologies; he assumes that no assertions related to faith are empirical. The assertion that the Book of Mormon is an historical work by Israelite descendants can be investigated by the methodologies of biblical scholarship used in the article. Robinson argues that such methodologies Aby definition@ preclude God. Though empirical methodologies cannot show either that God was or was not involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, they can investigate whether the evidence is consistent with the claim that the book is a translation of an ancient work.[1] Although Stephen Robinson=s assertions about the limitations of normative biblical scholarship are correct, he erred in applying that limitation to the Book of Mormon B for the reasons just stated. Indeed, although it is easy to see that, in the case of Bayesian Probability theory, the normally subjective application of the theory to the Bible suffers from a fatal confirmation bias,[2] no such limitation applies to serious application of such scholarship to the Book of Mormon. That is, one does not have to Aprove@ the Book of Mormon true, but (due to its very improbable origin) merely to provide a cumulative Abody of data@ which raises the level of likelihood to Aprobable.@[3] The preponderance of evidence willy-nilly then carries the day. [1] Blake Ostler, ACriticisms of the Expansion Theory of the Book of Mormon from the Scriptural Fundamentalist=s Perspective,@ 10, online at http://blakeostler.com/docs/criticexpansionth.pdf B reply to criticisms made by Stephen Robinson (BYU) at the Third Annual Symposium on the Book of Mormon. [2] Cf. Stephen Unwin, The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate Truth (Crown Forum, 2003) versus Herman Philipse, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), part I. [3] James Joyce, ABayes' Theorem,@ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sep 30, 2003, online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes‑theorem/ ; David Howie, Interpreting Probability: Controversies and Developments in the Early Twentieth Century, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002). Edited August 22, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
Recommended Posts