wenglund wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Wade,
Perhaps we could formulate the analysis using Bayesian logic.....
As I see things, there are several problems with your reasoning:
1) It is overly selective in terms of the probabilities it considers. For example, at the very least it failed to consider what to me is the most striking probability: the likelyhood that one person would be telling the truth and six people would be lying.A: I considered that; my argument is that if the six people were in a conspiracy to keep polygamy secret, then whether or not they are lying doesn't matter because it doesn't give us any information; they were going to deny this story regardless of whether or not it is true.
If you are going to consider probabilities, you need to consider the probabilities at each level and for each respective variable. Perhaps you did so in your mind. But I didn't see where you had with the 1 to 6 probability or some of the other permutations I alluded to.
Quote:
2) You seem to be arbitrarily applying a single probability to six separate individuals, whereas I see them as quite different people and cicumstances, and thus different probabilities for each. I believe it is less likely for Martha's sister to say what she did even if her sister was telling the truth, than it would be for BY to say what he did under the same circustances.
A: I didn't mean to be arbitrary about it. Could you list the six people? My understanding is that they were all a part of the conspiracy to keep the truth about polygamy out of public view.
They were: Mary McIIwrick, John McIIwrick, Vilate Kimball, Heber Kimball, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith.
The sweeping claim you mention has been made, but not substantiated at all in certain cases, and insufficiently in other cases.
Quote:
3) It is uncertain what factors you used to figure your probabilities, so there is no way to test your probabilities to see if they are valid and sound, or whether one may agree with them or not.
A: The whole arguement hinges on whether or not Brigham Young et. al. could have been relied on to be honest about polygamy. The model is robust with regards to the other probabilities.
Whether that is true or not, you have yet to deliniate the evidence you considered for certatin variables and the specific probabilities you assigned to them. For example, when you calculated the probabilities that Mary McIIwrick would say what she did even were her sister, Martha's, statement to be true, what factors (evidence) did you use to come up with your probability, and what was the probability you came up with?
Quote:
4) Your reasoning requires the respective concessions. Whereas, as I view things, I wouldn't conceed to either. I have not found sufficient cause to believe that any one of the six, let alone all six, would say what they did even if what Martha said were true--and this even in light of the presumed desire of some to keep the practice of polygamy secret and also some having on rare occasions played semantics when addressing questions about the practice. I see those things as quite different from proactively lying about and discrediting what someone else said. I think it more likely that were Martha's allegations true, the six would have remained silent (particularly the McIIwricks, who weren't practicing polygamy at the time, nor to my knowledge ever did). And, I am not certain that Martha wouldn't lie in some or all of what she said.
A: "the respective concessions"? Not sure what you mean by this. I believe there was a conspiracy by the Nauvoo polygamy insiders to keep the truth from polygamy in the dark. They were willing to lie, slander, and falsify records in order to keep their secret works secret. I'll make this point in another thread though.
In your innitial argument you had two premises which began: "If you conceed...". That is what I was referring to interms of concessions. In other words, I didn't conceed to those things, and thus your conclusion (which is dependant upon those consessions) did not follow--at least not for me.
Quote:
5) As indicated previously, I don't see the sealing, which took place 30 years after the alleged incident, as material (probability or otherwise) to determining who was telling the truth. Much could have happened in the interim that we don't know about, and precious little information to enable us to read BY's mind on this case.
A: Do you believe it indicates that the powers believed that Martha would be a suitable wife for Brigham?
I am not sure they took that into consideration. Were I to venture a guess (which I am disinclined to do), I would think the sealing was more for Martha's benefit than BY's.
Quote:
In short, I see your reasoning as falling prey to the fallacy of A Priorism (attempting to deduce facts from abstractions and principles rather than inducing from facts).
And, probabilities are not a valid indicator of truth (the probability of a broken clock not telling the right time, will be incorrect at least twice a day). Probabilities, or Bayesian Logic, may be a useful tool when formulating a hypothesis, but not
in testing or verifying the hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.
I disagree.
Nevertheless, in order for your argument to work with me, I would need to be in agreement, and I am not. (see above)