It is currently Wed May 24, 2017 11:43 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:59 am 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 1198
why do you think they have not accepted Bruce S's paper yet. Has he shown some evidence they cannot stomach the conclusions, or his arguments substandard?

_________________
John Stewart - Bill O'Reilly could be a candidate for Pope - He is Catholic and he believes he is infallible.
Maklelan " It's my belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I've not reached many firm conclusions about its historicity."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:37 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
OK Instead, I brought them up to .5 centimeter scale per chapter.

I read Bruce's Rigdon chapters as 2 Nephi 2, Jacob 2, Jacob 6, Mosiah 4, Mosiah 13, Mosiah 16, Mosiah 27, Alma 12, Alma 34, 3 Nephi 29, and Mormon 7. Jockers found these to be Rigdon chapters, as well. Bruce also found Alma 7 as Rigdon, while Jockers reports it as Cowdery. And, of course, the Moroni chapters, which we have already discussed.

Apparently, what Bruce selected for his sample for Smith was a lot different than what Jockers selected. The Smith chapters, according to Bruce, were 1 Ne 19 (Ri), 2 Nephi 6 (Ri), 2 Nephi 21 (bible), Enos (Pratt), Mosiah 5 (Rigdon), Mosiah 13 (Smith!!), Alma 29 (Smith again!!), Alma 51 (Sp.), Alma 61 (Co), 3 Nephi 12 (Co), Mormon 7 (Ri)

Bruce's conclusions on Rigdon are not supported by his data. Jockers was NOT "rigged for Rigdon." The jury is out on his conclusions on Smith. That is all over the place, probably because of the word-print samples.

If anyone wants to transfer this post to the MAD board, they are free to do so. I refuse to go there.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
CaliforniaKid wrote:
Uncle Dale wrote:
And, on how many of those occasions have you pre-published your paper, while
it was still undergoing review?

Is that optional, or is it something the publisher does? It is done through the journal's website, isn't it?



Here's what generally happens --

1. Writer submits paper
2. Paper is reviewed and suggestions made
3. Writer makes final corrections and re-submits final draft
4. Journal pre-publishes paper on-line (or hardcopy abstract)
5. Journal publishes finalized text of paper

Now, there are times that a preliminary draft of a paper is read before
a professional society meeting, or shared with the writer's students
in a seminar class, or perhaps included as a chapter in a thesis, etc.
In those instances, of course, an initial draft (not authorized by the
journal publisher) has already been circulated -- perhaps even
pre-published.

But the direct submission to a journal, of a paper not already thus
circulated among readers, generally becomes the temporary
property of the would-be publishing journal -- that is, the journal
has exclusive publishing rights (either by mutual agreement or
by longstanding professional practice).

Bruce has abrogated that standard process, by pre-publishing his
paper under non-journal auspices, while admitting that he has not
heard back, whether or not the paper will be accepted or rejected.

This is almost never done -- and is one surefire way to subvert
the acceptance process.

It is like sending a love-letter to your girlfriend, and when she has
not responded within a certain time, reproducing that particular
letter on Facebook, without her knowledge or permission.

Even disregarding Bruce's use of Smith material not associated with
the 2008 Stanford paper, he has (purposely?) shot himself in the
foot, by privately pre-publishing a paper still under review.

I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly.

UD

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
Danna wrote:
Uncle Dale wrote:
Another oddity -- I see "Smith" but not "Spalding" on the chart below:


Just a note on this - I didn't think that 'Smith' was a mistake. Here is where they got the material...


At the very best, this is downright weird. At worst, it is another surefire way to get a
submitted paper rejected.

the 2008 Jockers paper has been distributed to all interested readers -- published to
the world -- and is "fair game" for comments, rebuttal, etc. Jockers has also written
(and read before a professional society) a paper including his version of a Joseph
Smith "word-print." But the latter paper (and its Smith data) is unpublished, and
thus NOT "fair game" for rebuttal or citation in the professional literature.

Bruce could have waited for the second Jockers paper (with the Smith data) to be
published, and THEN addressed that matter in his own paper. Instead, he appears
to have cobbled together some sort of a surrogate for Jockers' Smith word-print
reporting.

You'll have to explain it to me in "little words," before I can understand why this
is not a professional "error."

???

UD

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
MCB wrote:
...
And, of course, the Moroni chapters, which we have already discussed.
...


Thank-you for your guesswork -- hopefully it is about right, for a chart that
does not match up with any author-released text identifications.

Bruce admitted, in the MAD-board thread, that the Book of Mormon plot that came closest
to the Rigdon plots' "cloud" (and fell in its midst) was a Moroni chapter -- only
he did not identify WHICH Moroni chapter it was.

If we could go back and look at Bruce's original pca chart (the one without
Isaiah-Malachi as a potential contributor) and match it with the bar graph
showing Moroni spikes, perhaps we could also guess WHICH Moroni chapter
is most like Rigdon's writings.

If we can determine THAT MUCH, then perhaps our inspection of that Moroni
chapter will reveal WHY it is much like Rigdon's known writings.

I think the Rigdonesque Moroni chapter Bruce was admitting to is the one
whose plot point is marked "Bo47" on my big chart (or, perhaps B101, B104,
B111 or B115).

I'll reproduce the relevant graphics below:


Image

Image

Image

UD

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
The points numbered 47, 104, 115,126,136,111,120, and 113, which are closest to the Rigdon cloud, were respectively identified as Rigdon, Cowdery, Rigdon, Spalding,Rigdon, Spalding, Spalding, and Rigdon. All over the place. I don't think they are numbered in the consecutive fashion that Jockers used, in this case.

What is interesting is the outliers of the Book of Mormon cloud. 34, 213, and 214. I want to check if their content is enough different from the rest of the book to be able to say that he may not have used Jocker's chapter numbering system with the PCA charts. I don't see any differences form the rest of the text.

Clearly a mystery.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
I'm certainly not going to make any significant changes, based on Bruce's study, unless he shells out the information. It is all very suspicious.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:39 pm 
I am so lost with this recent statistics discussion. Where is this Bruce's article?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Hang on. I'll find the link..

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am
Posts: 4247
Location: The Ivory Tower
Ah, I didn't notice it was on the BYU website. I thought I remembered seeing an LLC preprint page for it. True, that is irregular. I imagine most editors would be unhappy about that, though their levels of unhappiness would vary depending upon the editor an the journal's policy.

_________________
Worlds Without End


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
marg wrote:
I am so lost with this recent statistics discussion. Where is this Bruce's article?



It's here:
http://statistics.BYU.edu/LLC_paper7.pdf

Here is the opening text:

Quote:
NOTE: This is a pre-print draft version of “Extensions to the nearest shrunken centroid classification method, with special reference to Book of Mormon authorship” submitted to Literary and Linguistic Computing April 17, 2009

Extensions to the nearest shrunken centroid classification method, with special reference to Book of Mormon authorship
…………………………………………………………………………………………
G. Bruce Schaalje and Paul J. Fields
Department of Statistics, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA...

Abstract

The nearest shrunken centroid (NSC) methodology, originally developed for high-dimensional genomics problems, was recently applied in a stylometric study of Book of Mormon authorship. Stylometric problems differ from genomics problems in several important ways: the set of candidate authors cannot usually be assumed to be closed, texts are of a wide range of sizes, and a large series of texts are often the subjects for classification. Consequently, naïve application of NSC methodology can produce misleading results. We extend the NSC methodology for application beyond genomics problems. Reanalysis of the Book of Mormon using the extended NSC method shows that there is little support for the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory.

...




UD

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
Thanks. I decided to check back in case someone had it already.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
CaliforniaKid wrote:
Ah, I didn't notice it was on the BYU website. I thought I remembered seeing an LLC preprint page for it. True, that is irregular. I imagine most editors would be unhappy about that, though their levels of unhappiness would vary depending upon the editor an the journal's policy.


You've also got to remember that the LLC people are in the process of reviewing an
additional Jockers paper, in which he provides a Joseph Smith word-print and analysis.

Since Bruce submitted to the same journal, and did not wait for the second Jockers
paper to appear in print, he had to obtain his "Smith" data elsewhere.

The LLC journal editors would naturally wish to synchronize the sequence of papers
they publish, and not put out Bruce's work before the second Jockers paper was
printed. This may account for much of the delay.

Bruce evidently thought he detected an anti-Mormon bias in the review delay,
and went over to BYU to get his report before the public. I think that this latest
misstep has sabotaged his chances for an LLC publication -- and now he is
struck with using the Mormon press for his delivery system. Not a good choice.

UD

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am
Posts: 4247
Location: The Ivory Tower
Danna, only portions of Smith's letters in his own hadwriting were used to compile the Smith wordprint. My understanding is that Jockers & co. are going to use the same criterion in their updated paper, are they not?

Frankly, their argument that even letters in Smith's own handwriting cannot really be attributed to him strikes me as based on a naïve assumption of Smith's illiteracy and incapability of producing anything on his own. In other words, an assumption typical of Spalding-Rigdon theorists. From where I'm sitting, it sounds pretty silly.

My objection to using Smith holographs would be a bit different. Who knows whether he used the same "voice" when dictating as when writing in his own hand? In fact, some evidence suggests he did not. So holographic texts may not be the best samples to use in attributing dictated ones.

But the same objection applies to all the test authors, not just Smith.

_________________
Worlds Without End


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:58 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 1893
UD wrote:

Quote:
If we could go back and look at Bruce's original pca chart (the one without
Isaiah-Malachi as a potential contributor) and match it with the bar graph
showing Moroni spikes, perhaps we could also guess WHICH Moroni chapter
is most like Rigdon's writings.

If we can determine THAT MUCH, then perhaps our inspection of that Moroni
chapter will reveal WHY it is much like Rigdon's known writings.


Care to make a prediction?

_________________
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:02 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 1893
MCB:

Quote:
The points numbered 47, 104, 115,126,136,111,120, and 113, which are closest to the Rigdon cloud, were respectively identified as Rigdon, Cowdery, Rigdon, Spalding,Rigdon, Spalding, Spalding, and Rigdon. All over the place. I don't think they are numbered in the consecutive fashion that Jockers used, in this case.


So 126 is Spalding? Do you know which Book of Mormon chapter corresponds to 126?

Edited to add: if it's a later chapter in Alma..... how "coincidental" would that be?

_________________
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:02 am
Posts: 3673
Location: an isle of the seas
Roger wrote:
UD wrote:

Quote:
If we could go back and look at Bruce's original pca chart (the one without
Isaiah-Malachi as a potential contributor) and match it with the bar graph
showing Moroni spikes, perhaps we could also guess WHICH Moroni chapter
is most like Rigdon's writings.

If we can determine THAT MUCH, then perhaps our inspection of that Moroni
chapter will reveal WHY it is much like Rigdon's known writings.


Care to make a prediction?


If Bruce agrees that Moroni 8 and 10 plot close (or within) the Rigdon
"cloud" on his pca chart, that would be a start.

Once we had that confirmation, I'd suggest running a series of word-print
analysis tests, progressively removing passages from those two chapters,
until we could identify which parts of the chapters are essential to the
Rigdon word-print match-up.

Even using computers to speed up the process, it might take a while to
identify which parts of Moroni 8 and Moroni 10 make them Rigdonesque.

Both chapters are "scripture salad," with numerous short excerpts and
paraphrases from Paul, Isaiah, etc. The first order of examination ought to be
testing those Moroni chapters with some (or all) of the biblical material
removed --- would such a change in the Book of Mormon text move those two chapters
closer to (or farther away from) the Rigdon cloud?

UD'

_________________
-- the discovery never seems to stop --


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
No, I'm sorry to have misled you, Roger. Those chapter assignments were Jockers' . Bruce's PCA charts seem to place them closest to Rigdon. But his linear charts seem to correctly identify some Rigdon chapters. There is a conflict between Bruce's two sets of charts.

I agree with you, Dale. Removal of excerpts from the Bible would help a lot to reduce the noise from the scripture salad. Sorry for mixed metaphor.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am
Posts: 4247
Location: The Ivory Tower
Danna,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I wanted to re-read Bruce's entire study, a little more carefully this time, so that I had a better understanding of how his study worked.

Previously I assumed that the latent author was being treated as a competing author, with its own probability cloud/distribution. But now I'm not so sure. Actually, it seems like what Bruce has done is classified as "latent author" anything that falls outside of the distributions of the candidate authors. In other words, an outlier on the opposite side of a candidate author's cloud from a latent author's cloud would still be classified as "latent author", as in the image below:

Image

So you wrote,

Danna wrote:
The point is that Extended NSC controls for this potential effect by requiring the test text to be outside of the distribution of Author 2 (latent text in your example) before attribution to Author 1 (the word limit also has the effect of reducing discrepancy in the the distributions as well). So treating case 3 with Extended NSC, even if the test text is closer to Rigdon, if it is within the distribution of the Latent Author, it will be attributed to the Latent Author. That was the aim of the whole endeavor in the first place.

But I think this is backwards. Whether or not a text falls within a latent author's cloud is irrelevant to the method. What is relevant is whether it falls within any of the candidate authors' clouds. Thus if the distributions of a candidate author and latent author are overlapping, the latent author texts that fall within the candidate author's cloud will be assigned to the candidate author by extended NSC.

In the PCA chart posted by Bruce to the MAD board, the Rigdon cloud and the Book of Mormon cloud were non-overlapping. But in the PCA chart in the PDF of Bruce's article, there is some overlap:

Image

I'm not sure why the discrepancy between the two charts, but in any case, it explains why the chapters on the overlapping edge of the Book of Mormon cloud would be attributed to Rigdon even though there is no real separation between them and the rest of the Book of Mormon cloud.

One thing I've noticed in some of these studies is that control texts seem to be attributed to Rigdon more often than the other candidates. For example, two (~5%) of the 51 Alexander Hamilton texts were attributed to Rigdon using extended NSC, whereas none were attributed to the other Book of Mormon candidates. I wonder if this is because Rigdon is a more average author than the others, and thus just has a higher antecedent probability of having random texts assigned to him.

I noticed a few other interesting things in the Schaalje study. The first is that although they were using the same word vectors as Jockers, their classification results were a bit different even in the unmodified "naïve NSC" test they performed. Partly this is due to the inclusion of Smith. 29 chapters were attributed to Smith, and almost none to Pratt and Cowdery. The second is that they found that, "at a minimum, . . . Rigdon's later (1863-1873) authorship style was different from that of his earlier (1831-1846) writings. This may be due to genre differences, the passage of time, or the interposition of editors." If you take a look at the PCA chart, you'll find that the later writings are the closest to the Book of Mormon cloud, which suggests Rigdon was influenced by the Book of Mormon's style rather than vice versa. A third interesting finding was that "texts on the stylistic fringe of the distribution for one author can occur, and may therefore appear to 'stray' into the distribution for a nearby author. For example, in the case of the Rigdon (1863-1873) texts, 21 of the 95 texts classified strongly as writings of Smith even though Smith had died twenty years earlier." This is more or less what I've been arguing all along: that the Book of Mormon is such a stylistically "fringe" text that it cannot be reliably attributed using NSC.

Peace,

-Chris

_________________
Worlds Without End


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 4078
Location: Somewhere on Interstate 94
I have noted this:
Quote:
Our newest member bschaalje


so maybe we will soon have some help on the subject.

_________________
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Why not Oliver?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:59 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:29 am
Posts: 1893
Quote:
Our newest member bschaalje


Hi Bruce! We know you're out there! Join the fun! We don't bite.... often. : )

_________________
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Madison54, Meadowchik, Yahoo [Bot] and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group