New Algorithm Distinguishes Contributors to the Old Testament With High Accuracy

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
New Algorithm Distinguishes Contributors to the Old Testament With High Accuracy

 

 

ScienceDaily (Oct. 12, 2011) — In both Jewish and Christian traditions, Moses is considered the author of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. Scholars have furnished evidence that multiple writers had a hand in composing the text of the Torah. Other books of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament are also thought to be composites. However, delineating these multiple sources has been a laborious task.

 

Now researchers have developed an algorithm that could help to unravel the different sources that contributed to individual books of the Bible. Prof. Nachum Dershowitz of Tel Aviv University's Blavatnik School of Computer Science, who worked in collaboration with his son, Bible scholar Idan Dershowitz of Hebrew University, and Prof. Moshe Koppel and Ph.D. student Navot Akiva of Bar-Ilan University, says that their computer algorithm recognizes linguistic cues, such as word preference, to divide texts into probable author groupings.

By focusing exclusively on writing style instead of subject or genre, Prof. Dershowitz and his colleagues sidestepped several methodological hurdles that hamper conventional Bible scholarship. These issues include a potential lack of objectivity in content-based analysis and complications caused by the multiple genres and literary forms found in the Bible -- including poetry, narrative, law, and parable. Their research was presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Portland.

A keen eye for detail

According to Prof. Dershowitz, the software searches for and compares details that human scholars might have difficulty detecting, such as the frequency of the use of "function" words and synonyms. Such details have little bearing on the meaning of the text itself, but each author or source often has his own style. This could be as innocuous as an author's preference for using the word "said" versus "spoke."

To test the validity of their method, the researchers randomly mixed passages from the two Hebrew books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and asked the computer to separate them. By searching for and categorizing chapters by synonym preference, and then looking at usage of common words, the computer program was able to separate the passages with 99 percent accuracy. The software was also able to distinguish between "priestly" materials -- those dealing with issues such as religious ritual -- and "non-priestly" material in the Torah, a categorization that is widely used by Bible scholars.

While the algorithm is not yet advanced enough to give the researchers a precise number of probable authors involved in the writing of the individual books of the Bible, Prof. Dershowitz says that it can help to identify transition points within the text where a source changes, potentially shedding new light on age-old debates.

Categorizing the unknown

Part of a new field called "digital humanities," computer software like Prof. Dershowitz's is being developed to give more insight into historical sources than ever before. Programs already exist to help attribute previously anonymous texts to well-known authors by writing style, or uncover the gender of a text's author. But the Bible presents a new challenge, says Prof. Dershowitz, as there are no independently attributed works to which to compare the Biblical books.

The Torah algorithm may also provide new information about other enigmatic source material, such as the many pamphlets and treatises of unknown composition that are scattered throughout history. And because the software can identify subtle linguistic cues, it is able to uncover differences within mere percentage points, a feat that has never before been possible. "If the computer can find features that Bible scholars haven't noticed before, it adds new dimensions to their scholarship. That would be gratifying in and of itself," says Prof. Dershowitz.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111011121410.htm

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I almost posted this myself

I almost posted this myself a week or two ago, but had an error and gave up.
It could provide us with new tools with which to defeat christian theism, which would be cool.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In other news, gods are

In other news, gods are still fiction and these are still comic books.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Only an all-powerful (and

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: "Only an

zarathustra wrote:

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

 

Yes...Yes...Amen and Amen...God leaves you saying WTF. He gets His almighty jollies off doing that. 

Luke 1:37 wrote:

For nothing is impossible with God

 

 

If you are dumb to him come.

1 Cor 1:27 wrote:

God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:"Only an

zarathustra wrote:

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

Fortunately that's easy to beat. Only an inconsistent and apathetic god could mangle his own message so badly as to appear written by multiple authors. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jack_Glass_1903
atheist
Jack_Glass_1903's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-10-26
User is offlineOffline
Mathematics

It really does show how desperate some religious minded folk are that they now use a man made method of testing (scientific) to justify a book full of contradiction. Were would we be without science?

Scotland The Brave


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums, Jack!

Welcome to the forums, Jack!

Good point about trying to hijack science.

One of my favourite things to point out to theists who try to hijack science: Trying to use science to justify a faith-based position ultimately defeats faith itself. If faith needs justification by evidence, then faith isn't enough justification to begin with! It undermines the whole, "You just got to have faith!" cop-out. My reply to them: If 'you just got to have faith', why are you talking about science????

A nice corollary to that: Faith simply cannot be a good reason to believe anything. If you had a good reason to believe something, you wouldn't need faith to believe it. You would already have a good reason!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:zarathustra

Vastet wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

Fortunately that's easy to beat. Only an inconsistent and apathetic god could mangle his own message so badly as to appear written by multiple authors. Eye-wink

Or an incompetent and egotistical god:


Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol. Point.

lol. Point.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:zarathustra

Vastet wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

Fortunately that's easy to beat. Only an inconsistent and apathetic god could mangle his own message so badly as to appear written by multiple authors. Eye-wink

Only a simpleton would assume that a single author would maintain the exact same style of writing, in a wide variety of situations and contexts, over several decades of writing.

Consider the Qur'an, which we know with a very high degree of certainty was written by a single person, namely one Muhammed ibn Abdullah.  If you read the Arabic, you see that the style changes from sura to sura, and in some of the longer suras, from ayat to ayat.

I've been a software engineer for about 32 years.  The oldest software I still have in source code form -- dating back to the early '80s -- is very different from what I write today, in all the ways that would indicate someone else wrote it.  Even in code that I write today, my style "evolves" so that code from one period looks like someone else "had" to have written it.

The Documentary Hypothesis, and all research based on it, suffers from a single fatal flaw -- evolution in linguistic style cannot happen, drift in linguisitic style cannot happen, variations of linguistic style cannot happen, etc.  In short, it assumes the conclusion.  Which any serious student of logic knows is a fallacy.  Just like the Documentary Hypothesis.  See the Qur'an for a prime example.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Are you seriously contending

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

"Only an all-powerful (and all-loving) god could make his Word appear to be written by multiple authors."   

Fortunately that's easy to beat. Only an inconsistent and apathetic god could mangle his own message so badly as to appear written by multiple authors. Eye-wink

Only a simpleton would assume that a single author would maintain the exact same style of writing, in a wide variety of situations and contexts, over several decades of writing.

Consider the Qur'an, which we know with a very high degree of certainty was written by a single person, namely one Muhammed ibn Abdullah.  If you read the Arabic, you see that the style changes from sura to sura, and in some of the longer suras, from ayat to ayat.

I've been a software engineer for about 32 years.  The oldest software I still have in source code form -- dating back to the early '80s -- is very different from what I write today, in all the ways that would indicate someone else wrote it.  Even in code that I write today, my style "evolves" so that code from one period looks like someone else "had" to have written it.

The Documentary Hypothesis, and all research based on it, suffers from a single fatal flaw -- evolution in linguistic style cannot happen, drift in linguisitic style cannot happen, variations of linguistic style cannot happen, etc.  In short, it assumes the conclusion.  Which any serious student of logic knows is a fallacy.  Just like the Documentary Hypothesis.  See the Qur'an for a prime example.

 

the Koran was written by one person, FurryCat? I'd read it was a combined effort - more consistent early but with plenty of later and more hysterical additions. I'm a journalist and have been writing for a living since I was eighteen. My style is reasonably consistent - there are some variations - I write more directly these days - but I do have a form of words that's mine. My sister journo is the same. I can pick her articles and she can pick her husband's, etc. 

I can't think how the Koran could have been written by a single person. It has Torah in it for a start - out of order, but definitely there. I guess the sideline implication here is that Moses wrote the OT? There's no supporting evidence for a single author of the first 5 books of the bible. Or is there?

The styles in the bible are all over the place, in my opinion. Whether it's the Psalms, Solomon's songs, the NT, the prophets, Revelations, Genesis. They are definitely inconsistent with huge variations in language, tempo, emotion - as well as different mythology. 

Anyway, how's it going? Hope all well your end - been a while since we've seen you hereabouts. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The Documentary Hypothesis, and all research based on it, suffers from a single fatal flaw -- evolution in linguistic style cannot happen, drift in linguisitic style cannot happen, variations of linguistic style cannot happen, etc.  In short, it assumes the conclusion.  Which any serious student of logic knows is a fallacy.  Just like the Documentary Hypothesis.  See the Qur'an for a prime example.

the Koran was written by one person, FurryCat? I'd read it was a combined effort - more consistent early but with plenty of later and more hysterical additions. I'm a journalist and have been writing for a living since I was eighteen. My style is reasonably consistent - there are some variations - I write more directly these days - but I do have a form of words that's mine. My sister journo is the same. I can pick her articles and she can pick her husband's, etc.

Yup.  According to all the historians, and they are pretty fanatical about their history, every single ayat (verse) was dictated by the angle Gabriel (Jibril) to Muhammed.  He then repeated it and one of his scribes ("companions of the Prophet&quotEye-wink wrote it down immediately.  To say they were extremely precise and meticulous is an understatement.  Islam has a lot of mechanisms that prevent the unpointed (vowel-free) text from being distorted, so there's a very high degree of certainty that the =unpointed= text is exactly what Muhammed told the scribes to write.

Quote:
I can't think how the Koran could have been written by a single person. It has Torah in it for a start - out of order, but definitely there. I guess the sideline implication here is that Moses wrote the OT? There's no supporting evidence for a single author of the first 5 books of the bible. Or is there?

Well, the Qur'an was written by a single person.  And it doesn't contain the Torah -- it pretty much stands on its own.  Some of the suras (chapters) are very simple and plain -- Al Fatihah, the first chapter -- is basic.  Some of them are pretty disjoint and rambling.  Many of the stories about our prophets and leaders are mangled and contain entirely new content and impossible history.  But, it's all traceable back to Muhammed.

The best evidence that the Torah (and just the Torah, until the death of Moses) was written just by Moses is our history as well as the rules that govern what is or isn't a "kosher" Torah, and how we know a Torah is "correct".  We've had "error detection and correction" in the Torah for far longer than the DH folks think the Torah has existed.  Which is the first disproof of the Documentary Hypothesis.  The second disproof is that we know how much the Torah has changed, and the answer is something like six letters, none of which are significant -- Hebrew has letters which can be vowels, or can just be thrown out completely.  The greatest deviation is with the Samaritan Torah, but they were just pissed off that the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah (Mt. Zion, the Temple Mount) and not where they'd built their temple.

Quote:
The styles in the bible are all over the place, in my opinion. Whether it's the Psalms, Solomon's songs, the NT, the prophets, Revelations, Genesis. They are definitely inconsistent with huge variations in language, tempo, emotion - as well as different mythology.

Well, no one claims that Moses wrote Tehillim (Psalms), Shir Ha'Shirim (Song of Songs or Song of Solomon, take your pick), the fake Greek bible, Nevi'im (prophets), or John's account of the Roman war in 135CE (Revelations).  Genesis -- Moses wrote that one.  You got one right!

Quote:
Anyway, how's it going? Hope all well your end - been a while since we've seen you hereabouts.

Pretty good.  I forget what was going on in my life when I last stumbled in here.

Let's see -- my company is taking off nicely, I hired someone part time to help out with "stuff", my son the Atheist started college, he has a girlfriend who is also an Atheist, I'm sure someday they'll have Atheist babies and I'll annoy the f*ck out of them with Theism.  My crazy Christian neighbors bought a new house and moved, Praise G-d!  Actually, I liked them -- they at least tolerated my being a Jew because they lost every theological argument they ever started with me.  My Muslim neighbors went back to England -- I miss them lots.  It's hard to find other monotheists when surrounded by folks who believe in the Big Three plus the Big Evil Meanie and want me to join them in their multiple personality disorder religion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jayhawker Soule
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-06-25
User is offlineOffline
 The Documentary Hypothesis

 The Documentary Hypothesis is pretty sound and tools to refine it should be welcomed. 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Jayhawker Soule wrote: The

Jayhawker Soule wrote:

 The Documentary Hypothesis is pretty sound and tools to refine it should be welcomed. 

The "Documentary Hypothesis" is a guess.  Which is sort of the definition of "Hypothesis".  But mostly it's a guess based on the flawed premise that the same person doesn't, or can't, or won't, ever have a different writing style.

The disproof of the "Documentary Hypothesis" is the Qur'an, for which there is massive evidence of it's origin, both in time and authorship.  With the Qur'an, you have a document, of claimed divine origin, written in a well-known period of time, by a single well-known author, with most of the ayats -- individual revealed verses -- having very well placed times, with multiple witnesses attesting to their authorship, place, time, and precise content.  There are, from fuzzy memory, six different styles of writing.

According to the "Documentary Hypothesis", this would require six different authors, and yet all of the historical evidence, of which there are simply massive amounts, points to a single author in a single well-placed time period.

QED, the "Documentary Hypothesis" is false.

There is simply, logically, no other conclusion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Evangelion
Evangelion's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Correspondence

To assume that this algorithm can tell us the number of authors for any given passage with accuracy by analysing its style is to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence between style and author.

That this cannot be assumed is obvious.

One author can (clearly) write in multiple styles, deliberately as parody or simply in recollecting some oral tradition as he has heard it--who hasn't begun a fairy tale with "Once upon a time," even if he never uses that phrase in any other context, and ended it with "and they lived happily ever after," even if otherwise another Arnold Schopenhauer?  Passages which seem to be of one style, likewise, could easily have been co-written by multiple people in the same room (as often happens with essay questions on take-home tests at any high school or university).

Admittedly the algorithm seems pretty cool.  It doesn't seem likely, however, to tell us anything more than how many styles of writing may be observed in the Old Testament.

[I enjoyed particularly the scholars' peculiarly self-confident way of verifying the algorithm, namely, to see if it would duplicate their own conclusions about Ezekiel and Jeremias.]

Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I've taken so many different

I've taken so many different courses in writing, and written professionally (technical writing within various fields I've worked in) for 25+ years.  "Audience Driven Writing" is a fine art.  In my last "real job" I got dressed-down once for writing for a "first line manager" audience when the audience included executives and middle managers.  It's not an easy task.

If I were writing the Torah, I could think of at least three or four different styles I'd use.  There's the "pre-history" -- from Genesis until Moses returns to Egypt to liberate the "children of Israel".  Then there's the "current events" -- the plagues, the Exodus itself, troubles in the desert, and so on.  Then there's the core of the law -- Leviticus.  Then there's the monologue of Deuteronomy -- all of Deuteronomy was given as a speech in one go.  That's the minimum.  If I were writing the Torah, that's the absolute minimum number of styles, with audience driven writing in mind, that I could image.  And don't forget Numbers -- that's about as boring a book as they get, but there are some key events that have to be covered.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Do you believe the Exodus

 

 

really happened, Furry?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

really happened, Furry?

What really happened?  What happened to me?  Yes -- I was working remote and I thought the audience was the line managers and project managers who made up the bulk of the audience.  The real audience was the handful of executives that I didn't know because I was working remotely.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Only a simpleton would

"Only a simpleton would assume that a single author would maintain the exact same style of writing, in a wide variety of situations and contexts, over several decades of writing."

Only an illiterate fool would suggest an author's style(s) always change(s) so drastically as to be incapable of being detected throughout their works.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Only a

Vastet wrote:
"Only a simpleton would assume that a single author would maintain the exact same style of writing, in a wide variety of situations and contexts, over several decades of writing." Only an illiterate fool would suggest an author's style(s) always change(s) so drastically as to be incapable of being detected throughout their works.

Occam's Razor?

Individual writers can and do change writing styles depending on time, place, context and audience.

QED, the fundamental premise of the Documentary Hypothesis is invalid.

 

It's just logic.  You don't have to like logic, but don't blame me when your pet hypothesis has a giant gaping hole in it.

The idiocy of the Documentary Hypothesis should be particularly obvious to a Canadian.  Even you should know that Queen Elizabeth Number 2 has two names "Queen Elizabeth #2" and "Her Majesty".  That G-d would be referred to in multiple styles is boring.

Deuteronomy, ascribed primarily to "D", has long been understood to have been given as a monologue, and as such the style is different.  Again, boring.

And lastly, the "P" source, which is concerned with laws and rituals, would have been, as are the laws of countless nations, written in a different style from an historical accounting or long-winded monologue.

In short, the things the Documentary Hypothesis claims are some kind are "proof" aren't just =explainable=, they are also =predictable=.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jack_Glass_1903
atheist
Jack_Glass_1903's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-10-26
User is offlineOffline
Musicians as an example of style

I think we can use musicians or artists of any sort as a prime example of how we can identify someones work.

I'm a bass guitar player, I love using the wah pedal, flangers, chorus and overdrive. I have a certain way of playing as well, so not only can people identify me by sound, but also by style. Surely the same can be said for writers. I can't change my style so drastically that I become a totally different bassist, to a point where I would not even recognize myself.

If you see a painting by Monet, you just know his style, helped by his bad eye sight obviously, but it's his trademark non the less.

Many bands I listen to are heavy metal. It's fair to say I can spot the style of some notable guys like Dave Mustaine, Andy La Roque, Angus Young, Steve Vai ect.

 

 

Scotland The Brave


Jack_Glass_1903
atheist
Jack_Glass_1903's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-10-26
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Welcome to the

natural wrote:

Welcome to the forums, Jack!

Good point about trying to hijack science.

One of my favourite things to point out to theists who try to hijack science: Trying to use science to justify a faith-based position ultimately defeats faith itself. If faith needs justification by evidence, then faith isn't enough justification to begin with! It undermines the whole, "You just got to have faith!" cop-out. My reply to them: If 'you just got to have faith', why are you talking about science????

A nice corollary to that: Faith simply cannot be a good reason to believe anything. If you had a good reason to believe something, you wouldn't need faith to believe it. You would already have a good reason!

Thanks!

Exactly my thoughts as well. It's a double edged sword really. Theists will either try and use science to either prove the modern bible is accurate or they'll go the Ray Comfort way and suggest we take science on faith.

My jaw hit the floor when Ray said, "I can see the painting but not the painter;" baffling words. I don't claim to be intellectual at all, many folk will see this by my grammar, but I have loads of logic & common sense. I was brought up in a Pentecostal brainwashing church in Scotland called Struthers Memorial until I left at 15. In fact I asked many rational questions and was told this was the devil tempting me away from god. I'm so thankful I've thought logically & rationally about everything in life, otherwise I would have been lost in religious self loathing, homophobia, bigotry, superstition & self righteous nonsense.

 

Scotland The Brave


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This new algorithm is

This new algorithm is detecting cues that are not noticed by a reader as part of a style. It goes significantly beyond what existing style analysis approaches do.

It is NOT the "Documentary Hypothesis". References to that are largely irrelevant.

The evidence is that there are cues that tend to remain identifiably consistent for each writer, despite conscious or natural changes in the 'style' as it appears to the human reader or writer. That is the whole point of this new work.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

really happened, Furry?

What really happened?  What happened to me?  Yes -- I was working remote and I thought the audience was the line managers and project managers who made up the bulk of the audience.  The real audience was the handful of executives that I didn't know because I was working remotely.

 

I see...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

really happened, Furry?

What really happened?  What happened to me?  Yes -- I was working remote and I thought the audience was the line managers and project managers who made up the bulk of the audience.  The real audience was the handful of executives that I didn't know because I was working remotely.

 

I see...

I take it you realized that FCH only read the part of your post that appeared in the body, seems to have missed the reference to Exodus...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jack_Glass_1903
atheist
Jack_Glass_1903's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-10-26
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Only a simpleton would assume that a single author would maintain the exact same style of writing, in a wide variety of situations and contexts, over several decades of writing." Only an illiterate fool would suggest an author's style(s) always change(s) so drastically as to be incapable of being detected throughout their works.

Occam's Razor?

Individual writers can and do change writing styles depending on time, place, context and audience.

QED, the fundamental premise of the Documentary Hypothesis is invalid.

 

It's just logic.  You don't have to like logic, but don't blame me when your pet hypothesis has a giant gaping hole in it.

The idiocy of the Documentary Hypothesis should be particularly obvious to a Canadian.  Even you should know that Queen Elizabeth Number 2 has two names "Queen Elizabeth #2" and "Her Majesty".  That G-d would be referred to in multiple styles is boring.

Deuteronomy, ascribed primarily to "D", has long been understood to have been given as a monologue, and as such the style is different.  Again, boring.

And lastly, the "P" source, which is concerned with laws and rituals, would have been, as are the laws of countless nations, written in a different style from an historical accounting or long-winded monologue.

In short, the things the Documentary Hypothesis claims are some kind are "proof" aren't just =explainable=, they are also =predictable=.

Is that not just a change of content to suit a given audience than a change in writing style? Just curious. I'm not a writer but speaking from a musicians point of view.

If I was teaching a child or novice bass guitar, I would clearly bring it down to his level, but I would still use my style of playing, just more simplified. My style still comes through in the teachings and thus identifies me to the listener. Why would a single writer be any different?

Scotland The Brave


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Individual writers can and

"Individual writers can and do change writing styles depending on time, place, context and audience."

And yet I can still almost always tell it's the same author just by reading, because no author has but one style. They all have many. They all incorporate many into each of their works. And the compilation of styles is always unique. Maybe you just don't have my abilities to recognise them, but you are as wrong as you could be.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:Is

Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:

Is that not just a change of content to suit a given audience than a change in writing style? Just curious. I'm not a writer but speaking from a musicians point of view.

If I was teaching a child or novice bass guitar, I would clearly bring it down to his level, but I would still use my style of playing, just more simplified. My style still comes through in the teachings and thus identifies me to the listener. Why would a single writer be any different?

 

Exactly.  Bach is Bach.  Be it fugue, concerto, sonata or mass.  The difference between a Bach fugue and a Handel fugue is obvious with only a little training.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.