Over the past four days, I corresponded with Dr. Andrey Feuerverger via e-mail and challenged the media interpretation of his 600:1 odds result. The Discovery Channel interpretation is (exact quote from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html):

"It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

In my email to Dr. Feuerverger, I claimed that the correct statistical interpretation is:

Statistically Correct Claim: "It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE JESUS (OF NAZARETH) FAMILY HAD A FAMILY TOMB TO BEGIN WITH."

As you can see, this makes a HUGE difference! If you factor in this difference and revise the calculations, the chances that the tomb in question belong to the NT Jesus family drops from a whopping 599/600 (a near certainty, per the shows claims) to probably no more than a measley 1 in 10 chance (or even less), which deflates the show's probability claims!

Yesterday, Dr. Feuerverger acknowledged that my revised interpretation was correct, and he was professional enough to make the corresponding changes to his web page - see email chain below (which the previous post appears to refer to, in part at least), but he said that it was not possible for him to get the media to make any corrections or retractions. However, he also seemed to have no objection to my trying to influence the media to do that. I am posting here on this blog in the hope that someone can take up this cause (or help me to do that) to ensure that the media interpretation of the 600:1 odds is corrected and the true statistical odds (for whatever they are worth!) are made known to the public.

For those of you interested in the actual probability and statistics, you can see the articles referring to my challenge of the 600:1 odds claim on the New Testament Gateway blog (http://ntgateway.com/weblog/). The titles of the articles are 'The "Jesus Family Tomb" Statistics: Further Developments' (March 04) and "The correct interpretation of Dr. Andrey Feuerverger's 1:600 odds calculation" (March 02).

If you just want the summary of my discussion with Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, please read the following e-mail exchange with Andrey Feuerverger appended below (read it from the BOTTOM UP to get the right sequence).

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 00:18:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: OK, Thanks!
To: Andrey Feuerverger

Hi Andrey,

OK, thanks! I'll do what little I can to get the correct interpretation out to the media.

Joe
======================================
Andrey Feuerverger wrote:

hi joe,

any assistance you can render in this matter will, of course, be appreciated.
it is simply not possible for me to entertain doing this just now.

all best
andrey f.

======================================
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:27:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Re: Issue with media INTERPRETATION of your 600:1 odds calculations
To: Andrey Feuerverger
CC: president@utoronto.ca, goodacre@gmail.com, asktedkoppel@discovery.com
Hi Andrey,

Thanks for your prompt response, and I am glad that you believe that I am "essentially correct" in my claim that the result of your 600:1 odds calculation is being misrepresented in the media. Indeed, it is impossible for you to correct every misquote that appears in the media, and I certainly appreciate that. However, would I be asking too much of you if I made the request that you kindly ensure that Discovery Channel - which commissioned your study - quote your findings correctly.

Clearly, Discovery's quote (which I reproduced in my e-mail from earlier today) does not align with the changes you have made to your website. Other media are merely quoting from the Discovery Channel, so why not at least correct the source? I believe that Discovery should correct the statement and publish (in SIMPLE LAYMEN's ENGLISH, not statistical lingo) a retraction of their original interpretation of the 600:1 odds. This is just responsible and honest reporting, and the public is entitled to it!

If you don't have the time to do that, would you mind if I contact Discovery Channel and possibly other media (ABC, CBS, etc.) and state that you agree with the modified interpretation of the 600:1 odds number?

Thanks again for your responsiveness!

Best regards,

Joe
======================================
Andrey Feuerverger wrote:

hi joe

i appreciate your message. as you can well imagine i am now so deluged
that i literally cannot correct every error or misquote that is out there.
you may perhaps be able to do this for me, but understand if you cannot!
in response to your query, you are essentially correct on two points,
if i understand you correctly, and my web page has two changes in it
which i attach to the end of this message so you don't have to search
needlessly.

with best
andrey feuerverger

------------

A `null hypothesis' can be thought of here as asserting that
this cluster of names arose purely by chance under random sampling
from the onomasticon. The alternative hypothesis is the opposite
of this, in some sense. It is not in the purview of statistics
to conclude whether or not this tombsite is that of the New
Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully
belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are
in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering
into the computations. The role of statistics here is primarily
to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling'
cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random
sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions.
In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any
conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one
of the NT family. The interpretation of the computation should
be that it is estimating the probability of there having been
another family at the time whose tomb this might be, under certain
specified assumptions.

---------------

-- We assume that this tombsite observation represents the `best'
of many `trials'. It is estimated that there are approximately
4000 inscribed male ossuaries and somewhat fewer than half as
many inscribed female ossuaries in existence. The number of
`trials' is then taken as being approximately 1000.
The computations do not take into account families who could
not afford ossuary burials or who did not have sufficient
literacy to have their ossuaries inscribed.

======================================
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:47:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Issue with media INTERPRETATION of your 600:1 odds calculations
To: Andrey Feuerverger
CC: president@utoronto.ca, goodacre@gmail.com, asktedkoppel@discovery.com

Dear Professor Feuerverger,

Thanks for your reply! I can certainly understand the need for a collective reply since you must be deluged with e-mail inquiries. I sincerely apologize for adding to your e-mail overload by replying to this message, but I feel professionally compelled to do so. I have read with interest your calculation and your recent explanation of it (in `The Tomb Computation'). Your explanation reinforces my understanding of your computation, but my issue is with the INTERPRETATION of your computation floating around in the media. For example, the Discovery Channel site makes the following claim (exact quote from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html):

Discovery Channel: "It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

After reading your computation and explanation, I remain convinced that your statistical computation supports the following claim:

Statistically Correct Claim: "It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE JESUS FAMILY HAD A FAMILY TOMB TO BEGIN WITH."

(In other words, you have computed a conditional probability.) It goes without saying that statistically, logically, and semantically the two claims are a world apart, and the first claim as stated by Discovery Channel is a subtle and shameful attempt to mislead the public. Your computation, as it appears to me, does not "adjust" for the whole Jewish populace that lived in the area in question during the entire time period in question, but only "adjusts" for the 1,000 tombs found in the area! Do you agree with the corrected claim above? If you do, I hope you will consider it your professional responsibility to ensure that your findings are correctly communicated by Discovery Channel.

If you don't agree with my corrected interpretation, please reply with a brief one-sentence email saying that you don't. In that case, I will await your more detailed peer-reviewed paper (which you refer to in `The Tomb Computation') and will cease to send you any further e-mails until then.

By the way, I am copying Dr. Mark Goodacre, Associate Professor in New Testament at the Department of Religion, Duke University, North Carolina, on whose award-winning New Testament Gateway blog (http://ntgateway.com/weblog/) I have challenged the INTERPRETATION of your computation (see Friday, March 2, 2007 entry). If you could join us on that blog to discuss the interpretation of your computations by the media (or send Dr. Goodacre a response for him to post there), I would be truly delighted! I am also copying asktedkoppel@discovery.com (Ted Koppel's e-mail question bucket) because I had sent my interpretation of your computations to him earlier this week.

Best regards,

Joe D'Mello
======================================

Andrey Feuerverger wrote:

Dear Statistical Colleague(s)

I have been overwhelmed with E-mail messages regarding
a certain calculation that has been widely reported
in the media and am unable to send individual replies
at the present time.

Instead I have prepared a statement intended for the statistical
community which hopefully addresses some of these questions.

This information now appears on my Home Web Page; please hit
the button marked `The Tomb Computation'.

With best,
Andrey Feuerverger

======================================
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Fwd: Request for assumptions & calculations
To: andrey@utstat.toronto.edu
CC: president@utoronto.ca
Dear Professor Feuerverger,

Since I did not hear back from you on the email I sent yesterday (copy below), I sent a formal request today to Discovery Channel requesting the assumptions and details underlying your calculations, and am also copying your president, Dr. David Naylor, on this email. I'm sure that as a respected faculty member of a university of worldwide repute, any professional assertions you make, especially in matters that have profound historical significance, will have sound documentation and analysis, and will pass the highest levels of academic scrutiny and peer review.

The brief numerical calculation in the pdf document on The Discovery Channel website raises more questions than it answers, and it appears to me that the logic is flawed. However, I cannot be sure unless I can inspect the detail and assumptions underlying your calculations. Will it be possible for you to send me these? Better still, could you kindly post that detail (at a level comparable to that of a scholarly research publication) on the Discovery Channel website, so that fellow academics can have the opportunity to understand and appreciate your work?

Best regards,

Dr. Joe D'Mello

======================================
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:49:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Request for assumptions & calculations
To: andrey@utstat.toronto.edu
Dear Professor Feuerverger,

As a fellow mathematician I am sending you this email to request your calculations (and associated assumptions) for the probability numbers being circulated in the media about the 600:1 odds (attributed to your calculations) that the tomb belonged to Jesus's family. I am generally suspect of media coverage, and want to get the real scoop directly from you, so I can get a better understanding of the assumptions and the true interpretation of these odds. I would appreciate any information you can provide in this regard.

Best regards,

Joe D'Mello

Chicago, USA