Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the other evidence we already have, even if Jabba could demonstrate that only the authentic shroud would have CaCO3 on it,* the prior probability of authenticity is so small that it would be far more likely that any detection of CaCO3 on it would be a false positive than that the cloth was the authentic shroud.


*He can't.
 
Jabba said:
I must admit that those assumptions may be unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the cloth's origin, it has been sitting in buildings made of limestone for the past several hundred years and has been apparently doped with limestone intentionally. You cherry pick a few romantic hours from the cloth's purported origin and propose -- with no actual evidence, but merely supposition -- that it does or should account for all such material on the cloth.

You are claiming that if the shroud were authentic it would have more limestone on it than if it were not authentic. You have no evidence for this, and no better argument that repeated supposition. Your late realization that it is entirely your supposition should be the impetus to concede this point and move on.
 
JayUtah said:
You are claiming that if the shroud were authentic it would have more limestone on it than if it were not authentic. You have no evidence for this, and no better argument that repeated supposition.
Click to expand...


Also, no indication is given of how much limestone is supposedly consistent with authenticity and how much is supposedly not consistent with authenticity, and Jabba has no idea how much is actually on the cloth anyway.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Also, no indication is given of how much limestone is supposedly consistent with authenticity and how much is supposedly not consistent with authenticity, and Jabba has no idea how much is actually on the cloth anyway.
Click to expand...

His claim is untenable for two complementary reasons.

First, he asserts that because we cannot know anything about the cloth's history if weren't authentic, he is justified in saying it's improbable for the cloth to have attracted limestone. That's literally as daft as saying, "There is no way to know what value X has, so that means X = 0.5." It's literally to claim simultaneously that he knows a thing he says is unknowable. That's Jabba contradicting himself.

Second, as Zooterkin has so succinctly put it, what we know about the cloth regardless of its origin supplies ample -- and equal -- opportunity for limestone. Since its "discovery" in medieval times it has been stored in limestone buildings. There is simply no logical basis for using limestone to decide authenticity. That's Jabba contradicting the facts.
 
Slowvehicle said:
ETA: It must also be pointed out that this latest sojourn into minutia does not address, in any way, the manifold deficiencies of the cartoon on the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval bit of linen...
Click to expand...

As in all such cases here, the goal is to provide putatively objective evidence that the cloth cannot be from the Middle Ages and cannot be from anywhere other than the Middle East, thus the dating of the cloth by radiocarbon methods "must be" manifestly incorrect.

Asserting that both blood and limestone are evidence of both age and location is a profound degree of desperation.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- I've been assuming that the limestone found on the shroud is debris rather than gesso, and that lying in a limestone cave for 36 hours or so would assure a lot of collected limestone debris -- much of which would still be there after 2000 years. I must admit that those assumptions may be unwarranted. Is that what you're alluding to?
Click to expand...

For future reference, Jabba, it would be incredibly helpful if you stated such assumptions up front. It would save people from "fussing" at you if you provided some justification for your assertions. Just some friendly advice :)
 
Here's the problem with the "there should be limestone on the shroud because it was in the tomb for 3 days" claim: it's completely disingenuous.

Imagine for a second that there weren't any limestone on the shroud. Suppose tomorrow we discover that the previous claims of limestone were mistaken. What would Jabba say? Oh it's easy. It only spent three days in a tomb, and it was wrapped around a body. It's not surprising that there wouldn't be enough limestone to survive all these 2000 years. In contrast, if it were an art project of the 1300s, then you would certainly expect to find CaCO3 there. See, the lack of limestone shows that it is authentic!

I have no doubt that if there were not limestone on the shroud, Jabba would just strongly be claiming it as evidence for authenticity as he is with it being there. Heads it's authentic. Tails, it's not a fake.
 
Blood/What difference does it make?/Bayesian Statistics/CAC03

Purple Pangolin said:
For future reference, Jabba, it would be incredibly helpful if you stated such assumptions up front. It would save people from "fussing" at you if you provided some justification for your assertions. Just some friendly advice :)
Click to expand...
Purple Pangolin,
- I can't remember how the limestone issue got started, but I seem to have made an assumption that I shouldn't have -- i.e., that having been in a limestone cave for 36 hours would assure an unusual amount of limestone debris being found on the shroud, whereas any old 1st century cloth may or may not have so much limestone on it.
- I assumed that assumption because authenticist publications were implying it -- or at least, seemed to be implying it. Then, I further assumed that inauthenticists would assume the same thing...
- Too many assumptions; and, we all know the problem with assumptions...
- I'll try to follow your advice in the future.

- But, just in case you missed my earlier attempts:
Jabba said:
Jay,

- Could be that my efforts to explain my quantifications have not been very substantive - but, I have tried.

- From #2855, on 1/19/16:
- What we're doing here is trying to determine the new probability of an old hypothesis when certain new info is added. In the limestone case, we learn that there is all sorts of limestone on the shroud. In my estimate, the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud -- given that the shroud is authentic -- is maybe 95% -- while the likelihood of so much limestone being on the shroud -- given that the shroud is inauthentic -- should be no more than, say, 50%. The reason for this relatively small likelihood -- given inauthenticity -- is our lack of knowledge about the shrouds origin under this "given." This forgery might have a lot of limestone on it -- but then again, it very well might not...

- From #2908, on 1/21/16:
- I'm not making these up out of thin air.
- The exact numbers chosen are indeed guesses. However, they are educated guesses -- which is what Bayesian statistics is all about.
- If we know the history of an artifact, our guess as to the microscopic debris to be found on it would be more likely accurate than our guess did we not know its history.- The likelihoods I suggested reflect that principle.
- The exact numbers I chose are where the educated guesses come in. What numbers would you chose?
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- Interesting logical question.
- If the shroud were authentic, it would have spent a couple of nights, and at least one day, in a limestone tomb. If the shroud is any old cloth from the 1st Century, C.E., it probably would not have incurred that history -- or, anything especially similar.
Click to expand...

The shroud is not from the first century, at least not till you have (strong) evidence that it is. Nice try at sneaking in that one.

- I've been assuming that the limestone found on the shroud is debris rather than gesso, and that lying in a limestone cave for 36 hours or so would assure a lot of collected limestone debris -- much of which would still be there after 2000 years. I must admit that those assumptions may be unwarranted. Is that what you're alluding to?
Click to expand...

No. Actually, being in a limestone grave for a short time is not likely to result in a lot of limestone deposit. Such a grave would either be a natural cave or previously*) carved into live rock. Live limestone walls are somewhat moist and do not yield much dust, if any. Also, limestone dust is quite heavy (for dust) and settles quickly.

Hans

*) The gospel does not leave time for them to carve out a fresh grave, a work that would have taken many days.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- Interesting logical question.
- If the shroud were authentic, it would have spent a couple of nights, and at least one day, in a limestone tomb. If the shroud is any old cloth from the 1st Century, C.E., it probably would not have incurred that history -- or, anything especially similar.
[...]
Click to expand...

So tombs are the only source of limestone?

How can you utter such rubbish without without embarrassment?
 
Jabba said:
I can't remember how the limestone issue got started, but I seem to have made an assumption that I shouldn't have...
Click to expand...

Hugh brought it up, saying it was an example of purported evidence that doesn't really help decide the question either way. You latched onto it, ignored Hugh's point, ignored everyone else's point, and claimed it was probative of authenticity. You then galloped off on a lengthy tangent thinking you could prove its applicability mathematically, once again ignoring everyone else's warnings.

Since this origin story has been told to you several times, by several people, I'm not buying that you simply "forgot" how it came up. Instead of trying to save face, just concede the point.

Too many assumptions; and, we all know the problem with assumptions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this isn't one of those cases where we all got taken in by something and we're all having a friendly chuckle about it.

This is about you foisting blatantly bare assumption onto the forum and ignoring a chorus of people all telling you the same thing about it for days on end. Even before you got obsessed with limestone, the point was that any argument incorporating it had to be based almost entirely on assumption and therefore not probative either way.

You answered repeated calls for substantiation with assurances that your quantitative estimates were "educated guesses." Only now that you've been dragged kicking and screaming to reality do you admit that they were in fact your assumptions only -- just as every one of your critics has told you from Day One.

[A]ny old 1st century cloth may or may not have so much limestone on it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant straw man. We're talking about a cloth known and stipulated by both parties to have sat amid limestone for 700 years, not "any old 1st century cloth." That was the whole basis for arguing that limestone could not be probative of authenticity.

But, just in case you missed my earlier attempts:
Click to expand...

Just in case you forgot what you actually claimed:
Jabba said:
The reason for this relatively small likelihood -- given inauthenticity -- is our lack of knowledge about the shrouds origin under this "given." This forgery might have a lot of limestone on it -- but then again, it very well might not.
Click to expand...

You explicitly connect unknowability to your choice of a specific value. That is simply and unequivocally absurd.
 
Jabba said:
Slowvehicle,
- Interesting logical question.
- If the shroud were authentic, it would have spent a couple of nights, and at least one day, in a limestone tomb. If the shroud is any old cloth from the 1st Century, C.E., it probably would not have incurred that history -- or, anything especially similar.

- I've been assuming that the limestone found on the shroud is debris rather than gesso, and that lying in a limestone cave for 36 hours or so would assure a lot of collected limestone debris -- much of which would still be there after 2000 years. I must admit that those assumptions may be unwarranted. Is that what you're alluding to?
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans said:
The shroud is not from the first century, at least not till you have (strong) evidence that it is. Nice try at sneaking in that one.
Click to expand...
Hans,
- Nice try with "Nice try" -- but, this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Purple Pangolin,
- I can't remember how the limestone issue got started, but I seem to have made an assumption that I shouldn't have -- i.e., that having been in a limestone cave for 36 hours would assure an unusual amount of limestone debris being found on the shroud, whereas any old 1st century cloth may or may not have so much limestone on it.
- I assumed that assumption because authenticist publications were implying it -- or at least, seemed to be implying it. Then, I further assumed that inauthenticists would assume the same thing...
- Too many assumptions; and, we all know the problem with assumptions...
- I'll try to follow your advice in the future.

- But, just in case you missed my earlier attempts:
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Once again, it is you, and only you (and that, incorrectly) who is pretending that any claim has been made that the CIQ is "...any old 1st century cloth..."

Why do you make free to ignore the recorded history of how (and where) the CIQ has been stored and displayed for 700+ years?

(...not to mention the other deficiencies in the cartoon rendered upon the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval bit of linen...)

Patiently yours &ct.
 
Jabba said:
Actually, being in a limestone grave for a short time is not likely to result in a lot of limestone deposit.
Click to expand...

Then do you explicitly withdraw your previous insinuation that it would? We would like some closure on your ill-fated attempt to assign numerical probabilities to those scenarios.
 
Jabba said:
...this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.
Click to expand...


Seriously? You are starting by assuming the shroud is authentic, and then finding that adding a piece of inconclusive evidence results in a conclusion that it is authentic?

:hb:
 
Jabba said:
Nice try with "Nice try" -- but, this is Bayesian analysis given that the shroud is authentic.
Click to expand...

No, it is your set of personal assumptions put through an ill-formed Bayesian model. The result is, as expected, a slight adjustment to your assumptions.

You do not understand Bayes. You simply using it to disguise a circular argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom