|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
10th November 2012, 04:12 PM | #4041 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,293
|
In reality, everything said about carbon dating is going to be wasted on Jabba. If the Shroud were carbon dates all over again in a way that satisfied all his objections, and it still gave a medieval dating, he (or she) would simply come up with new objections.
Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus. |
11th November 2012, 01:27 AM | #4042 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.
|
11th November 2012, 02:35 AM | #4043 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
THE William Meacham?
Oh, that's a lovely find, Dave Mo. Meacham is familiar to us all as a victim of the Kouznetsov scam.
Quote:
Ian Wilson wrote his expose of Kouznetsov here:
Quote:
and here: http://www.shroud.com/bsts4301.htm ETA: As of 2011, Kouznetsov still has an Internet presence as a legitimate Sindonologist! http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/pro...rgetid=profile Truly amazing. |
11th November 2012, 06:00 PM | #4044 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
11th November 2012, 06:11 PM | #4045 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
12th November 2012, 12:43 AM | #4046 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Meacham had an unusual courage (between sindonists). He rectified his first comment about Kouznetsov in “The amazing Dr. Kouznetsov”, Antiquity, Volume: 81 Number: 313 Page: 779–783; http://sindone.weebly.com/meacham.html.
But Dr. Kouznetsov continues his amazing career and now is director of two(?) scientific(?) journals: http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...mbers.php?id=7 and http://www.sciencedomain.org/editori...bers.php?id=12. Gian Marco Rinaldi told me that now Kouznetsov has left sindonism for “normal” science. I don’t know if he continues with his “kouznetsovisky” way of making “science”. It is true that sindonist are yet praising the Kouznetsov’s ancient papers. As the official page of the Sindon does here: http://www.sindone.org/santa_sindone...l_tessuto.html . |
12th November 2012, 03:31 AM | #4047 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,148
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
12th November 2012, 03:44 AM | #4048 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,148
|
If you mean by "real science" creationism and IDiocy.............
He's still making false claims and citing non-existent papers and journals. More on DK's "career". |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
12th November 2012, 06:57 AM | #4049 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition. - See what I mean? --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
12th November 2012, 07:12 AM | #4050 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
|
|
12th November 2012, 07:13 AM | #4051 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
12th November 2012, 07:19 AM | #4052 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
No.
No competent scientist with access to the cloth has ever documented blood, much less "serum contraction rings", on the cloth which was not "wrapped" around the anatomically incorrect, stylized representation of a human in typical Byzantine style. A cloth which, BTW, has been competently and accurately dated by three independent laboratories as a medieval artifact. Any claims made about the medieval artifact are relevant only to the extent that evidence can be produced to support them. |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
12th November 2012, 07:25 AM | #4053 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
This.
We claim it, therefore it matters is the cry of the intellectually bankrupt. It reminds me of so much woo out there -- the reiki practicioners who say that someone "got better" when someone else waved her hands around or the psychics who dredge incompetent studies for the tiniest straw in order to shout that what they claim is proven. Let me put it another way, and I'm serious about this, Jabba: Let's suppose that it is irrefutably proven that no 14th century artist could have produced the image on the shroud. How do you know it wasn't aliens who used superior technology to create the image in that same century? After all, that would be more consistent with the evidence than your claim; at least it fits the C14 dating. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
12th November 2012, 07:47 AM | #4054 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Thanks for the Meacham link- and for the other goodies, too.
Catsmate1, as always, you come up trumps. I'll see it more clearly when I see your sources for these claims, so I'm looking forward to having you post them up. |
12th November 2012, 08:18 AM | #4055 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,148
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
12th November 2012, 08:31 AM | #4056 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
Humots,
- This is going to take me awhile, but so far, I can't figure out why we can't just compare the 2 "combined" probabilities -- i.e. combined probability #1) the probability of randomly selecting the ace deck from the total number of decks (.02), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the ace deck has been chosen (1.00), and #2) the probability of randomly selecting a normal deck from the total number of decks (.98), times the probability of drawing an ace, once the normal deck has been chosen (.076923077). - Consequently, before we get started, the probability of chosing the ace deck and then drawing an ace is .02*1.00, or .02, while the probability of chosing a normal deck and then drawing an ace is .98*.076923077, or .075384615. And, the probability of drawing an ace via the second route is almost 4 times as large as the probability of doing it via the first. --- Jabba - The smilie at the top is an accident, but I don't know how to get rid of it. |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
12th November 2012, 08:39 AM | #4057 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
- I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree for now about the relevance here of serum clot retraction rings.
--- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
12th November 2012, 08:44 AM | #4058 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Why, Jabba?
Why not at least post up your linked sources so we can read them over? |
12th November 2012, 08:54 AM | #4059 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
You don't even know if any of these marks even exist on the shroud ("clot rings" and "scourge"), do you? You are simply accepting the unpublished claims of the same group of shroud believers all over again. Can you give a reference to any independent scientist who has ever confirmed any such marks in any well known science journal? Or are all your stories of clots and marks just yet more religious faith nonsense from shroud fanatics? Where are your marks? Lets see them. |
12th November 2012, 09:56 AM | #4060 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Pakeha,
- I didn't mean that I was agreeing to put aside my argument that SCRR's (serum clot retraction rings) on the Shroud image essentially prove that the image could not have been created by a 14th century artist. I'm currently trying to capture an original source, or two, that make the claim that there are SCRR's on the Shroud. - The argument I'm putting aside for now is that SCRR's are relevant. --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
12th November 2012, 10:02 AM | #4061 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
Just as well, since, as already pointed out, they don't prove anything of the sort. You've yet to show that they exist, let alone produce a chain of logic to show how they would prove your assertion.
Now, back to the carbon dating. Got anything that proves the carbon dating is flawed? |
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
12th November 2012, 10:14 AM | #4062 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
If Jabba's a "certified statistician" then I'm the Pope. In which case, I will remind everyone that the shroud of Turin is a medieval relic.
|
12th November 2012, 12:48 PM | #4063 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
Because as I understand it, the question is not:
What is the probability that we select the All-Ace deck and draw an Ace? vs What is the probability that we select the regular deck and draw an Ace? It is: If we draw a card from a deck (and we don't know which one) and the card is an Ace, what is the probability that we drew from the All-Ace deck? The point is, there are not two separate events, each with its own probability. There is only one event: drawing a card from a deck and the card is an ace. |
12th November 2012, 01:10 PM | #4064 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
The new stage on the life of Dr. Kouznetsov.
Of course, no; I don’t call “science” neither creationism nor sindonism. If you can read Spanish you can visit my blog (http://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.c...rgio-del-frio/ ) where I have quoted the Larhammar’s and others’ work debunking Kouznetsov. You also can find other studies in that sense (Rinaldi and others) in my small bibliography. I have only pointed out how Dr. Kouznetsov is now trying to pave his own way on the ground of normal science. Knowing our hero’s exploits in the past I’m expectant. To be continued.
|
12th November 2012, 01:42 PM | #4065 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
"I threw something against the wall it did not stick, buggers I will now ignore again the elephant oin the room and switch to throwing somethign else on the wall hoping it wills ticks"
He does not even have the minimum rationality to recognize that whiping people was done all over time/place, or admit that his 10 year (or was it 20) was just spent mind-masturbating over the same argument without even really checking if those made sense or not. If he had, he would have the reference handy. But he does not have any of those and his arguments are weaker than walls made of bread crumbs. Remind me a lot of those guy creationist JAQing off. Hoping from argument to the next having none worth a fart in an elevator. |
12th November 2012, 03:02 PM | #4066 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
12th November 2012, 03:59 PM | #4067 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Quote:
So, 100 pages and we're still waiting for some reason to doubt the dating of the shroud to the 14th century. |
12th November 2012, 05:11 PM | #4068 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
|
12th November 2012, 06:40 PM | #4069 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
It is reasonably certain that the shroud exists, though if it were claimed only by the Sindonologists I would doubt it.
Here is the entirety of the pro-authenticity argument, though it is dressed up impressively in sciency sounding terms and walls of text: There is objective, unrefuted scientific proof that the shroud is a hoax as already demonstrated by the historical evidence. On the other hand, there is subjective speculation supported only by the biblical imaginings of a group of biased activists. Obviously, the speculation wins. |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
13th November 2012, 04:07 AM | #4070 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
That's the point I was (badly) trying to highlight. The pro-camp haven't found or produced any new evidence about the shroud at all. Their contribution to human knowledge has been zero. It wouldn't be unreasonable to accept that if a group intensively investigated a subject they could find out something novel, but it appears that having a belief completely disrupts rational process. A similar effect is seen in other belief areas such as alt-med.
|
13th November 2012, 04:51 AM | #4071 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,148
|
Yes there are many fields of woo for him to expand his fraud into...
Thanks for the link. However my Spanish is non-existent. Well he's alleged there is blood on the shroud before, without being able to support it. Just more of his efforts to avoid dealing with reality. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, evidence for what in particular? They ignore/distort the radiocarbon evidence, allege blood (unsupported by evidence), allege MidEast pollen (unsupported by evidence) et cetera. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
13th November 2012, 05:23 AM | #4072 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
13th November 2012, 06:24 AM | #4073 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
Humots,
- Unfortunately, I don't follow the reasoning. - Agreed that there is only one event in our little scenario, but there are two ways that event could have happened -- either you drew from the Ace deck or you drew from the normal deck. - If the overall probability of first selecting the ace deck and then drawing an ace from it is 2%, and the overall probability of first selecting the normal deck and then drawing an ace from it is almost 8%, why can't we conclude that the 2nd way is almost 4 times as likely to be the way it actually happened? --- Jabba |
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
13th November 2012, 06:27 AM | #4074 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
13th November 2012, 07:14 AM | #4075 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 734
|
|
13th November 2012, 10:35 AM | #4076 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
Yes. I've been involved with this thread for months, and it seems Jabba wants an ordered discussion on the Shroud, as if it was a matter for a jury. And then we've to come to a decision either by majority vote, like a Scottish jury, or by consensus, like an English one. And what would that prove? "Verdicts" in matters of physical science are determined by observation and experiment. And the observations say the Shroud is mediaeval, so that's the end of the matter until and unless a more precise observation is performed. There simply isn't anything else to be said!
|
13th November 2012, 10:56 AM | #4077 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
|
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
|
13th November 2012, 01:43 PM | #4078 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
In your link, you state (bolding mine):
Quote:
The question is, what is the probability that an ace, once drawn, came from the Ace deck? One composite probability value is about four times the other, but that does not mean the probability of drawing from the ace deck once an ace has been drawn is as you state. Determining this probability is a bit more complicated than simply comparing one composite probability against the other. I'm not a math teacher (nor do I play one on TV) so I can't come up with my own argument in a reasonable time. So please take a look at the Wiki entry on Bayes' Theorem. I can't give a direct URL (too few posts), but you can copy and paste en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_theorem into your browser. See the Introductory Example for a scenario similar to yours. |
14th November 2012, 07:24 AM | #4079 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
14th November 2012, 07:36 AM | #4080 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|