|
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. |
17th November 2012, 06:54 AM | #4161 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th November 2012, 06:58 AM | #4162 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Relevance of Blood
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:00 AM | #4163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Explain why. Why does the probability of a 14th century artist being able to put blood on a cloth approach zero?
It is relevant just because you say it is? I think not. Nope. He is saying it is BOTH irrelevant AND stupid. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
17th November 2012, 07:03 AM | #4164 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:11 AM | #4165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Relevance of Blood
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:11 AM | #4166 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:13 AM | #4167 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
- I'll be MIA for awhile while I think about Humots' challenge.
--- 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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:17 AM | #4168 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Quote:
So it's wrong, it doesn't hold up to five minute's consideration, and it's irrelevant. All at the same time. |
17th November 2012, 07:36 AM | #4169 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
What challenge, exactly?
The chance of an ace that has been drawn at random being from the all aces pack? Off the top of my head, that would be 13/62. But I don't see how that is relevant to the shroud. Do you accept that if the carbon dating is accurate, then the shroud cannot be what you claim it is, regardless of what any other evidence says? |
__________________
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 |
|
17th November 2012, 07:42 AM | #4170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
Humots,
- So far, it’s difficult for me to put my argument into your format, but the following might be close enough to help resolve our issue. - There are 52 ways of drawing an Ace from the Ace deck. - There are 4 ways of drawing an ace from each of the 49 normal decks – a total of 4*49, or 196 ways of drawing an ace from the 49 normal decks. - Altogether, there are 52+196 ways of drawing an ace from those 50 decks. The probability of having drawn your ace from the ace deck is 52/(52+196), or 0.209677419. - That sure seems right to me… --- 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 |
|
17th November 2012, 08:45 AM | #4171 |
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
|
...so you intend to make the same pointless claims until people "drop" logic, and reason, and history?
This is why I refuse to let go of the 14C dates, even for the sake of argument. I concede nothing, lest you pretend that the issue had been "dropped"--so you could pretend to your friends at shroudstory and so on that one of your "three fronts" was "being won". Were this an actual "debate", or an actual "hearing", you would lose points, or be admonished, for continuing to harp on a settled issue. If you have evidence (not opinion, not disappointment-with-how-things-are, not third-hand character assassination, but evidence) of a conflicting 14C date, you should present it. If not, all of the rest of the discussion is a discussion about a medieval artifact. All of the arguments about blood-that-isn't-there flowing from wounds-that-are-not-accurate on a washed, hours-dead body, on a cloth-that-wasn't-"wrapped" around a figure-that-is-not-anatomically-accurate represented in the Byzantine style--all of these issues must be dealt with in the context of the fact that the cloth has been dated by three independent labs to be a medieval artifact. Not only that, you yourself said that, if the cloth were tested again, and the results were, again, that the cloth is a medieval artifact, you would not accept that result because of contamination, or radiation, or some as-yet-unexplained supernatural process that will only later come to be seen as natural. Why not just jump right to the miracle, and make the claim that, by miraculous means, the medieval cloth is, in fact, the One True Shroud™, no matter what reality indicates, and "hae done wi' it"? |
__________________
"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 |
|
17th November 2012, 08:56 AM | #4172 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
Zoo,
Re #1 – Post #4152. Re #2 -- Note that you agree with me re the probability of having drawn your Ace from the Ace deck... Re #3 – Back in post #3994, I said, “In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong. In post #3995, Resume said, “I'm guessing probability is a term with which you lack a certain familiarity.” So here, I’m just trying to show that I [q]am[/q] familiar with probability. Re #4 – If you accept that the dating would not be accurate if it is the result of irradiation and is therefore not the real age of the cloth, then yeah – if the dating is accurate in that sense, I’d have to accept that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. --- 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 |
|
17th November 2012, 09:15 AM | #4173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Quote:
That's the thing, Jabba--it's not sufficient to prove that the C14 dating is erroneous. It has to have just the RIGHT type of error for your fantasy to have any validity. It has to artificially make the shroud read a younger date than it should, by about 1200 years. ANYTHING ELSE would result in you still being wrong. So you can't just "cast reasonable doubt"--you have to demonstrate that the error results in the precise date predicted by your hypothesis. ANY OTHER TYPE OF ERROR results in you still being wrong. And THAT is why reasonable doubt isn't a criteria in science: something can be completely wrong, but still disprove your pet hypothesis. It actually happens quite frequently. |
17th November 2012, 09:29 AM | #4174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
17th November 2012, 10:47 AM | #4175 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
0.209677419 rounds to 0.2097, about 1 in 5, the answer I computed in post #4040, not 0.02/.075385 = 0.2653, about 1 in 4, as you implied in .../ACT2Scene1.php.
So the issue is resolved: you miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the All-Ace deck. I used Bayes' theorem to get the answer you are giving now. You did not use Bayes' theorem to get that answer, but that does not mean it does not apply. |
17th November 2012, 12:33 PM | #4176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
You are mistaken in trying to impose the structure of a debate here.
You do not have that right. Whatever the probability of any circumstance concerning the shroud, the fact is it's dated to the 14th century. No, Jabba, this is not a debate. You do not have the right to impose such a structure upon us. |
17th November 2012, 12:36 PM | #4177 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
Yes, I've seen it. What challenge does it contain?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
17th November 2012, 12:50 PM | #4178 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
17th November 2012, 03:59 PM | #4179 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
The value is approximately correct, as I said in my last post, but I don't see how you arrived at it.
A probability value is:
Quote:
How are you coming up with 52/(52+196)? Why is 52 the number of occurrences of the targeted event? Why is (52+196) the number of occurrences plus the number of failures of occurrences? How does this fit the above definition of probability? |
17th November 2012, 04:20 PM | #4180 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
17th November 2012, 06:22 PM | #4181 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
17th November 2012, 07:13 PM | #4182 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
Sorry, when I said that "the targeted event is drawing an Ace from the Ace deck," what I meant is that the targeted event is, having drawn an Ace, that it came from the all-Ace deck.
That's what Jabba is looking at the probability of. And he's still getting it wrong, and in my opinion showing he has no idea of how probability is determined. He just thinks he does, just as he thinks he knows what the "scientific method" is. I agree, completely. I was hoping that I could get Jabba to realize his error if he was shown the correct math. No such luck. |
17th November 2012, 10:26 PM | #4183 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
Jabba, do you agree or disagree with the statement that even if the shroud was dated to the first century, that by itself would in no way mean it's also the burial shroud of Jesus Christ?
|
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
18th November 2012, 03:57 AM | #4184 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
Just because you claim something doesn't make it relevant. It certainly isn't relevant if no evidence can be produced to support their presence.
But there is evidence about the shroud, the provenance from the 14th century and the carbon dating. Until this real data can be refuted, there is no reason to examine imaginary data. Your unevidenced claims are not worthy of direct examination, merely more evidence of your time wasting efforts to direct discussion away from real evidence. |
18th November 2012, 05:18 AM | #4185 |
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
|
I claim that the Shroud of Turin couldn't have been the burial shroud of Jesus because Jesus was a smelly poopyhead.
According to Jabba's debate rules we can now discuss how much of a smelly poopyhead Jesus was, because I'm part of this debate and I say it's relevant, so it is. |
__________________
"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 |
|
18th November 2012, 05:28 AM | #4186 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Debate, schemate!
Is there a conspiracy or not? And if so, is it funded from the Vatican or not? |
18th November 2012, 06:43 AM | #4187 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/1st century
|
__________________
"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 |
|
18th November 2012, 07:00 AM | #4188 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
All your supposed "arguments" have been dealt with and are utterly worthless.
If Jabba accepted the responses he'd have to accept the validity of the radiocarbon dating and the fakery of the shroud. That'd damage his world view too much. All of your "arguments" were dealt with, you failed to refute any of the points made and had to resort to conspiratorial ramblings. |
__________________
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. |
|
18th November 2012, 07:05 AM | #4189 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
18th November 2012, 07:21 AM | #4190 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Yes they were dealt with, including the peer-reviewed paper I linked to that Jabba utterly ignored.
Anyway to re-hash:
Originally Posted by me, muself and I
Not explicitly but that's the general premise. Classic woosterism, keep repeating the same debunked nonsense as if it's new and valid. Another classic wooster tactic. |
__________________
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. |
|
18th November 2012, 07:35 AM | #4191 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability
Humots and Zoo,
- Obviously, I hate to admit the following, but I did make the mistake that you guys claimed that I did. I was right "the second time around," but not the first, and not on my website... - The only thing good I can say is, "Wasn't that fun?" - But really, for me, this sort of thing is a lot of fun -- just wish I had won. I was hung up at the liklihood of drawing our ace from the normal deck being about 4 times as likely as drawing our ace from the ace deck. That's true, but it doesn't translate to a ratio of 1/4 for the ace deck -- it translates to 1/5. - It turns out that I have made this mistake before -- I had forgotten. - Going back to my website: - These three guys go to a hotel (back in the old days) and rent a room. The desk clerk charges them $10 apiece. Afterwards, the clerk decides that he has charged too much and gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. The bellhop, being unusually savvy, realizes that the $5 will not divide evenly and decides to solve the problem by keeping two dollars for himself. Which is what he does. He gives each guest $1, which means that they each have paid $9 for the room, or $27 altogether. - But wait a minute, the bellhop kept $2 and the guests paid $27, making a grand total of $29. What happened to the other dollar? - Turns out, I was the guy thinking that a dollar was missing. - I'd like to continue the probability sub-thread, but know it stretches our topic. - But, what I will do is start a new thread entitled "Immortality!" -- or log into an existing thread that addresses that issue -- and assert my Bayesian "proof" that we are all immortal. I'll let y'all know when I do that -- in case anyone is interested. I will continue this thread -- but, I'll be even more distracted than usual. I want to do this because this immortality argument, in its holistic form, was the eppifany I had that made me religious when I was 14. This is the trunk of my tree. In that analogy, the Shroud is just an intriguing branch. - Before I do that, however, I'll go back over the posts in the probability debate here -- I suspect that there is more to learn. - But, I'll be back. --- 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 |
|
18th November 2012, 08:03 AM | #4192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Thanks for reminding us of the measures taken by the three labs involved in the Vatican-financed testing.
Seriously, though, what possible explanation for a first century date for the TS fits the data other than a deliberate falsification of the C14 dating? Do you plan on posting up the sources for your ideas about “serum clot retraction rings”? |
18th November 2012, 08:30 AM | #4193 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
18th November 2012, 08:39 AM | #4194 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
|
18th November 2012, 08:55 AM | #4195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Quite right, catesmate1.
Masses of evidence. All of which pass through those three labs, IIRC. That's why I feel that pro-authenticity proponents are implying the errors they claim for the dating procedure stem from either gross incompetence or outright fraud. It is a fact the Oxford lab was used recently to date some other biblical remains, so general imcompetence doesn't look to to be a viable explanation for the 'wrong' dating. Anyway, Jabba. How about it? Are you going to post up your sources about “serum clot retraction rings”? |
18th November 2012, 09:51 AM | #4196 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
Actually, it would constitute only one piece of evidence: that it comes from the right time. Showing it came from the right place, and then the right person would be two other things entirely.
Despite all the handwaving, obfuscation, derails, irrelevancies, and general overall dodging you've done here, you have yet to show conclusively that the 14C dating is wrong. Yes, you've questioned it, and you've even shown us a couple of papers from people who also questioned it, but we've examined that evidence and found it to be useless for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the 14C date of 11th or 12th century stands. Period. End of sentence, end of conversation. |
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
18th November 2012, 10:25 AM | #4197 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
My only quibble is the word that I highlighted. It's not that Jabba hasn't shown it conclusively, he hasn't shown it at all. Every single alleged problem with the C14 data has been dealt with. The only thing he has is a vague claim of "I like this other stuff better even though it isn't supported and I can't provide sources."
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
18th November 2012, 11:05 AM | #4198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Ah.
I see this article is no longer behind a pay-wall. It's beyond my stars so I'd appreciate others' thoughts on it. |
18th November 2012, 11:21 AM | #4199 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
He waves his Mathic Wand and makes the C14 results vanish.
The presence of this trend explains the difference in means that was detected by Damon et al. (1989) and in our Table 1. The effect is that of a decrease in radiocarbon age BP as x 1 increases. Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared. |
18th November 2012, 11:25 AM | #4200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Ah.
I see. Thanks, tsig! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|