|
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. |
25th November 2012, 09:11 AM | #4281 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
First-sorry I can access the Heller and Adler paper through my university and didn't realize there is a pay wall. But, my God, this paper represents the key argument in favor of your blood theory- isn't it worth $15 to you to read and understand? If you do read it, you will be shocked how little proof there is in it.
Second, the citation for Berry is the Heller and Adler paper itself! It is perfectly legitimate to go over a paper and point out its flaws referring to fundamental defects in logic, absence of proof, and errors in basic biochemistry. Basic scientific principles that are widely accepted are not cited in most scientific papers. |
25th November 2012, 09:29 AM | #4282 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Quote:
Secondly, this is how science WORKS. Someone published a paper. Someone else went through it and evaluated the claims made. The fact that it's on a blog and not a journal really is irrelevant for the evaluation phase--as long as the arguments are properly sourced, it's valid. The evaluation is processing the ideas and arguments, and critiquing the methodology--stuff that you can do from basic principles and a halfway decent background in the subject. Furthermore, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN THIS THREAD. If you dismiss the Berry arguments, we can dismiss YOUR arguments for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS. So which is it? Do we dismiss Berry's arguments and toss your own out as well? Or are you actually going to read something refuting your claims? You really don't have any other options--even finding a different reason to dismiss Berry's claims would require you reading them.
Quote:
You couldn't be bothered to read either of them, apparently. Your refutation of one is "I don't want to spend money" and your refutation of the other is nothing more than Poisoning the Well. You simply don't know enough about either to evaluate how they support any case. |
25th November 2012, 10:50 AM | #4283 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Jabba,
I will follow up Dinwar's post by explaining that Berry's blog DETAILED why he had problems with the Heller and Adler manuscript, using widely accepted facts, logic, and scientifically based criteria. Berry did NOT just dismiss Heller and Adler's paper by saying. "I disagree" as you so often have. That is what we want to see in your posts: specific explanations for why you accept one point of view, and dismiss another. You can use logic and commonly accepted facts ("the Shroud shows an image that looks like a person") without citation. But citations are important when one brings up a not-widely accepted fact because they allow people to judge the strength of the foundations on which the argument is based. You realized that the "serum clot retraction" evidence was much weaker than generally claimed by the pro-Shroud community when you finally saw the original paper, right? Similarly, when you eventually look up the Heller and Adler manuscript, you will realize how weak the blood evidence really is. And yes, when you start using citations yourself, I will have more respect for you pointing out their lack in other people's work. |
25th November 2012, 11:36 AM | #4284 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Jabba,
In post 4261, you state, "- My recollection is that Heller and Adler showed a lot more than porphyrin, iron and protein. Let's see if I can support my recollection." What are you recollecting if you never read the paper? How are you going to support your recollection if you never intend to read the paper? |
25th November 2012, 11:50 AM | #4285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
25th November 2012, 12:41 PM | #4286 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
I have long come to the conclusion (and probably otehr have) that the 20 ears of research of Jabba are in reality 20 years of reading secondary, or maybe tertiary source, not the primary, and accepting at face value those indirect source says without even checking, because those indirect secondary source simply agree with hsi belief.
I have seen that with creationist and truly a lot from homeopath for example, they cite you a paragraph or a conclusion of a sturdy, and when somebody check they find out that the conclusion is not supported, or the paper utterly misinterpreted, or the quality of the paper is bad. I think this is the same here, and very visible with the Heller and Adler paper. Jabba never read it, accepted interpretation at face value from other people, and he has no clue on the quality of the paper itself. I am willing to be OTOH that it won't influence his belief a bit and he still pretend that his disagreement with everybody here is as valid as our position, and he will present in 5 syllogistic step and 20 proof that the 14C carbon dating is wrong, serum ring blah blah porphyrin blah pigments blah whiping etc... |
26th November 2012, 12:34 AM | #4287 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Let us begin from the beginning
Jabba:
1. The nature of the “blood” stains in the shroud is a secondary problem. This is my first point. It is an interesting problem, but a secondary one. Because, either true blood or painting, a natural transfer from a human body is impossible. 2. I begin with a quote from a forensic expert. “The subject was presented by “a leading forensic pathologist (Michael Baden, deputy chief medical examiner of New York for Suffolk County) [who] says (…) «Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body»." (Cfr: Marvin M. Mueller, reply to William Meacham “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”, http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm ). 3. Further (perhaps involuntary) support to criticism comes from a well known sindonist: “No scientists, physicians, artists or others have ever been able to convey such anatomically precise and complete blood marks onto cloth by direct contact or by any means (…) It is an 18 year old quote by those who seemed unaware of Vignon and Barbets’ unsuccessful attempts to transfer blood marks to linen by direct contact, and was made before Lavoie’s and Notowski’s unsuccessful attempts to transfer and embed blood into linen cloths with the unique realism that is found on the Shroud.” Mark Antonacci’s Reply To Ray Rogers’ Review of His Book, 2002 http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/antonaci.pdf 4. And the definitive statement comes from G. Lavoie, who is supposed to have done a satisfactory explanation of blood stains. “In Blood mark study 1, we found that image formation did not allow lateral body-to-cloth image transfer even though the body was in intimate contact with the cloth. Image formation was probably not natural and was likely intentional”. G. Lavoie: “Turin Shroud: a medical forensic study of its blood marks and image”, Frascati, 2010, p. 7. http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proce.../LavoieWeb.pdf 5. You can bet on the formation of blood stains: painting or miracle. Antonacci and Lavoie bet on miracle or “mysterious” events. But they don’t consider the blood stains on the homo turinensis’ back of the neck. Here the “rivulets” are running on the hair in all directions. This is an unnatural position. Not only the transfer to cloth is naturally impossible, the blood stains on the back of the neck are unnatural themselves. The logic conclusion is they are painted. Well, you may prefer miraculous explanations. A miraculous explanation can explain everything. I.e. it explains nothing. |
26th November 2012, 01:10 AM | #4288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
Bookmarked. Homo turinensis, indeed. |
26th November 2012, 04:24 AM | #4289 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Like most people pushing woo-heavy agendas his "research" has probably been limited to supportive websites and (possibly) books which filter the material for their intended audience. A form of reinforcement.
Exactly. It's classic wooster behaviour. Also physics cranks, EU/PC proponents, 911 nuts and woosters in general. I think it's part of the believer mindset, they're happier accepting definitive statements from (supposedly) authoritative sources rather than doing their own research. They're used to being dictated to about what to believe. Given his habit of repetitively posting the same debunked arguments again and again I think this is certain. |
__________________
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. |
|
26th November 2012, 02:43 PM | #4290 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Giordano,
- First -- it would cost me $25; I just spent $25 on the Miller/Pellicori article; and, I really don't want to get into that mode. - Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free… - Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see. - 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 |
|
26th November 2012, 03:49 PM | #4291 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
26th November 2012, 05:06 PM | #4292 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Do you have a library near your? Especially a college or university library? If so, they may have a hard copy or on-line subscription that will give you free access.
Don't sell yourself short: you can certainly judge what they actually show as data (if i remember coreectly, only one figure, and it shows a poor match to real blood) versus what they claim without showing data (multiple claims) versus what they don't claim at all, but which pro-Shroud sites often think is in the paper. |
26th November 2012, 06:32 PM | #4293 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
On the bright side, opening another discussion on Bayesian probability hasn't compromised Jabba's productivity in this thread.
|
26th November 2012, 07:08 PM | #4294 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
27th November 2012, 01:53 AM | #4295 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 3,377
|
Am I getting this right? Jabba has shifted his stance from "It is definitely the burial shroud of Jesus" to "There is a teensy weensy probability it could be the burial shroud of jesus and this will be plain to you if you accept the teensy weensy probability that those are real blood stains on the cloth."
|
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon |
|
27th November 2012, 02:39 AM | #4296 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
27th November 2012, 04:04 AM | #4297 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Blood/Heller&Adler
|
__________________
"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 |
|
27th November 2012, 04:07 AM | #4298 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Giordano, - First -- it would cost me $25; I just spent $25 on the Miller/Pellicori article; and, I really don't want to get into that mode. - Second -- I suppose that the Heller/Adler paper should be the "cornerstone" of my case, but I’m not sure how necessary it is. So before I break down and buy their paper, I’ll see what I can dig up otherwise for free… - Third – apparently, H/A and those reviewing it thought the evidence was significant, so I doubt that I’d be able to see the weakness that you see. - I'll be back. --- Jabba Giordano, - OK. --- 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 |
|
27th November 2012, 04:38 AM | #4299 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
|
Jabba, please learn how to use the multi-quote feature.
|
__________________
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 |
|
27th November 2012, 08:36 AM | #4300 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Zoo,
- OK. --- 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 |
|
27th November 2012, 10:47 AM | #4301 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
space fill space fill space fill
|
Last edited by Humots; 27th November 2012 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Sorry my mistake. Trying to subscribe to the thread. |
|
27th November 2012, 01:28 PM | #4302 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
27th November 2012, 02:20 PM | #4303 |
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... |
|
27th November 2012, 04:35 PM | #4304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
27th November 2012, 05:15 PM | #4305 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
He lists his location as Schenectady, New York, which is home to Union CollegeWP.
|
__________________
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) |
|
28th November 2012, 03:57 AM | #4306 |
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. |
|
28th November 2012, 06:19 PM | #4307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
|
29th November 2012, 02:04 AM | #4308 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
^
No worries; real life makes sporadic demands on our time and attention. All the best with your project. |
30th November 2012, 06:15 PM | #4309 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Blood/Heller&Adler
Giordano,
- I'm just getting over a stomach virus, so haven't gotten to a library, and I'm still having trouble negotiating my electronic connection to the State Library -- so I haven't been able to read all 2 pages of that Heller/Adler article in Applied Optics. I'm hoping, however, that the following is a better article anyway: Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103. Whatever, I'll also be looking for that one, and wondered that you might be able to beat me to it... - My own "sources" for thinking that H&A had done more research than indicated by Catsmate were a bunch of secondaries, number one of which was http://shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf. On pages 2 & 3, Ford says Regarding the ‘blood,’ Heller and Adler (hereafter H&A) concluded that it was actual blood material on the basis of physics-based and chemistry- based testing, most tests of which will be discussed, specifically the following: detection of higher-than- elsewhere levels of iron in ‘blood’ areas via X-ray fluorescence, indicative spectra obtained by microspectrophotometry, generation with chemicals and ultraviolet light of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence, positive tests for hemochromagen using hydrazine, positive tests for cyanmethemoglobin using a neutralized cyanide solution, positive tests for the bile pigment bilirubin, positive tests for protein, and use of proteolytic enzymes on ‘blood’ material, leaving no residue. The tests and data not discussed are the reflection spectra indicative of bilirubin’s32 and blood’s presence,33 chemical detection of the specific protein albumin,34 the presence of serum halos around various ‘blood’ marks when viewed under ultraviolet light,35 the immunological determination that the ‘blood’ is of primate origin,36 and the forensic judgement that the various blood and wound marks appear extremely realistic.37 - Per usual, 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 |
|
30th November 2012, 06:59 PM | #4310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
I think many of those "proofs" have already been rebutted bere, and as you know, secondary sources such as you quote, especially from people with agendas and little scientific knowledge, are often gross distortions or dead wrong. I will try to track down the original and read it, but you should promise to do so too. I don't want to do all your work for you.
|
30th November 2012, 07:00 PM | #4311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
1st December 2012, 05:18 AM | #4312 |
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. |
|
1st December 2012, 05:54 AM | #4313 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Blood/Heller&Adler
Giordano,
- I tell you what. Don't worry about the Heller/Adler papers -- I'll do that. How about just identifying a "rebuttal" or two. Numerous "claims" have been made by your side about my claims -- but IMO, only a very few have been effectively argued (and, I have admitted those), and I don't think that any of those have to do with H&A's work. - I'll try to get over to Union College today re the H&A papers. --- 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 |
|
1st December 2012, 07:21 AM | #4314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Also, your entire blood argument rests on the notion that in a society where self-flagelation was so common that they had to produce rules governing it so they didn't kill off too many monks that way no one could ever possibly put blood on this particular cloth. The notion is nonsensical. You've yet to even attempt to address that, except to dismiss it without actually discussing it.
Quote:
Besides, it was demonstrated earlier that you hadn't read this work either. So criticizing others for not reading it is rather crass. |
1st December 2012, 08:53 AM | #4315 |
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
|
Rich:
You admit that you have not read H & A's work. In what way, precisely, is Berry's Blog not a rebuttal (rather, I would say, a refutation), of the H & A claims that you have not read? In what way is David Mo's post #487 not a rebuttal? What do you think a "rebuttal" is? And what does any of this have to do with your idea that a medieval artifact must be the True Shroud™? |
__________________
"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 |
|
1st December 2012, 10:47 AM | #4316 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
1st December 2012, 11:23 AM | #4317 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Blood/Heller&Adler
Slowvehicle,
- You're right -- I was confusing "rebut" with "refute." - I will try to show that the image had to involve a recently tortured and crucified human in order to show the blood detail that is found on the Shroud; and then, I will try to show why a medieval artist could not have done it that way. - If I can do that, I'll claim that we're pretty much stuck with 1) the Shroud is something truly exceptional, 2) it is most likely the real thing, and 3) the carbon dating must be wrong. --- Rich |
__________________
"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 |
|
1st December 2012, 01:25 PM | #4318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
You present second hand accounts by people who have been shown to misrepresent the facts, of material by people who have been shown to misrepresent the facts, and then complain that we have not presented peer-reviewed dissections of it. Then you insist that the actual scientific evidence must be wrong. Does this not strike you as at least a little misguided?
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
1st December 2012, 01:43 PM | #4319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Please explain why a culture which included self-flagulation couldn't find a body that had been beaten. I really, really want to hear your argument for this. |
1st December 2012, 01:51 PM | #4320 |
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
|
...might want to start with showing that it is, infact, "blood"...
...details that demonstrate that whatever the supposed "blood" is, it is not applied to the cloth in any way that resembles how blood from an hours-dead, washed body would behave... ...actually, the artificial characteristics of the location of the "blood", the "flow patterns" of the "blood", the nature of the "wounds" from which the "blood" is supposed to have issued, all argue that it is, in fact, artfice; it is, in fact, the work of an artist on the medieval artifact. Not to mention that the body is not anatomically accurate, but a representation in the Byzantine style. Not to mention that none of this has to do with the 14C dating. No, Rich--just no. If you do not overcome your "point 3" first, none of the rest of your argument holds any water. |
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|