|
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. |
6th April 2013, 06:12 AM | #6041 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
6th April 2013, 06:17 AM | #6042 |
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 |
|
6th April 2013, 06:51 AM | #6043 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
6th April 2013, 06:54 AM | #6044 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Ian,
- So far, I do think that there are other ways for bias to raise its ugly head. - As pointed out, 1) I still expect the majority of the scientists involved to be biased against authenticity . 2) I still suspect that the dating sample had slight signs of patching -- and chemically, was not representative of the greater Shroud. (I'll try to substantiate these suspicions as soon as possible.) 3) I figure that an anti-authenticity observer, might notice such slight signs of a problem, but discount them -- in part -- because of his bias. 4) I don't, yet, fully understand the accusations about the statistics, but superficially at least, these accusations could be true, and also -- in part -- the result of bias. And finally, 5) I don't think it's possible -- minus blinding -- to be sure that we've covered all the possible ways that observer bias could influence research conclusions. --- 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 |
|
6th April 2013, 07:01 AM | #6045 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
|
6th April 2013, 07:25 AM | #6046 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
Quote:
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th April 2013, 08:36 AM | #6047 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
This is a point, or rather a number of points, that Jabba and most shroudies probably don't comprehend.
1. There were a lot of people involved in the dating process, for the lunatic conspiracy theories to have any basis in reality many people would have to be involved. 2. Because of the number of people involved the participants would know it was impossible to tamper with results. 3. This is the kind of high profile analysis that has senior people watching; it's not just a couple of techs running the analysis and passing the data along. I have little doubt that senior staff were watching curiously and performing their own calculations on the raw data as soon as they had it. This eliminates the idea of some kind of centralised fraud at the BM as the labs would know approximately what to expect. Indeed. |
__________________
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. |
|
6th April 2013, 08:43 AM | #6048 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
6th April 2013, 08:48 AM | #6049 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
6th April 2013, 08:57 AM | #6050 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
6th April 2013, 09:17 AM | #6051 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
Explain something to me, Jabba.
Two of the laboratories blinded the testing between the preparation and the measurement. Let us assume, for the purposes of this post, that you are the scientists doing the measurement or calculation from the measurement. Alas, in this post you are an evil shroud denier, driven to show that the shroud is a 14th century artifact regardless of the Truth. You're handed three samples of black dust, labeled with numbers. Call them 1, 2, 3. You know that these are the shroud sample, a 14th century control, and a 1st century control, but not which is which. You only have the identifying numbers. After measurement, you conclude that 1 and 2 date to the first century, while sample 3 dates to the 14th century. Your problem is this: which of the two first century measurements do you lie about, claiming that it dates to the 14th century? If the one you lie about is the Shroud measurement, then your evil work here is done, and your lie is successful. If you lie about the first century control, though, then your lie will be found out, because other people know that that sample didn't come from Shroud. For you to have a reasonable doubt, you must now answer the question of how an evil shroud denier solves this problem. Twice. And why assuming there are two evil Shroud deniers is a reasonable assumption. You could just guess, but your chance of success with this method is 50/50. Since there are two independent people facing this problem, your odds of success are .5 x .5 = .25, or only 1 chance in 4. Also, you don't know if either of the other two labs blinded the controls, or whether they will lie about the results. Now, if your assumptions are that all three laboratories colluded on a lie, then I don't think that falls under "reasonable doubt". That's squarely in the "Conspiracy Theory" camp, and you should admit it. |
6th April 2013, 09:18 AM | #6052 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Jabba
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th April 2013, 09:19 AM | #6053 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Ian,
- It seems to me that if observer bias after the protocols was a factor, the labs actually got the right date for the sample being tested -- they just discounted clues that the sample was (somehow) not representative of the greater Shroud. - If observer bias was a factor in determining the protocols, blinding wouldn't have made any difference. - I just gave bias as a possible factor in the results -- I didn't say that incorrect results depended on bias. --- 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 |
|
6th April 2013, 09:23 AM | #6054 |
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
|
You have no basis for this accusation of professional dishonesty, collusion, or outright fraud.
There is no physical evidence to serve as a foundation for this suspicion; worse, you have been presented with a raft of physical evidence to the contrary, even evidence from STURP. You have no basis for this blanket accusation of dishonesty. What "accusations" about the statistics? You have no basis to continue to claim that three independent labs would be venal enough, dishonest enough, careless enough, or inclose enough collusion, to make the same mistakes in the same direction and reach the same erroneous results. It seems that you mean that you have not yet invented a convincing way that all three albs could have gotten away with lying about the results of the 14C dates. You have ignored the explanations you have been offered about why blinding is not a part of 14C dating. You have ignored the fact that, to avoid silly charges such as yours, two of the labs did, in fact, run blinded samples (why have you not addressed the fact that those two results were consonant with the other, unblinded result?). You are perfectly happy to accuse a multitude of researches, writers and technicians of dishonesty, venality, fraud, incompetence, stupidity, and collusion...and the only reason you have for doing so is that you do not "like" the medieval date. This has gone beyond sad... ETA: substantially ninja'd by TjW and Dinwar, but I'm letting it stand... |
__________________
"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 |
|
6th April 2013, 09:27 AM | #6055 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
|
Jabba, they were not testing authenticity, they were assaying the date. The shroud could have been dated to 30AD and it still wouldn't prove that some guy called Jesus had ever been near it.
But the implication of your statement is that the scientists would have co-operated from three different countries to falsify the results. It is quite ridiculous that all of these scientists and their lab technicians colluded and nobody has admitted it happened. |
6th April 2013, 09:28 AM | #6056 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
6th April 2013, 09:54 AM | #6057 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
OK, well that sounds like a direct admission that bias cannot be an explanation for the C14 dates. What you say above is going right back to your earlier argument saying the sample must have been a patch of some kind (dating from circa. 1260-1390AD). Though in a previous recent post I thought you had agreed that the patch idea cannot be right? Are we ditching the idea of bias leading all three labs to the same wrong date, and going back now to the idea of a patch again? |
6th April 2013, 09:58 AM | #6058 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
6th April 2013, 10:08 AM | #6059 |
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 |
|
6th April 2013, 10:24 AM | #6060 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th April 2013, 10:31 AM | #6061 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th April 2013, 10:34 AM | #6062 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th April 2013, 10:54 AM | #6063 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Recycled crap. Numerous textile experiments, tests, examination et cetera.
No patching, no significant contamination. Irrelevant strawman. And the frantic back pedaling. Pathetic. And if there was contamination why did each method give the same result. If there was contamination a rational person would expect varied results as different mixes of contamination and actual material were tested. More recycled crap. The magic bio-plastic contamination is a myth, debunked in this thread and elsewhere. How about providing some actual proof for your claims this time? Yes. He's just wasting our time. |
__________________
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. |
|
6th April 2013, 11:09 AM | #6064 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
|
The only ones that i can see would have a vested interrest in tampering with the data would be the church itself. Imagine what a boost it would give them if the date would match to the first century. How much more people would come to see it, and spend lots of money for getting there and for the church.
As for the labs and scientists involved, they would have no gain by tampering the data to show the date it finally showed. Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary, they would also have benefitted from showing a first century date, just for the publicity! "We are the ones that did it!". That would give them quite a boost and very likely drive more customers to them to have whatever kind of relic "verified" by them. After all, they would be the famous "We did the shroud" labs that got the "right" results in the eyes of those concerned. Greetings, Chris |
__________________
Humber-physics 101: The treadmill has no ground equivalent. This means that the belt is not the road, but the Earth. ... That means the belt is also a privileged and unique perspective. If not then the treadmill collapses to the real world equivalent of a real treadmill, with different objects at different velocities in the same frame. Either way, no motion. |
|
6th April 2013, 11:36 AM | #6065 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
I don't think it's possible to convert you to reality.
Your suggestion is insane. You're asking the scientists to remove all sources of possible bias. Barring that, it leaves an unreasonable amount of doubt, leading you, Jabba, to believe the shroud is authentic. As I said, this is INSANE. Just admit it. It's a fake. |
6th April 2013, 11:39 AM | #6066 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
6th April 2013, 11:53 AM | #6067 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
|
You are forgetting that all scientists are secular atheists and hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems like this is the projection used when the religious feel victimized.
|
6th April 2013, 12:01 PM | #6068 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
|
Ha, right! After all, what's a nice career and respect good for anyways if instead you can slap an arbitrary date on some old dirty tablecloth...
It's funny to see how the believers have no qualms about assigning sinister motives to people like scientist, although the risks would far, far outweigh the benefit, while being completely ignorant of what their side would have to gain if they would be the ones playing unfair. Greetings, Chris |
__________________
Humber-physics 101: The treadmill has no ground equivalent. This means that the belt is not the road, but the Earth. ... That means the belt is also a privileged and unique perspective. If not then the treadmill collapses to the real world equivalent of a real treadmill, with different objects at different velocities in the same frame. Either way, no motion. |
|
6th April 2013, 12:11 PM | #6069 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
|
|
6th April 2013, 12:45 PM | #6070 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
|
|
6th April 2013, 01:04 PM | #6071 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 148
|
I can't help but agree with Agatha.
Why is Jabba turning to science to "confirm" the shroud? I can't accept that Jabba simply wants this shroud to be from the correct time period. I don't think anyone would put the amount of time and work into this issue as Jabba has to simply prove it to be a different time period. I think he wants it to be THE Shroud. As a scientist myself, all I can tell you is Jabba, science doesn't have the answers for you here. To my knowledge there is no scientifically acceptable method of proving the shroud of Turin to be the Shroud, because we don't have reference DNA samples and there's not an acceptable chain of custody for any of the physical aspects of the shroud (blood, fibers, whatever) leading all the way back to the death of Jesus. Even with authentic DNA references and a chain-of-custody, DNA results are not 100% accurate (100% is a big number, unlike say 99.99999%) and the chain-of-custody could have been manipulated over the years, by persons unknown for reasons unknown. Unlikely, but possible. Science will never have an absolute definitive answer for you on this issue. Even worse (for your approach to this) is the overwhelming evidence that we do have, all pointing towards "this is not the Shroud". Carbon dating has been performed by multiple labs, all who followed strict cleaning procedures. That's as definitive of an answer as science can give you, and I truly feel sorrowful that you can't accept that. The shroud of Turin is an intriguing historical object that inspires many Christians and can be used to help strengthen your faith in certain areas. (At least, it does for me). But if you want to bring it out of that defined box and into the realm of science...there's just not any good news waiting for you. |
6th April 2013, 01:48 PM | #6072 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
So many veiled accusations and weasel words.
I am sure you do, but it says a lot more about your bias than anything else. You are revealing more about your own predjudices. How, exactly do you know which of the scientists involved was biased and in which direction? Remember, there were more involved than the figureheads. For your notion to fly, all three labs would have to intentionally collude to get the results they did. Your point 1 is simply an underhanded way of making that accusation without speaking the actual words. But you won't. You never come good on any of these vague promises. Again, this is your bias playing out, nobody else's. I recall, at the time, being quite interested in how it would play out. In fact, in a perverse way, I hoped for an early date as that would be far more intriguing that a medieval fake. Turns out to be a medieval fake. Stop trying to paint your blatant bias over everyone else here. How on earth can you say on the one hand you do not understand it, yet OTOH it is in part the result of bias? If you don't understand it, how would you know? I will tell you. It is because YOUR bias tells you it must be so. The coup-de-grace, is it? Yep, go ahead, ignore all the fine information provide freely by experts throughout this thread. I wonder if you have even read the posts that dealt with this in detail. Once again, this is down to your own self admitted bias, and nothing more. It has no more substance than unicorn boogers. You freely admit that you have this bias. Why can you not see past it? I am not sure what more can be done with you short of launching a first strike with the triumvirate scud missiles of data, understanding and enlightenment. But that has been tried already in this very thread, bringing no more result than a slur on all the scientists involved, and indeed on the participants in this thread. We must all be "in on it". |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
6th April 2013, 01:51 PM | #6073 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,668
|
|
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade |
|
6th April 2013, 01:53 PM | #6074 |
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 |
|
6th April 2013, 01:59 PM | #6075 |
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... |
|
6th April 2013, 02:09 PM | #6076 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
6th April 2013, 02:19 PM | #6077 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Why, yes. And all of the associated scientists. And all of us. How deep must the rabbit hole get? My ex-spouse, surely? And as my ex, why would she keep shtum? My parents? My kids? My dentist?
Jabba will never define this. It suits the authenticity belief to keep everything vague. Witness the number of things claimed with evidence "coming soooooon". Never happens. At best, expect a link to Rogers malarkey. Over a year into this thread, yet still nothing substantive. Colour me cynical at this stage. Apologies, I can't answer that, and Jabba can't answer that after a year or more of asking. Did I mention I was getting a little cynical about this? Over a year, yet still no better response than "I'll go look for it"? Give me a break. End rant. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
6th April 2013, 02:19 PM | #6078 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Don't bother. You've just stated that, in essence, NOTHING will convince you that the C14 dating is correct. There is no protocol that will satisfy your requirements. If they're blinded, your argument is that they were switched. If they're not, your argument is that the lack of controls makes them irrelevant. If they're cleaned, you'll say it's not good enough.
|
6th April 2013, 02:30 PM | #6079 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
God must be in on it since god wants faith and dating the shroud properly would reduce the need for faith He confused the labs as he did the languages at Babel. So the more science data the less need for faith so scientific data that disproves the Shroud actually proves it.
|
6th April 2013, 02:37 PM | #6080 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
Now, now, abaddon.
No need to be cynical- think of all the fantastic information that's been posted up here. Anyway, I find the return to the patch idea almost endearing, myself. I can't wait to see just what Jabba has come up with by way of evidence on the subject. C'mon, wasn't it fun to see references to that old friend, 'Polymer' Valdez? And that hopeless couple, Marino/Bedford? Good times! |
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|