|
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. |
14th December 2015, 10:22 AM | #2001 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
Slowvehicle,
- I did contact a reweaving firm, discovered that "French Reweave" required using all original material and I posted that information here. - But also, Pakeha posted the following -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com...67#post8650267. According to the president and owner of the firm, French Reweaving does result in a repair that is invisible to the naked eye, from both sides. - Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that. |
__________________
"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 |
|
14th December 2015, 10:26 AM | #2002 |
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
|
In other words, because you revile her, you feel free to ignore Mme. F-L's unequivocal statement (and remember, she actually handled the CIQ...).
It is also interesting to note that you missed a set os scare quotes; and that you continue to ignore the fact that the soi dissant "French" reweave could not, by its very nature, affect the 14C date... |
__________________
"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 |
|
14th December 2015, 10:41 AM | #2003 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You mean according to Marino, a source we agree is unreliable for his misrepresentation of his sources. We don't accept him as a relevant authority, as I explained.
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th December 2015, 11:35 AM | #2004 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
No worries. You can do Jabba's homework if you will. He just can't demand it.
Quote:
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
14th December 2015, 11:40 AM | #2005 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
14th December 2015, 03:33 PM | #2006 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
|
__________________
"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 |
|
14th December 2015, 03:50 PM | #2007 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
-There are no pans. Only evidence, or in your case, a complete lack thereof.
-Effective debate® has failed. -One respondent at a time has failed. -The scales® analogy has failed. -All you can do now is back your assertions with actual evidence. -Anything you do that is not presenting evidence can be dismissed as a stalling tactic. -Make with the *********** evidence already. -Your cloth |
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright |
|
14th December 2015, 03:53 PM | #2008 |
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
|
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You have not the expertise to pretend to equate Mme. F-L's exhaustive examination of the actual CIQ with M&P's second-hand conjectures about "...some patching" that they have invented to explain the "wrong" date. You claim not to be ignoring it; you are certainly dismissing it. Observation can produce evidence. Conjecture does not. Did you miss the part where a "French" reweave is "smaller than a dime"? I continue to remain, patiently yours, &ct. |
__________________
"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 |
|
14th December 2015, 04:43 PM | #2009 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
|
14th December 2015, 06:05 PM | #2010 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
14th December 2015, 06:06 PM | #2011 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
14th December 2015, 06:17 PM | #2012 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
You misquoted her and use every measly, miserable excuse to ignore her educated opinion that you can muster.
That seems to be true for every other informed opinion on the CIQ that doesn't support your magical beliefs. ETA: Before you ask: I will not go back and look-up your own contradictory statements, and admissions of rhetorical and intellectual bankruptcy. |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
14th December 2015, 06:42 PM | #2013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
15th December 2015, 02:01 AM | #2014 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,623
|
Jabba needs to get himself a set of scales, put a pound of lead in the "con" side and then see how many weightless things he has to add the "pro" side before the scales tip in his favour. Sourcing weightless things should be easy, he just has to imagine them and then pretend to carefully place them in the pan. He can then stand back, make a note of the results (as opposed to his normal research methodology, which is to assume whatever it is he's done supports his conclusion) and repeat. Ad infinitum.
|
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis |
|
15th December 2015, 04:10 AM | #2015 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
[quote=Jabba;11029960
- Unfortunately, that doesn't help my argument any -- unless, the handling while doing the French Reweave would significantly contaminate the area. I assume that it would not -- but, I don't know and will try (amongst other related errands) to contact Joe Marino for his position on that.[/QUOTE] We're still waiting for you to come up with a "contamination" that would survive the cleansing processes used prior to the radio carbon dating. |
__________________
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. |
|
15th December 2015, 05:09 AM | #2016 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th December 2015, 05:17 AM | #2017 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
15th December 2015, 05:51 AM | #2018 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
Forget anything that bursts your cherished fantasies. What a blissful existence.
|
15th December 2015, 05:54 AM | #2019 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,623
|
|
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis |
|
15th December 2015, 05:56 AM | #2020 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 06:28 AM | #2021 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,583
|
Don't know where you got that from:
Originally Posted by withoutatrace
Even so, French Reweaving requires the use of the original thread and so wouldn't have an impact on the dating. edited to add.... https://www.withoutatrace.com/reweaving/french-weaving/ |
15th December 2015, 06:46 AM | #2022 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
15th December 2015, 07:45 AM | #2023 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Or, as we've discovered is quite likely, your trusted-but-untrustworthy authors Marino and Prior overstated their case. Will you therefore drop the point and move on? Will you finally present some justification for relying so heavily on such patently shoddy scholarship?
Quote:
|
15th December 2015, 08:02 AM | #2024 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 272
|
|
15th December 2015, 08:33 AM | #2025 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
|
__________________
"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 |
|
15th December 2015, 08:47 AM | #2026 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
15th December 2015, 08:59 AM | #2027 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 09:07 AM | #2028 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
Congratulations, Tomboy, on your selection as Jabba's current Least Skeptical Poster. It is not a permanent position, but it is an important one. I wish you luck over the next few days and hope you can help move this thread forward. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Godspeed. |
15th December 2015, 09:28 AM | #2029 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence." - Do I need to explain? |
__________________
"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 |
|
15th December 2015, 09:31 AM | #2030 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,670
|
Well, there is no inference, only unfounded conjecture, as opposed to expert observation.
The sample that was carbon-dated is not patched. Even if it were, the patching threads would have been from the same material, and any contamination from the patching process would have been insufficient to affect the date and would anyway have been removed by the cleaning process. |
__________________
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 |
|
15th December 2015, 09:32 AM | #2031 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
15th December 2015, 09:39 AM | #2032 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
But you don't address their arguments. You simply reiterate that you'd like to keep believing in what you've been claiming. Disagreement without a rational explanation is just intransigence.
Address these points and then maybe your denial might have a rational basis. 1. The operant conclusion is a speculative inference without support. 2. The inference is drawn by Marino and Prior, who are not experts, not by the cited authority. 3. The inference is one of several possible antecedents; you consider only it. 4. The consequent is directly refuted by competent expertise. 5. The rationale from speculative inference to consequent is contravened by pertinent testimony which the authors misrepresent.
Quote:
|
15th December 2015, 09:47 AM | #2033 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
It certainly does apply, especially because your "inferences" are based on circular logic. You are inferring the existence of patching from the fact that the carbon dating gives what you consider to be the wrong date, and then trying to use this inference as evidence that the carbon dating is wrong. Inferences may be useful if they are based on relevant observations, but none of your speculations about invisible, near invisible, or otherwise undetected and undocumented repairs are based on anything beyond your fervent desire to discount the carbon dating. They are not evidence. |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
15th December 2015, 09:48 AM | #2034 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
The opinion of an expert is completely useless. This is not a court of law. This is science. You have no evidence. You lost.
Seriously, Jabba. Answer this: How can you have a preponderance of evidence if you have no evidence at all? The entire idea is utterly absurd. |
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright |
|
15th December 2015, 09:49 AM | #2035 |
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
|
My Dear Mr. Savage:
You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct. On the one hand, you have two renown fabric authorities, who examined the CIQ in situ and found not a skerrick of evidence for any "...patching". On the other hand, you have a group of committed sidonists, who, needing to explain away the "wrong" date provided by the most observed bit of 14C dating ever, have conjectured that there "may have been" "...some patching", without ever once finding any actual evidence that such exists. There is no evidence, none, of the "...patching" you need to shore up your faith. Trough it all, I remain, Patiently yours, &ct. |
__________________
"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 |
|
15th December 2015, 09:53 AM | #2036 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
15th December 2015, 09:53 AM | #2037 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
And I explained in detail which was the inference and which was the observation and why each merits the label I applied. Do not pretend I said or implied otherwise. Do not pretend my statement "somehow" defends your argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
15th December 2015, 10:09 AM | #2038 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Inferences are required in logic. Deductive inferences are deductively strong, which means they are guaranteed to express truth in a syllogism of validating form, based on true premises. Inductive inferences become stronger the narrower the inductive gap is. But direct observation of the veracity of the consequent makes the inductive gap irrelevant, because it makes induction irrelevant.
When I say observation trumps inference, I mean that observation renders inductive reasoning moot.
Quote:
|
15th December 2015, 10:26 AM | #2039 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
15th December 2015, 10:46 AM | #2040 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Yes, this is apparent. But his trusted-but-untrustworthy authors Marino and Prior make inferences of their own. That is, in logical function they are inferences. In plain terms, they are also pure conjecture.
In a similar circularity, they note that Raes and others say they found foreign material. From this they infer there "must" have been a patch. This is an attempt at inductive reasoning. As you remember from basic instruction, induction means to reason from specific to general. In practice this means reasoning from bits of information toward an overall conclusion, if possible. In court, a jury is asked to reason from disconnected bits of testimony etc. presented to them to a general determination of guilt. They are asked to infer guilt from a collection of noted items and attestations. Reasonable doubt is the standard for measuring the remaining inductive gap in that context. But here it's pure speculation, based on very shaky claims and obvious problems with things such as chain of custody and standards of review. And thus is has no probative value. It has even less value when observation contradicts the general conclusion toward which someone is trying to reason inductively. We infer inductively when we cannot observe the outcome. It's typically the best we can do under real world circumstances. We cannot rewind the clock and magically observe a crime being re-committed. Hence we do our best to infer fairly and reasonably. However in this case we can observe whether or not there's a relevant patch. And when we can, induction is moot. It simply doesn't matter what an inductive case concludes when the real conclusion can simply be observed. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|