|
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 2015, 10:45 AM | #1641 |
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 |
|
25th November 2015, 10:47 AM | #1642 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
|
25th November 2015, 10:49 AM | #1643 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
Oh, and my apologies to Jond for mentioning "train wreck"!
I was typing as you were posting - that's my excuse... |
25th November 2015, 10:51 AM | #1644 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
25th November 2015, 10:59 AM | #1645 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It is, in my opinion, both. The foundation of expert opinion stands upon many legs. All the legs must be present for the foundation to stand. I don't disagree with a characterization that puts primacy on one leg, so long as the proponent understands he can't rehabilitate the primary leg and carry on if other legs are missing too.
We have defined many times the legs that create the foundation for expertise. You are correct in that Jabba, through his authors and ending at Delorenzi, cannot show that Delorenzi presents any evidence to support his "impression." The authors do not provide any evidence to support either Delorenzi's impression or their connection of it to the hypothesis of an invisible patch. And there is no attempt to reconcile it with counterevidence in the form of a detailed, properly conducted examination of the cloth with the specific goal of discovering a patch and nevertheless failed to disclose one. An evidentiary basis is a necessary leg. If in this thread we give it primacy, I will not object. Another leg, however, is the predication of the opinion upon suitable and articulable expertise. In this case Delorenzi is not an expert in any of the fields that pertain to ancient clothmaking. His judgment cannot be considered to derive from an appropriate study of the field. Further, even were he to be an expert, he does not articulate what knowledge from that field, such as would be known among experts, support the judgment he has drawn. Even were Delorenzi to muster a set of facts, such as photographs of suspect areas of the cloth, he is not in a position to interpret those facts to support the conclusion that different clothmakers were employed, or (in the fanciful reinterpretation of the authors) that any of that labor was necessarily anachronistic. Jabba must build all the legs of the foundation to support expert testimony if that foundation is to be accepted. The failure of any one of them dooms that testimony and renders it nonprobative. |
25th November 2015, 11:03 AM | #1646 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
|
25th November 2015, 11:23 AM | #1647 |
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 |
|
25th November 2015, 11:30 AM | #1648 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
I believe -- and I say this without meaning it as a joke -- that it is part of two rules of Jabba's Truly Effective Debate.
1. If you speak in a manner that Jabba can in any way whatsoever claim to be "not polite enough" then your critique can be ignored 2. If -- by dint of following rule #1 -- you do not immediately provide the devastatingly vicious critique of Jabba's links that they deserve, then Jabba can reinterpret your professionally articulated comments as some form of agreement |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
25th November 2015, 12:34 PM | #1649 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
The odd thing is that Jabba has indicated a need to have the SOT authentic to buttress his faith, but then goes through so much twisted logic and make-believe to argue that the SOT "might" be authentic in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it is not. How can this process ever yield a strong enough conclusion in Jabba's own mind to support his faith? He has, in fact, admitted that even he finds his own conclusions very weak and indirect.
-I thought I would reword and repeat, given that Jabba claims to seldom read past the first sentence or two of other people's posts, what to me is the biggest mystery in this entire thread. Just believe, Jabba, if that is your goal. The more you seek the support of science, and require other people to buy in to your "scientific" arguments, the more you will undermine your own faith. |
26th November 2015, 02:52 AM | #1650 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 3,356
|
|
__________________
Just drive. |
|
26th November 2015, 08:52 AM | #1651 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Evidence - Expert Judgment
Slowvehicle,
- I see your point (or at least, a point -- I shouldn't put words in your mouth) -- but, one Entry at a time... - Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight. - M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion. - In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give? - Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility... |
__________________
"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 2015, 08:58 AM | #1652 |
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 |
|
26th November 2015, 09:02 AM | #1653 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Jabba needs to watch A Few Good Men. Where the doctor comes on the stand and testifies that Willy Santiago died from poisoning on the rag. There is no evidence of poison on the rag ("there are countless undetectable poisons") and there are other factors that can also explain why he died, but the doctor stands by his baseless assertion that it was poison. Kevin Bacon pulls out the "expert" card, and says, "In your expert opinion, was William Santiago poisoned?" He hesitates, and then says yes.
Now, if you watch the movie, the point is pretty clear that the guy is full of it. He may be an "expert" but his opinion is baseless. In fact, the movie presents him to be an arrogant imbecile. But this is they guy Jabba is hitching his cart to. |
__________________
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 |
|
26th November 2015, 09:07 AM | #1654 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
|
26th November 2015, 09:26 AM | #1655 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Well, The Don, you need to understand that in the Jabbaverse the burden of proof has been reversed. Apparently the default position is authentic unless proven otherwise. This is why he doesn't require evidence in favor of authenticity, he simply believes that any doubt about the C14 date means the CIQ is real. Cool, huh?
|
26th November 2015, 09:29 AM | #1656 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
You could at least pretend to read other people's posts.
Opinions are useless. Credibility is useless. Evidence is everything. You have none. You lost. Everyone knows your position is based on faith alone. You know it too. Be an honest christian and admit it. Wouldn't your alleged deity want you to be honest? |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th November 2015, 09:34 AM | #1657 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,668
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
26th November 2015, 09:35 AM | #1658 |
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:
Happy Thanksgiving Day! I will be off to a Thanksgiving Day celebration here, shortly. I may be somewhat inactive today. What evidence (you know the mantra that goes here) does Prof. Delorenzi offer for his "impression"? That is they key point. What does Prof. Delorenzi, himself, offer as the reason for his supposition? Upon what does the Good Professor base his conjecture? Please do not point to M&P's special pleading and circular reasoning. Tell me what, in your opinion, Prof. Delorenzi says...and why he says it. Did you ever investigate Prof. Delorenzi's area of expertise? Did you ever repair the gross deficiencies in your "map"? |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th November 2015, 09:46 AM | #1659 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
No. You have been told the criteria for credibility for expert testimony. Do not try to invent softer ones on the fly.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
26th November 2015, 09:50 AM | #1660 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The play extends the doctor's testimony a bit longer. But the movie version is not a good example of allowable expert testimony. Which of course is your point. In the real world (not Aaron Sorkin's), for court purposes, all the work an expert does in preparing for his testimony is discoverable. The lack of any such work would be grounds for opposing counsel to argue lack of foundation.
|
26th November 2015, 09:56 AM | #1661 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Evidence - Expert Judgment
|
__________________
"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 2015, 09:59 AM | #1662 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
In this case that is appropriate. When considering artifacts from antiquity that are at least plausible to some degree of observable detail, claims of fraudulence bear the burden of proof. That burden has been met. There is clear, consilient, and convincing proof the cloth was manufactured in the 14th century.
Quote:
|
26th November 2015, 10:02 AM | #1663 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Then you may not present it as expert opinion.
Quote:
Delorenzi is disqualified. Move on. If you are able later to rehabilitate him via further research on your part then it would be appropriate to refer again to him. But for now it's clear you don't know enough about Delorenzi or his testimony to posture his opinion as probative expert testimony. Move on. |
26th November 2015, 10:05 AM | #1664 |
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:
It is not, in any way, my job to bolster, buttress, or support your "expert". You offered up the Good Professor; it is up to you to provide his bona fides (which ought to be more than, you simply finding his conjecture simpatico. "Maybe" offers nothing; no more than any other unsupported supposition. If you, yourself, do not know upon what Prof. Delorenzi based his "impression", it has no probative value in your argument. None. It is worth no more than the conjecture of any other committed sidonist. Have you discovered Prof. Delorenzi's area of expertise? Have you repaired the egregious deficiencies in your "map"? (FWIW, this will be my last post until evening.) |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th November 2015, 10:06 AM | #1665 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Really? All of the shrouds out there are presumed authentic until proven otherwise? What about all the nails? Or foreskins? Without any reason to think it's authentic (especially as it doesn't even match up with the customs of the times or the biblical story) why should we possibly consider it to be authentic?
|
26th November 2015, 10:10 AM | #1666 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
26th November 2015, 10:41 AM | #1667 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
No, let me elaborate and clarify.
By "authentic" we don't necessarily mean every bit of claptrap someone can claim for a bit of antique garbage. A nail may be an authentic 1st Century nail. But to claim further that it's one of those used to nail Jesus to a cross is patently implausible. That falls under "plausible to some degree of observation" qualification. No, you don't have to assume the Coth In Question is authentic up to and including what the faithful Catholics have to say about it. Let me restate more carefully what I said earlier in haste. (Trying to brine my turkey here.) If a claim of fraudulence is on the table (and one is), then the presumption in that investigation is that the cloth is authentic -- at least in terms of being a 1st Century burial shroud. Claims of fraudulence are affirmative claims. Such claims bear the burden of proof, hence the presumption -- for that purpose only. Fraudulence generally involves specific lines of evidence such as proof of age, or alternatively may uncover the presence of specific markers indicating a fraudulent means of production (e.g., evidence of chemical processes used to artificially age an artifact). The burden of proof for fraudulence has been carried. The evidence is consistent with the cloth being a 14th Century manufacture. Therefore, obviously, it cannot be authentic. |
26th November 2015, 10:52 AM | #1668 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Thanks, and understand that I meant no offense. Your contributions are highly valued from this poster's perspective. I agree with all of the above, but would only point out that even without fraud, there is no reason to consider a first century date, let alone Jabba's claim of authenticity. Which is why I insist that the claimant needs to provide some evidence that would point in the direction of authenticity, and of course none has been offered. In the absence of such evidence, refuting the C14 date does nothing to advance his claim. Enjoy your T-day!
|
26th November 2015, 11:01 AM | #1669 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It wouldn't be the first time a fringe claimant has tried to charm his way out of a burden of proof by insinuating that his debate is just a cordial fireside chat among friends. If some piece of knowledge is missing, then we'll just all put our heads together and figure it out. Because that's what friends do. We're all just trying to find the truth, right?
Sorry, Jabba, it doesn't work like that. No one but you has any obligation to discover and present information in favor of your claim. Your latests posts effectively admit that you have recklessly posted Delorenzi's statement as "expert testimony," when you yourself had no knowledge of the witness's actual expertise. And no knowledge or understanding of any study or argument Delorenzi may have made to give his "impression" any expert credibility. Delorenzi is disqualified until such time, if any, as you can rehabilitate him according to the established criteria for expert judgment. |
26th November 2015, 11:11 AM | #1670 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Thank you, and no offense was taken. Sometimes it takes a few posts for me or anyone else to make a point clearly.
Quote:
|
26th November 2015, 11:16 AM | #1671 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
26th November 2015, 11:33 AM | #1672 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Evidence - Expert Judgment
|
__________________
"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 2015, 11:38 AM | #1673 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
26th November 2015, 11:43 AM | #1674 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
26th November 2015, 11:52 AM | #1675 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
Typical woomeister MO. Address the least relevant points and ignore embarrassing questions.
You have no evidence. You lost. Admit your position is based on faith, and not on evidence. We all know it; It's just better for your soul of you're honest. As to your blog, you should simply close it for good. It contains nothing relevant. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th November 2015, 12:38 PM | #1676 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Yes, but the quotation Jabba posted is not even relevant to the question of whether the dating is compromised. Here's the quotation he posted: "I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records". It isn't saying that he got the impression that there are undetected or undocumented repairs, it is saying that he got the impression that the darning was done by more people than had been documented. And surely he could not have received such an impression unless the darnings in question was sufficiently visible for him to see differences between them. It says nothing about undetected patching or repairs anywhere on the cloth. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th November 2015, 12:59 PM | #1677 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Agreed. The burden of proof for fraudulence is a one scope of inquiry. Within that, the applicability of some particular statement is another scope. People who claim the cloth is a fraud have the burden to prove it. They have. The proponents for authenticity maintain the science was compromised. That is a subsequent affirmative claim that incurs the next burden of proof. In fine, the quote's irrelevance is just one of several reasons why that burden is not carried in this case.
|
26th November 2015, 01:58 PM | #1678 |
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 |
|
26th November 2015, 04:20 PM | #1679 |
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 |
|
26th November 2015, 07:24 PM | #1680 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|