|
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. |
2nd December 2015, 09:30 AM | #1801 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Hopefully Jabba can spend some of his vacation time trying to find positive evidence in favor of authenticity. My guess is, he'll come back with "blood!".
|
2nd December 2015, 09:57 AM | #1802 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Should we place bets on what the next fringe reset will be, then?
|
2nd December 2015, 10:12 AM | #1803 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
My crystal ball says: " No one has exactly duplicated the CIQ, therefore authenticity"
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
2nd December 2015, 01:39 PM | #1804 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
While we are waiting for the ... protagonist .. to return, perhaps we could undertake a typical skeptic exercise:
What evidence would convince you that the CIQ might actually be the authentic burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth? (Note that the divinity of Jesus is not implied at this point, just that he existed as a human, was crucified and buried in the cloth.) Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM | #1805 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Perhaps if the holy sandal could be recovered, we could do a DNA comparison with the blood on the shroud. It wouldn't establish authenticity, but at least it could rule out it being Brian of Nazareth's shroud. Then he'd have one fewer person to rule out... Basically, Jabba has set himself an impossible task. The chances of producing evidence connecting a particular piece of cloth of unknown provenance with a particular first-century preacher of unknown burial place is pretty much zero. And given the evidence suggesting a medieval origin for the cloth and the image on it, the anatomical impossibility, etc... |
__________________
"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 |
|
2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM | #1806 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,632
|
Some things I would expect to see in support of such a possibility:
!. Reliable dating of the artifact to the correct period. 2. Identification of the material as consistent with the alleged source. 3. Identification of the production methods as consistent with the alleged source. 4. Demonstration of similarity to other such objects known to be from the same period and area. |
2nd December 2015, 02:46 PM | #1807 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
One person's opinion: Long before you get to whose shroud it is, there would have to be some evidence that it actually was a burial shroud for an actual person. For example, it would have to show the 3D characteristics that occur when a cloth is wrapped around a body.
Then there would have to be some evidence that would link it to the first century CE. It would need to be made of material similar to other materials for that time/place. There would need to be some reason to date it accordingly, and indicate that it could only have come from that time/place. Once those requirements were met, you'd have to start demonstrating that Jesus actually existed, and was in fact buried wrapped in a one piece shroud (as opposed to the strips of linen that was the custom of the time, and is what is claimed in the bible.) While this would still not be conclusive, it would at least give me a reason to consider it as a possibility. |
2nd December 2015, 03:23 PM | #1808 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
2nd December 2015, 03:47 PM | #1809 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
Historical provenance traceable to the right time and place.
14C or other radiometric dating, or any hard physical data tracing it to the right time. Similarity to other samples from the same period. Evidence that it was an actual burial cloth. Evidence that Jesus really existed. Evidence that this cloth was Jesus' burial cloth -- like DNA-matching the many holy foreskins through the ages to this same cloth And then, maybe. ETA: I just had a thought: If Jabba were banned here, and somehow returned again on the third day, would he bring his own shroud? |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
2nd December 2015, 03:55 PM | #1810 |
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,521
|
Let me summarize the epistemological approach in a fourth of the related threads:
Pikachu is proof of authenticity |
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over |
|
2nd December 2015, 04:01 PM | #1811 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Cart before the horse. We still haven't solved the debate of Pikachu's historicity.
|
2nd December 2015, 04:02 PM | #1812 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
I agree. The foreskins might not be authentic, so I would be willing to agree if the DNA was haploid, a homozygous diploid (two XXs I guess), or a human DNA combined with something very exotic.
Honestly, if we are only discussing what Jabba should work toward in his proof, then I would be happy if his initial sub-conclusions would at least be based on the first 5. If even that much was established, we could then work on ways that potentially might next identify the individual buried in the cloth as Jesus rather than as some other person of that era and location. I started to think of how that next step might be approached, but then realized that we would never get past #1. |
2nd December 2015, 05:54 PM | #1813 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
brb
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
2nd December 2015, 07:42 PM | #1814 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
Well, first I'd want to see carbon dating placing the CIQ in the correct time period. Without dating evidence there's nothing. Next, I'd have to see some historical evidence indicating Jesus was an oddly shaped man who could lay on his back with his arms bent and still cover his penis. It's a little hard to imagine someone with arms that freakishly long as that not having that particular feature mentioned in a historical account.
|
3rd December 2015, 01:20 AM | #1815 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
|
3rd December 2015, 02:04 AM | #1816 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
3rd December 2015, 07:44 AM | #1817 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
|
3rd December 2015, 08:37 AM | #1818 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,623
|
As we are where we are, then the evidence to convince me would have to be pretty dramatic, probably entailing a change in the way we understand the laws of physics.
I remain open to other evidence concerning other old rags, I just don't have a need to believe in the CIQ. |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd December 2015, 08:45 AM | #1819 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
Well, I agree with most, here. I hope this might make Jabba realize just how long his path is.
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
3rd December 2015, 12:24 PM | #1820 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
Just for a start, I would need to see some kind of secular paper (papyrus? parchment?) trail establishing the existence of Jesus, his career, and his execution.
I recall reading that Jesus is conspicuously absent from any contemporary secular histories, and that the Romans were great record keepers. |
3rd December 2015, 12:29 PM | #1821 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,257
|
|
3rd December 2015, 12:42 PM | #1822 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
I'm uncertain that he will. All along, Jabba has considered that discrediting the evidence for a medieval date is sufficient to prove a 2kya date.
I have no idea why he thinks this is the case, in fact several over the course of this thread and it's former iterations have pointed out exactly why this is utterly useless. I would like to ask Jabba upon his return to address that very point, yet he has steadfastly refused to do so for all of those who have asked that very question, so why should I expect to be any different? For four years. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
3rd December 2015, 12:52 PM | #1823 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
|
3rd December 2015, 01:41 PM | #1824 |
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 |
|
3rd December 2015, 02:11 PM | #1825 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (aside from any claims to divinity) is one leg of the proof. And while several scholarly works are available for that study, they fall short of being able to place Jesus at distinct times and places. Thus we don't have any basis to localize him in a time and place that allows for attribution of artifacts.
The provenance and propriety of the cloth is another leg. Provenance includes scientific dating and some verifiable story of how it came into our possession. Propriety includes fitting it into a cultural and artistic tradition that matches its purported origin. The real problem here is that the scientific dating of the cloth corresponds to a period of rampant forgery of relics. Now that is consilience. But in any case a successful proof must place the cloth at the appropriate time and place. In the general case, the connection of a specific artifact with a specific figure centuries dead requires the artifact to be discovered with the corpse. Yes, if we find a dead cave man 15,000 feet up a remote mountain, and an archery bow 30 feet from the corpse, they're probably connected. But if you talk about one alleged rabble-rouser who lived 2,000 years ago in a big city and didn't become an iconic figure until much later, and a cloth that suddenly appeared in the medieval period, there is really no scientific basis upon which one could make a case for a connection. It's a two-legged stool, with two very wobbly legs. |
3rd December 2015, 02:20 PM | #1826 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,257
|
|
3rd December 2015, 02:44 PM | #1827 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,257
|
Regarding the highlighted sentence: this wording is unfortunate and excessively general. We can, for instance, say with some authority that Alfred the Great commissioned the Alfred Jewel although it was not buried with him. We know this because the Alfred Jewel is inscribed with the words "AELFRED MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN," which means, "Alfred ordered me to be made." Similarly, we have sufficient evidence to suggest that the Shroud belonged to Geoffroi de Charny in the 14th century and Margaret de Charny in the 15th.
|
3rd December 2015, 03:41 PM | #1828 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
4th December 2015, 01:04 AM | #1829 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,583
|
Regarding the Alfred Jewel, is the inscription just one tiny piece of evidence pointing at authenticity ? After all if anything else was "wrong" about it (like the wrong style or anachronistic features) then the inscription would be viewed as an attempt to fake authenticity.
After all, a laundry label saying "Burial shroud property of Jesus H Christ" on the shroud wouldn't be considered evidence of authenticity given how much else is wrong with it. |
4th December 2015, 04:06 AM | #1830 |
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
|
This is worth exploring.
For me, this particular CIQ cannot be rehabilitated. There are, simply, too many things that are "wrong" about it, from the representational Byzantine-styled features of the face and body; though the gravity-challenged "hair" and "blood", past the scriptural, anatomical, mechanical, and historical impossibilities; down to the provenance and history of the cloth itself; there does not seem to be a single factor that would allow the CIQ to be considered the "True Shroud", much less demonstrated so to be. |
__________________
"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 |
|
4th December 2015, 04:18 AM | #1831 |
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 |
|
4th December 2015, 04:45 AM | #1832 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,583
|
That's one of the things I've learned from this thread. Beforehand I thought that the carbon dating was the key evidence because pretty much everything else was plausible or at least not implausible. Now I know about everything else, even if the carbon dating gave a first century date, I'd question it
|
4th December 2015, 06:31 AM | #1833 |
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 |
|
4th December 2015, 09:13 AM | #1834 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Hence the wobbly-stool analogy. A determination of authenticity is a judgment that has to stand on several sturdy legs in order to work. Shoring up one leg of it doesn't buy you anything. And Jabba isn't even doing that; he's kicking the guys who are inspecting the legs for sturdiness, apparently in the hopes that if they can't make their determination then no one will know just how wobbly it is.
As for overall plausibility, the claim is patently implausible on its face. From a community known to fake relics, in the period of frantic relic-faking, comes an artifact claiming to be the most intimately pertinent relic of all. Uh, right. |
4th December 2015, 12:58 PM | #1835 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,257
|
That's true, of course. In the case of the Alfred Jewel, all the evidence suggests that it is genuine and that it is Anglo-Saxon. Given that evidence, the inscription ties it firmly to Alfred's reign. Moreover, while it doesn't prove Alfred owned it, it provides reasonable evidence that he did indeed have it made. And although we're on slightly shakier ground here, it was probably made as part of Alfred's program of educational reform. Specifically, it and similar jewels from the same time period were probably used as pointers for reading. In the case of the Alfred Jewel, I believe we have consilience: different strands of evidence that strongly suggest that Alfred had the jewel made.
In the case of the shroud, we have many different strands of evidence that show that it was produced during the Middle Ages, centuries after the Alfred Jewel. I'm putting that in bold just so no one thinks that my comments about the authenticity of the Alfred Jewel could in any way be used to argue for the shroud's authenticity. I used the Alfred Jewel as an example because it was the first thing that popped into my head that wasn't a medieval manuscript. I just wanted to point out that sometimes we do have evidence that a specific artifact belonged to/was associated with a specific long-dead individual, even if that evidence comes from the humanities instead of/as well as the sciences. |
4th December 2015, 02:02 PM | #1836 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Absolutely! WIthout thinking much about it, before the carbon dating I thought that the total sums of evidence for vs. against authenticity were perhaps 30/70, or even 10/90, but I did assume that there must be some, perhaps ambiguous, evidence on the pro-authenticity "pan." I must ultimately thank Jabba for dragging out all the "pro-authenticity" arguments into the light. leaving me amazed to see that there was no pro-authenticity evidence at all, and that the only arguments made by the pro-authenticity advocates were entirely imaginative, made up of whole-cloth (sorry) attempts to desperately cast some doubt on the extra-ordinarily strong anti-authenticity evidence. And unbelievably this has continued even after the definitive carbon dating results. Sure, the isotopic date is all wrong, the weave of the clothe is wrong, the image is impossible if based on a 3D person, the chemical analysis is consistent with the use of pigment, the is no written record establishing the current SOT as coming from the time of Christ, the Church itself denounced it as a fake, etc. Yet we have multiple people wasting their lives to come up with some imagined doubt in each of these pieces of evidence, generally along the lines "Well, isn't possible that the one region tested was an invisible (even under a microscope) patch made with Middle Ages cloth that just had precisely the same look as the original under lighting not available in the Middle Ages, and thus totally unlike the overt patches in the other parts of the cloth."
It is really fairly sad that people are so desperate to make it a holy object despite all evidence to the contrary. So thank you Jabba, and of course thanks to the rest of you here, for clarifying the true "balance" of evidence here. The thread educated me, and also made me much less willing in general to assume that where there is smoke there must be a least a tiny bit of fire. |
4th December 2015, 02:48 PM | #1837 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
I'll add my voice to those above. I thought that there must be some compelling reason the think CIQ was authentic, or else people wouldn't cling to that idea so tenaciously.
Having examined the best Jabba has to offer, I have no doubt that it is a medieval artifact made either to deceive, or as a prop for worship ceremonies. |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
4th December 2015, 03:43 PM | #1838 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Spend enough time among some of the die-hard Italian Catholics and you'll realize the reason for clinging has nothing to do with evidence. Some of the rural Italians I knew had such a warped and superstitious interpretation of Catholicism that it was sometimes scary.
Umberto Eco mocks this a bit in The Name of the Rose. The hero is impressing his young apprentice with his knowledge of relics, and tells him he has seen the skull of John the Baptist at age 12. The apprentice is at once impressed, then reconsiders: "But the Baptist was executed at a much more advanced age." The hero responds, "The other skull must be at some other monastery." |
4th December 2015, 05:38 PM | #1839 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
I've heard that.
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek earlier about the Holy Foreskin relics, but look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce My mother-in-law is devoutly Roman Catholic, and cites Nostradamus as though he were a saint. Go figure. |
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
5th December 2015, 12:50 AM | #1840 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ruhr Area in Germany
Posts: 2,431
|
My tiny, unimportant prediction:
now that Jabba has been suspended for a few days, if he ever comes back he will complain about how unfair he was treated, despite all the evidence. "The shroud is true, i was _sooo_ close to proving it by meticulous reserch, and then they cut me off" Alternatively: "Not only the users are rude there, but the mods as well! How can anyone have a fair deabte that way!" If not here, he will put it that way elsewhere. Won't be the first time he misrepresented stuff. Heck, he can't even faithfully quote stuff, after all... 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|