|
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. |
15th December 2015, 10:49 AM | #2041 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 10:59 AM | #2042 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
- Take a look at this!
http://shroudstory.com/2015/12/15/thank-you-everyone/ |
__________________
"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, 11:03 AM | #2043 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
As others have stated, you're the one trying to confuse the issue by insisting that we consider speculation on par with actual evidence. They are qualitatively dissimilar and, in terms of probative value, as dissimilar as night and day. This is one of two reasons why your scale pan metaphor is dishonest. You visualize it as placing one thing in the "pro" pan and another thing in the "con" pan and seeing where the scale balances. It's dishonest because only one of those things is a thing. You have nothing to put in the other pan. Conjecture only describes what could be put in the pan. It doesn't actually put anything there. In terms of evidence that is, versus evidence that could be if you would only produce it, the scale thunks quite solidly and loudly down on the side that has actual evidence.
The other reason your metaphor is dishonest is that in you hands it's not an objective tool. You simply say you won't believe what's in the other pan. That's tantamount to holding your hand under it to keep its ponderance from having its true effect. You dismiss what's in one pan based on nothing more substantial than your dislike of its weight. You are not dispassionately and objectively weighing evidence. Your bias glares quite brightly. |
15th December 2015, 11:05 AM | #2044 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
15th December 2015, 11:08 AM | #2045 |
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 |
|
15th December 2015, 11:19 AM | #2046 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
He's resigning from blogging to pursue other interests, but gives as his parting shot the belief that the preponderance of evidence still favors authenticity.
In other words, safe and sound in the illusion that he has submitted his beliefs to the judgment of a skeptical audience and emerged victorious. |
15th December 2015, 11:52 AM | #2047 |
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 |
|
15th December 2015, 11:58 AM | #2048 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 12:15 PM | #2049 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
15th December 2015, 12:55 PM | #2050 |
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 |
|
15th December 2015, 01:41 PM | #2051 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
15th December 2015, 01:45 PM | #2052 |
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 |
|
15th December 2015, 01:51 PM | #2053 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
15th December 2015, 02:15 PM | #2054 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 03:15 PM | #2055 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 272
|
Hoo boy. If the regular participants in this discussion haven’t been able to move the thread forward over the years, then the likelihood of me being able to do so is about equal to the likelihood that the Shroud of Turin is actually 2000 years old. (Note to Jabba: That’s not an admission that I believe the SoT is 2000 years old. All evidence indicates that it’s a medieval artifact.)
Please do. In the meantime, can you explain to me, in your own words, what part of Entry 2 you find compelling and why? Because I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around Benford and Marino’s reasoning. Help convince me. Here’s my take. Entry #2 starts with, “Textile expert Gilbert Raes of Belgium, who extracted a sample in 1973 for analysis, wrote in his report that he found cotton.” McCrone found occasional cotton fibers in his samples, and he had samples from multiple areas of the shroud (source: “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin”, Walter McCrone, Prometheus Books, 1999.), so it doesn’t surprise me that a bit of cotton was found in the Raes sample, too. The source of that cotton could be almost anything, from cotton fibers that got mixed in with the flax during the original manufacture, to contamination from cloth gloves worn by the people who handle the shroud. Then Benford and Marino somehow take that one statement about cotton and turn it into a cotton-containing patch. Note that this source sites Raes as actually saying, “in some of the preparations from the warp as well as from the weft of Piece 1, traces of cotton fibers were observed.” (Footnote lists source as Gilbert Raes: “The textile study of 1973-1974”. Shroud Spectrum International. 1991. N°38/39.) That’s a pretty big leap to go from “traces of cotton fibers” to “cotton-containing patch”. Without knowing anything else about them, Benford and Marino lose credibility with me right there. Let’s play What If. What if there really was a cotton-containing patch in the Raes sample? First, the Raes sample wasn’t carbon dated. It was next to the area that was carbon dated, so any patch on the Raes sample couldn’t have affected the carbon dated sample. That’s where we’re going with this, right? Because the only way a patch can in any way help your argument towards a non-medieval origin is if it somehow skewed the carbon 14 dating, and did so drastically. Second, just like the dirt/contamination issue, a patch containing enough cotton to skew the carbon dating results would have to be more cotton than original shroud material. In other words, it would be highly visible. Not invisible, or nearly invisible. It would be an entirely different type of fiber from an entirely different time period made by entirely different methods of manufacturing. It would be blatantly obvious to even a lay person much less a textile expert, and yet none of the textile experts who very meticulously examined the area to be carbon dated noted any type of patch or aberration. There is no evidence of any patch of any kind on the area selected for carbon dating. All of which is a very long and wordy way of saying that, yes, I agree with those who don’t count entry #2 as evidence. |
15th December 2015, 03:24 PM | #2056 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Slowvehicle,
- As I've always claimed: though I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence, and Dan Porter's opinion has been a significant weight on the pro side of my scales. I hadn't realized how strong his doubts were before this news... - I'm not sure when he revised the opening comment on his blog to just say that the shroud may be authentic instead of the old, it's probably authentic. Whatever, I must admit that I'm discouraged -- and to be honest, might need to revise my own opinion somewhat... - At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why. |
__________________
"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, 03:36 PM | #2057 |
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 clear why you think that the contradictory conjectures in the M&P papers are evidence--you want the CIQ to be the "True Shroud", so you have adopted the confirmed sidonist position that anything that can be claimed to support the conjecture that the CIQ might, possibly, be "authentic" must be uncritically accepted as "evidence"; wheras anything that demonstrates that the anatomically absurd, historically ridiculous, scripturally heretical, posturally impossible, byzantine-styled representational figure (complete with anti-gravity "hair" and "blood") rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval linen dates from the mid-thirteenth Century, B.C.E. must be rejected in the name of bolstering your faith. Still not a sniff of actual evidence. Through 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, 03:49 PM | #2058 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
These are incompatible objectives. You can't be trusted to weigh the evidence if you want that outcome to be a certain thing. And you have presented no evidence to weigh. Via handwaving, conjecture, and pharisaical word games you're trying to say the weight of evidence against your desired belief really isn't weight. That's not a weighing of evidence. That's an excusory tactic for hiding your lack of evidence to weigh.
Quote:
Your critics have noted this shell game and asked you to explain yourself. Will you finally do that? Or will you continue the ham-fisted motte-and-bailey tactic?
Quote:
The addendum clearly fails, for the reasons stated. It cannot be considered consilient when its small number of sources nevertheless manage to reach vastly different and incompatible conclusions. The chronology ought to fail, since you abandoned it. Even if we charitably let you retract that abandonment, you're still stuck with all its blatant misrepresentations. You cling to it by simply ignoring the evidence it can't explain and pretending that act of ignorance is some careful, dispassionate deliberation on your part. This is you letting your desired outcome drive the interpretation of the results. That is anti-consilience. |
15th December 2015, 04:13 PM | #2059 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
15th December 2015, 04:54 PM | #2060 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Philippine Republic
Posts: 1,634
|
|
__________________
If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GT-R with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap. |
|
15th December 2015, 06:15 PM | #2061 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
|
|
16th December 2015, 03:02 AM | #2062 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
Fair enough, Jabba, but if you want to weigh evidence, you must do it accordingly to commonly accepted scales. You can't invent your own weighing method.
Of course, there is always to possibility to, like Dan Porter seems to have done, simply admit that you were mistaken. Just because we don't have his shroud, you can still believe in Jesus. After all, we also don't have his shoes, or his walking stick. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th December 2015, 03:33 AM | #2063 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Exactly. There is just too much evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake so he's abandoning any pretense of actual investigation in favour of declaring victory.
Yep. Why? He had provided no evidence to support his opinion. Rubbish. |
__________________
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. |
|
16th December 2015, 06:18 AM | #2064 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th December 2015, 06:34 AM | #2065 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 07:46 AM | #2066 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Yes, or of an entire argument. You use the weak form as an illusion of conciliation to draw an opponent out into a tentative position, then redeploy the argument in its stronger form. Jabba's arguments include tactical withdrawals that are meant to elicit a commensurate softening in his critics followed by an alignment of purpose -- "we're all just students and truth-seekers here," etc. Sadly it's being employed too ineptly to work.
|
16th December 2015, 07:53 AM | #2067 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
16th December 2015, 07:56 AM | #2068 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th December 2015, 09:29 AM | #2069 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
It is almost as if he is more aware of strategy and use of deliberate debating tricks than for which he has been willing to give himself credit. I had been concerned for Jabba in the past when he has cited memory problems, that he couldn't keep up with more than one debater or question, that he misplaced his notes, or when he asked for the assistance of his "opponents" in finding support for his own positions, but I've come to believe that he is much more capable and on-top than he had feared.
|
16th December 2015, 09:39 AM | #2070 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
16th December 2015, 09:39 AM | #2071 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 09:44 AM | #2072 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
16th December 2015, 09:59 AM | #2073 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 09:59 AM | #2074 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
16th December 2015, 10:03 AM | #2075 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
16th December 2015, 10:35 AM | #2076 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Evidence
Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?" - The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here. |
__________________
"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 |
|
16th December 2015, 10:38 AM | #2077 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 10:42 AM | #2078 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Since you present no evidence that it is, the answer is "not at all." Since others present considerable countermanding evidence for a different origin, the answer is "not at all." Since you can't even answer the countermanding evidence, much less present any of your own to weigh, the analogy to a probabilistic comparison is simply irrelevant.
Quote:
|
16th December 2015, 10:42 AM | #2079 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
16th December 2015, 10:51 AM | #2080 |
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 demonstrated your infelicity with probabilities in your "immortality" thread. Reality is not decided by "preponderance of evidence"; but instead, by the presence or absence of actual evidence. Your continues wish that there were some sort of adulteration in the samples bit of the manifestly medieval linen of the CIQ has led you to try to equate conjecture with evidence. The sidonists' inveterate (and self-contradictory) claims that there must be "...some patching" is not evidence that there is "...patching" It is, in fact evidence of their desperate adherence to groundless assertion, in service of their assumed consequent, but it is not in any way evidence about the CIQ itself. I suggest you present any evidence of which you are aware that indicates that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old. |
__________________
"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 | |
|
|