|
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. |
16th December 2015, 10:51 AM | #2081 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
See? He does it again. Tries to elicit some little concession, which will then translate to something like "repairs were done in the same area as the C14 sample".
There is no other reason to ask that question, because logically it is totally irrelevant what is or is not in the Raes sample. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
16th December 2015, 11:56 AM | #2082 |
Lost in translation
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
16th December 2015, 12:18 PM | #2083 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Jabba, - you are standing on a sidewalk at noon, enjoying the sunshine. The sidewalk is dry, there isn't a cloud in the sky, and no trace of moisture in the air. - someone phones you from 50 miles away and tells you that they think they hear thunder. - someone else tells you that if someone is holding a large and invisible (or nearly invisible) umbrella over you then it could be raining. - someone says that it has rained there in the past. - several people say that it might be raining somewhere else. - on the preponderance of the evidence, how likely is it that it is raining right now where you are? |
__________________
"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, 12:55 PM | #2084 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
16th December 2015, 12:58 PM | #2085 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
And ain't it dandy you are currently focused on what "the preponderance of evidence" means. A neat red herring to pick at, forget for a bit, returning to the stinky carcase when embarrassed by the stark reality that you have no evidence at all.
|
16th December 2015, 03:26 PM | #2086 |
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 θ probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
16th December 2015, 03:29 PM | #2087 |
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 θ probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
16th December 2015, 03:34 PM | #2088 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 03:36 PM | #2089 |
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 03:40 PM | #2090 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,622
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
16th December 2015, 03:41 PM | #2091 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
This is not a probabilistic comparison, for the reasons already belabored by myself and others, and assiduously ignored by you. If one is able to observe the reality of something, then no amount of probabilistic conjuration or preponderant hand-waving to the contrary changes it.
|
16th December 2015, 03:42 PM | #2092 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
16th December 2015, 04:39 PM | #2093 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
16th December 2015, 04:41 PM | #2094 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
16th December 2015, 06:43 PM | #2095 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
16th December 2015, 06:54 PM | #2096 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
16th December 2015, 09:14 PM | #2097 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kitsap Peninsula
Posts: 66
|
Evidence of preponderance
You know how when you repeat a word or phrase over and over again, it loses all meaning? That's what happened to me when "preponderance of evidence" came up for the eleventy-billionth time. I had to look it up to get some perspective, and this is what I found at dictionary.law.com (I only copied the relevant bits and highlighted the parts the grabbed my attention):
Quote:
If we're going with the Matlock scenario, the shroudies have contributed only feathers and hot air to their side of the scale. Meanwhile, back in reality... Wow. Deep. Pass the dutchie. |
16th December 2015, 09:25 PM | #2098 |
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, 11:49 PM | #2099 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
What a merry dance. Ive almost forgotten your last failed attempt to provide evidence for authenticity.
|
17th December 2015, 09:16 AM | #2100 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 272
|
Hi Jabba.
I'm not at all sure why you're asking me for my opinion about any of this*. I'm not a scientist or an expert in any relevant field of study, and plenty of the other participants in this discussion whom you regularly dismiss and ignore have done far more research into the matter than I and are more knowledgeable. Whether I agree with you or not isn't going to change the evidence. But no, a few stray cotton fibers are in no way evidence of a repair or patch of any kind. Can you explain to me why you think a few stray cotton fibers are evidence of repair and why that would be relevant to the issue of the date of origin of the Shroud? The Raes sample wasn't the piece that was carbon dated, and the piece that was carbon dated was meticulously inspected by textile (and other) experts who were specifically looking for any sort of aberration that would make it inappropriate for testing. No worries. I don’t speak up much but I’ve been following along through all of these threads. I’m trying to choose my words carefully so I don’t inadvertently leave any wiggle room that could be misinterpreted. Jabba, for the record, please do not quote me or refer to anything I’ve said on your website. Thanks kindly in advance. * Other than you seem to have this mistaken idea that if you can convince enough people to agree with you, your belief in the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus will be proven correct despite all of the facts and evidence to the contrary, but science doesn’t work that way. |
17th December 2015, 09:48 AM | #2101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful? |
__________________
"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 θ probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
17th December 2015, 10:02 AM | #2102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
17th December 2015, 10:07 AM | #2103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You aren't, but it's already been answered at least twice by me and innumerable times by others. Asking it repeatedly while ignoring those answers is rude and disrespectful. Your critics question whether your obtuseness is deliberate. This sort of evasion helps them decide.
Quote:
The probability of something being true is irrelevant when you can observe directly whether it's true or not. Any exercise aimed at estimating or computing the probability of a different outcome is moot and unprobative. And more than a little ridiculous. Additionally your proposed estimation exercise is flawed because you propose to decide the preponderance not between evidence and evidence, but between evidence and conjecture. That is a qualitatively invalid comparison.
Quote:
|
17th December 2015, 10:15 AM | #2104 |
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 |
|
17th December 2015, 10:40 AM | #2105 |
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 |
|
17th December 2015, 12:00 PM | #2106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
So what is the evidence that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? In order to have a preponderance of evidence in the balance, you actually have to have something in the pan. All you ever talk about is taking evidence out of the other side, but without anything on the authentic side, it is meaningless.
For example, in what respect does the Raes claims provide evidence to put in the authentic pan? Hint: it doesn't . Even if it were patched in 1500, that does not mean it was the burial shroud of Jesus. See how that works? |
__________________
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 |
|
17th December 2015, 12:36 PM | #2107 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
17th December 2015, 12:46 PM | #2108 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
|
Where is this silly site of his?
|
17th December 2015, 12:47 PM | #2109 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
Jabba, important info:
Probability cannot be used to evauate the truth of a statement. It can only be used to try to predict an outcome. If you want to try to calculate the probability that the shroud is found authentic, an important factor is the probability that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, and that he was resurrected. This alone is a virtually impossible to do, but here comes the real catch: As the probability of Jesus is an important factor in the probability of the authentic shroud, you cannot afterwards use the shroud to argue for the authenticy of Jesus, because that would be a circular argument. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
17th December 2015, 12:57 PM | #2110 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
With the OP again burying failed attempts at evidence with hand wringing over probability, I can't help but think the introduction of Baysian methods could drag things out to great effect.
|
17th December 2015, 01:11 PM | #2111 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
http://shrouddebates.com
For bonus giggles see a manifesto for the OPs mission here and ironic advice for dealing with the dishonest and slippery heathen skeptics: http://shroudstory.com/2012/03/25/a-...a-rich-savage/ |
17th December 2015, 01:13 PM | #2112 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Montgomery Co., PA
Posts: 272
|
*sigh* This shouldn't surprise me. At least the individual posts seem to have been copy/pasted verbatim, but the fact that they’re not shown chronologically means it’s not an accurate representation of the conversation.
Jabba, if you’re going to reproduce the discussion that’s taking place here on your website, at least do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the content. |
17th December 2015, 01:17 PM | #2113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
17th December 2015, 01:32 PM | #2114 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
|
|
17th December 2015, 02:27 PM | #2115 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
|
Tell me about it! I threw up a little in my mouth after reading the comments after Jabba's guest post. Here are a few notable "comments":
"Richard, seeing as these athiests seem to attack you on all fronts, never really giving you a chance to direct yourself to one area (A typical strategy by the way). Here’s a tip; Attack them directly at their strongest points for inauthenticity and don’t waver from this strategy.They don’t have many points; C14, d’ Arcis, McCrone. But be specific and thorough. With the c14 you may want to explain to them first, it’s fallibility and it’s propensity to errors, from it’s basic assumptions, up to written documents showing very good ‘reviews’ of the supposed peer-reviewed Nature paper. Little unknown facts such as all labs using samples of too small or of too low weight to be properly sampled, for example." - Ron "Yes, I agree. They change topics constantly. They aren’t willing to actually DISCUSS anything. This shows their blatant dishonesty, in my opinion." - AnnieCee "One thing they can’t handle is anything supernatural. And yet the evidence collected so far about the Shroud indicates that something supernatural most likely DID happen in order to imprint the image on the cloth. Maybe you can’t exactly prove it, but they can’t disprove it either." - AnnieCee "Ron and Annie, – I don’t have time to address your points tonight, but I’ll be back tomorrow. So, don’t go away." - Guess who? "They have read absolutely nothing on the science of radiocarbon dating or vanillan loss as stated by R Rogers, most of them are talking out of their ‘other’ ends…It also seems they get all their answers from a couple of athiest sites and non scholarly writings." - Ron "“Also what do you mean by the supposed peer-review?” Exactly what it says. If the RCD article released by Nature was peer-reviewed, it was a very shoddy job. Almost bad enough to the point that one wonders was it actually properly reviewed or just scanned over quickly." - Ron, implying that the peer review process on the Nature article was shoddy "Also — when confronting Randian Looney Tunes, it is important to hold them to their own standards. They are ready to dismiss any work supportive of the Shroud if it is not peer-reviewed, or they can find some *ad hominem* against the author; but they dismiss out of hand even the possibility of anything against atheists attacking the Shroud, usually by demanding proof *ad infinitum*. See post #69 on the Randian thread for examples." - grey "These athiests are completely biased, blinded, unintelligent and more precisely talking thru their rear orifices. Notice their references to Joe Nickels for most of their evidence…that very telling of thier intelligence….they actually would accept the words of Nickels against the peer-reviewed words of a world reknowned chemist as R. Rogers….idiots." - Ron "I learned that they tend to get crazy if you talk about Noah’s Ark... There’s plenty of evidence of the Flood, lots and lots of it. The flood is probably what throws off Carbon dating because they don’t factor that in. That’s my opinion on it anyway because I think their dates are screwy. It jumps from 10,000 years to millions and billions – with hardly anything in between. In other words, carbon dating gets really weird if they try to go back before the flood happened and so I think they left the flood out of their algorithms." - AnnieCee "They refuse to talk about angels. Even though there’s an endless supply of stories from people who have met and talked with angels or had angels save their life. They won’t go there. An angel saved MY life one time, maybe more than that. I’ve seen a few genuine for-real documented miracles. But of course they mock all of it. Even the PROOF is not good enough for them, the idiots." - AnnieCee "Running in circles is probably my biggest problem, and I think that I know how to prevent such foolishness — it’s just hard to resist the temptation to try to answer all my opponents questions and objections as quickly as possible…" - Jabba, admitting that he purposefully slows the entire process down for the purpose of messing with everybody on the forum |
17th December 2015, 03:03 PM | #2116 |
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 θ probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor |
|
17th December 2015, 03:20 PM | #2117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
17th December 2015, 03:27 PM | #2118 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
- That would be great if you could stop diddling around and present some evidence for the authentic pan.
- Will you be back with that? - Haven't you given showing weakness in the carbon dating your best shot by tossing around shroudie web links and talking points but repeatedly failed? - Are you bored of probability talk and about to rehash past points as if they were not abject failures every other time you have raised them, ignoring past criticisms? - Are these questions obviously rhetorical given your years of dishonest behaviour in your threads? |
17th December 2015, 03:30 PM | #2119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th December 2015, 03:37 PM | #2120 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
...or location or style or composition or culture or ownership or provenance or any of the other things we discussed would have to come out affirmatively favorable for a rational person to even consider the possibility that it was the actual burial cloth of Jesus.
Affirmatively favorable. No amount of chipping away at the undesired findings creates that affirmative statement. No amount, Jabba. They are qualitatively dissimilar things. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|