|
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. |
17th December 2015, 03:46 PM | #2121 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Discussion Format
Tomboy,
- I hardly know what I'm doing on my blog, and, for some reason keep deleting stuff by accident... Putting stuff back, requires me to take extra time to properly sort it. This isn't as easy as it would seem cause I'm trying to sort by specific topic rather than (or, before) chronology. - If you don't want to be included on my blog, I'll take you off -- but I'd like to be able to quote you, and fit your questions/comments into the discourse by their specific topics first, and then by chronology. - As you surely know, I have a theory (much disparaged by your colleagues) re what makes for effective debate, and a significant aspect of my theory requires tracing one 'branch' at a time to its end. So far, I haven't been able to do that in this setting, but currently think that I'm learning how to do it... We'll see. |
__________________
"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 |
|
17th December 2015, 03:58 PM | #2122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Then don't do it. There is widespread objection to your selective copypasting on your blog. You clearly cannot summarize the discussion accurately to the satisfaction of those whose statements you're using. If you aren't pleased either with your attempts at editorship, then give it up. It's highly insulting for you to beg indulgence for your ineptitude from the people who don't agree you should be editing the discussion at all.
Quote:
|
17th December 2015, 04:01 PM | #2123 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
17th December 2015, 04:03 PM | #2124 |
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:
As you have been told, repeatedly, even if it were possible for you to actually demonstrate a "weakness" in the 14C dating; that would, at best, indicate that the 14C dating did not conclusively date the CIQ to the mid-thirteenth Century, C.E. You would still have to deal with each and every one of the other indicators of medieval provenance, or, even even better, provide the slightest indication (not the Whangers' "coins", but actual evidence) of the CIQ being ~2000 years old (something you have yet to even begin to do). it is not a binary problem, no matter how blithely you choose to cling to your pretense that it is. I also encourage you to be punctiliously accurate in your dealings with the sidonists. Somewhat disappointedly, I remain, Faithfully 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 |
|
17th December 2015, 04:12 PM | #2125 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
|
But don't forget.... Angels are real!
|
17th December 2015, 04:14 PM | #2126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
And in his weighing analogy, that's not putting stuff in the Authentic pan. It's taking stuff out of the Medieval pan.
Quote:
|
17th December 2015, 04:35 PM | #2127 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
After coffee and a big breakfast I'm about ready to deposit some evidence of kind we have become accustomed to in the authentic pan.
|
17th December 2015, 04:48 PM | #2128 |
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 |
|
17th December 2015, 05:34 PM | #2129 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
Jabba, the evidence in the "pro-forgery" pan is rather weighty: the 14C dating, the preserved letters among church officials, the medieval rendering of the image, the weave--and even the twist of the yarn.
All you're putting on to the "pro-authentic" pan is hot air and dust bunnies. |
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
17th December 2015, 06:00 PM | #2130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
17th December 2015, 06:29 PM | #2131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
17th December 2015, 06:56 PM | #2132 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
|
|
17th December 2015, 06:58 PM | #2133 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
|
|
17th December 2015, 07:02 PM | #2134 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
|
|
17th December 2015, 09:56 PM | #2135 |
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 12:56 AM | #2136 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
I see the irrelevant is back in the room...
|
18th December 2015, 01:09 AM | #2137 |
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 04:04 AM | #2138 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
Yeah, your idea about debate isn't a very good one and you're the only one engaging in it and selectively at that. You should just produce evidence for your claim. All else is just hiding behind process in a now clearly failed attempt to obscure the fact that you cannot produce evidence for the CIQ being what you want it to be.
|
18th December 2015, 04:37 AM | #2139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
To do this, we must agree on when a branch is at its end. It won't work when one side (you) insists on wordsplitting endlessly over little details.
And, please stop trying to lure little consessions out of people all the time. It is dishonest, and it serves no purpose. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
18th December 2015, 07:05 AM | #2140 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,623
|
I serves a purpose and you gave everyone a clue. It's a wilfully dishonest attempt to create the thin end of the wedge.
"If you concede that this bit of nonsense is true, just for argument's sake, then this bit of nonsense might be true, which means this other bit of nonsense might be true...[repeat n times..], then this piece of 'evidence' belongs in the pro-pan" |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 07:14 AM | #2141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
Nobody is taking the bait.
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
18th December 2015, 08:08 AM | #2142 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Discussion Format
|
__________________
"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 |
|
18th December 2015, 08:13 AM | #2143 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
That's one more than we generally seem to see. You have yet to post anything that undermines the carbon dating, for example. And the direction is also important. If you keep going around in circles the debate won't actually go anywhere. Why not take a real step forward, and post whatever evidence you have that the cloth is around 2000 years old? |
__________________
"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 |
|
18th December 2015, 08:20 AM | #2144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You aren't taking one step at a time. You're replaying the well-repeated steps over and over again, hoping to get a more favorable answer each time from newcomers you think don't know your tactics. The tedium can't be denied, but you create it by tediously retreading old ground and tediously equivocating until your critics are convinced you have little other purpose.
And there is nothing logical in your approach. The flaws in your logic have been explained to you several times by several people and you display absolutely no interest in correcting it or even acknowledging the contribution to the discussion. |
18th December 2015, 08:23 AM | #2145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
18th December 2015, 09:19 AM | #2146 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
18th December 2015, 09:30 AM | #2147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,750
|
I refer the Right Honourable Poster to post 2136...
|
18th December 2015, 09:38 AM | #2148 |
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 10:09 AM | #2149 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
18th December 2015, 10:22 AM | #2150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
In addition it sets up a false dichotomy. Jango attempted just such a thing in one of the 9/11 threads. He posted a poll whose question whose wording was deliberately ambiguous. He slipped up later and admitted he had intended to entrap reasonable dissent into the "wrong" side of the poll. But the effect was to elicit a modicum of reasonable doubt and then rewrite it as support for the other side.
Yes, that creates the point of the wedge. But in the context of debates like this, it polarizes the respondents. "Do you believe the cloth is Jesus' burial shroud?" gets asked. Then a weaker form: "Do you think it's even remotely possible the cloth is Jesus' burial shroud?" Having been asked the stronger question first, the astute respondent sees what's being attempted. While it's abstractly possible, in the most trivial way, that the cloth could be authentic, the respondent rightly sense a trap. If the respondent nods to the theoretical but impractically remote chance of success and says "Well, yes, but..." then it gets equivocated to the stronger form. If he remains faithful to the context of the ongoing discussion and says, "No, it's not," then that's what fuels the blogs that decry skeptics as intractable ideologues. The question gets taken out of that all-important context (which frankly is just ham-fisted rhetorical wrangling) and paraded as proof of how "unreasonable" skeptics are. Motte and bailey, for those who want the Game of Thrones style nomenclature. |
18th December 2015, 10:24 AM | #2151 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
|
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2
- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else. - I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do. |
__________________
"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 |
|
18th December 2015, 10:30 AM | #2152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
It is worthy of much disparagement:
First, because you do not trace each branch to its end. Instead, you change horses at the last moment, to avoid acknowledging that the end of each branch goes against your preferred conclusion. You do this every single time. You betray your method always. Second, because your method is irrelevant to the discovery of truth. For hundreds of years, now, humanity has discovered truth of all kinds, without having recourse to your method of effective debate. Scientists and scholars the world over, generation after generation, have been able to meet together and fruitfully discuss their ideas, without having recourse to your method.
In fact, there is no field of human endeavor, where truth has been discovered or results have been achieved, that has depended on your 'truly effective debate' for its success. In fact, you have invented a method of debate whose sole purpose is to support your conclusion regarding the Shroud of Turin. And, in a twist that is both tragic and comic, your method fails even in this one purpose: You must abandon it at the moment of truth, every time. |
18th December 2015, 10:32 AM | #2153 |
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 10:36 AM | #2154 |
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 10:40 AM | #2155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Don't restate his post. In his words, your question is meaningless. It's an abstract conditional, and you're trying to "convert" it (in logical analysis terms). You have nothing in the Authenticity pan, so speculating on how the debate might go differently if you did is pointless.
Quote:
Quote:
As I and others have repeatedly said, you can't weigh a preponderance between something and nothing. The something always wins by default, no matter how lightweight it is made to appear. And casting doubt on contrary evidence is an activity proper only to a fully populated argument. With nothing in the Authenticity pan, lightening the Forgery pan, conjuring up "doubt" by chipping little bits off of it, doesn't swing the scale in the least. The doubt also has to be reasonable and substantial. Conjecture doesn't cut it. You and your authors are confusing doubt with denial. Denying the strength of counter evidence by imagining what might undermine it, without showing any that does, is not casting doubt. You want there to be a medieval patch where the 14C sample was taken. There simply isn't one. Your doubt is unreasonable. So no, your approach is not valid. You don't understand the argument your critics have made regarding standards and methods of proof, and you're misrepresenting it. |
18th December 2015, 10:43 AM | #2156 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
18th December 2015, 10:53 AM | #2157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor.
Then again, the "there might be a patch" assertions don't actually weaken the 14c dating because even if there "might" there is no reason to think there is, and lots of reasons to think there isn't. For example, there is no way a medieval cotton patch made from non-shroud fibers could lead to an un-interrupted banding pattern. But again, this is all irrelevant if there is nothing in the authentic pan. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2015, 10:58 AM | #2158 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
18th December 2015, 12:56 PM | #2159 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,920
|
So which step are you on now? It's awfully hard for me to tell because at one time, I seem to remember that your discussion with someone who makes so-called invisible repairs for a living told you that they're not truly invisible, and you seemingly accepted this person's explanation and were going to concede the point. Now invisible repairs are back in play, despite the actual, factual, practical imposibility of repair in the sample area, as verified by textile experts who examined the cloth and found no indication of repairs in the area, and radiographs of the cloth which show uninterrupted banding through the same area.
So which step are you on now? Is it a step forward or backward? |
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah |
|
18th December 2015, 01:41 PM | #2160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|