|
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. |
6th January 2016, 03:26 AM | #2361 |
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
|
It does not seem to me that you are using terms, the meanings of which you understand.
However, at the risk of being identified as a "snarling dog", or an abuser of the helpless: The worth of the D'arcis memo and the Clement declaration is not that a Bishop, or a Pope, settled the issue by declaring that the CIQ was not "authentic". The worth of the D'arcis memo and the Clement declaration is that, shortly after the very first reliably recorded appearance of the CIQ, it was the subject of consideration; and there is no earlier reliable record of the CIQ's existence. (The "Pray Codex" identification is a bit of pareidolia on par with the Whangers' "coins".) |
__________________
"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 |
|
6th January 2016, 03:36 AM | #2362 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 03:39 AM | #2363 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I have occasionally participated in Porter's blog. I tryed to defend my anti-authenticity position and I received insults and anathemas and some polite answers by exceptional sidonists such as Porter and Farey (a very particular sindonist, by the way). The rational discussion was an exception and became particulary impossible when I raised some of the contradictions of sindonism that I am suggesting here.
I am amazed because the global disqualifications and the refusing to discuss the same particular subjects is being replicated here. It is easy to say "you are a X" or "that has already been discussed". It is easy to dispatch the opponent accusing him of "dishonestity" or be "obtuse". It is easy to jabbatise the opponent. It is not easy to respect the rules of a rational discussion, be patient and pay attention to the true position of our antagonists. The absence of opponents (Jabba is not) is a problem of a forum because it encourage the formation of automatisms and slogans. This is the problem here. |
6th January 2016, 04:00 AM | #2364 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,895
|
Well, there are lots of things I would love to be true, but which are not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) Lie flat on the floor (or other firm surface). Cross your hands over your genitals (as depicted on the shroud). 2) Note the position of your elbows: Unless you are a chimpanzee, they will be lifted from the floor. 3) Now relax, as dead persons tend to do (and as the shroud depicts the person to do), and let your elbows rest on the floor beside your chest. 4) Note the position of your hands: They now no longer cover your genitals. Here you are: Empirical proof of one of the anatomical impossibilities of the shroud. ... You're welcome! Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
6th January 2016, 04:12 AM | #2365 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 04:25 AM | #2366 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
|
6th January 2016, 04:33 AM | #2367 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
Besides the fact that back at the start of the baseball season, Slowvehicle struck you out on the blood claim, there's a question I've asked before and you ignored before. If you were going to try to make a convincing "shroud", would you use blood on it? If not, why not? If so, do you understand why the presence of blood tells us nothing about when it was made and who's blood it is?
|
6th January 2016, 04:38 AM | #2368 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th January 2016, 06:08 AM | #2369 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
|
Some time ago I attempted a new thread on the cultural context of the Shroud, in the Arts forum, but it did not attract much interest. However if I were allowed to start a more investigative thread here, it might attract commenters who wanted to discuss the developments in Shroud research. I hope that over the weekend I might have time to think about it properly.
Responses to my last post here, however, have been disappointing. I have always wondered about the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud, but cannot find good evidence either way. JayUtah's vague comments that the 'arms have always looked wrong' or 'the head has always looked too big' are all very well, but others 'have always' completely disagreed, including various forensic pathologists of some renown. MRC Hans's 'lie-on-the-floor' experiment is irrefutable as it stands, but does depend on the image making 'body' lying flat on a surface. There have been numerous explanations of why that need not have been so. There are a few very detailed comparative analyses, all of them by authenticists, and all of them showing that neither the arms nor the head are wrong - no surprise there. But if one is to claim that these analyses are incorrect, one must produce evidence to the contrary, and I, for one, have found that very difficult, mostly because of the difficulty in making any measurements from the Shroud image itself. It can be argued that the analyses that have been done are unreliable for exactly the same reason, but that does not establish the contrary proposition. In that statement I agree with JayUtah that dismissal of one set of evidence is not in itself evidence in favour of anything else, but I was careful not to claim that it was. Popular support for one proposition or another is not wholly evidence based, however, and lack of opposition can constitute a powerful reinforcement of belief. In my last few posts I have clearly said that I think the Shroud is medieval, but my opinions, and those of every other non-authenticist, are balanced by at least a similar number of people who think the opposite, and a discussion forum should be able to explore not just what people think, but why people think it. Abaddon is quite wrong to think I am a 'sindonist' (if that means one who believes in authenticity), but it is not failure of intellect if someone on one side of an argument wants to understand the reasoning behind those on the other. It is true that there is a large body of miraculist belief in the authenticity of the Shroud. The foundations for such a belief are outside the realm of Science, and cannot be discussed form a Scientific point of view. Occasionally Scientists are told that it is unscientific to reject the possibility that wholly supernatural events can occur, which is true. Science is based on the premise that the universe is rational, and there are those who do not accept that premise. However, the correct scientific response is not that the universe cannot be irrational, but that if it is, science cannot investigate it, and so leave it at that. I am not an 'irrationalist', and nor, I think, is the current Pope, who has made it quite clear that for him, God is not a magician who waves a magic wand (I mention this only because I am known as a Catholic, and often accused of recusancy in my relentless rationality, but I'm not going to discuss theology here). However there are plenty of authenticists who do not think the image on the Shroud breaks any laws of physics, and have been researching possible ways of producing an image from a dead body, in unusual circumstances. These are not all 'contact' hypotheses, and include various forms of action at at distance, such as the chemical action of vapours or various forms of radiation. I don't find any of them convincing, but there are plenty of others who do, and it is relevant to a discussion forum to try to understand why. Some of Slowvehicle's arguments about the alleged bloodstains are well established, and as they stand it might seem astonishing that anybody could deny them. However they are denied, and have been investigated, in hideous detail. No potassium in the blood? - traumatic haemolysis. First century Jewish burial rites? - Nobody knows what they were, let alone whether they were always adhered to. Iron oxide and 'serum'? - Ah! Be careful! just because iron oxide and a medium are also found in paint is not, of course, evidence that the bloodstains are not blood. Trickles and flows - various forms of transfer, from subcutaneous oozes to pre-mortem dried blood subsequently moistened to post-mortem flows from major punctures. Do I think any of these counter-arguments convincing? No, I don't, but my point all along is that there are plenty of people who do, some of them well experienced in the forensic study of blood residues. All scientists working on any project must continually ask themselves; could my evidence be interpreted differently? And if there is a body of people who think they are wrong, be prepared to engage in discussion towards a resolution. MRC Hans missed the point about my flat-earth analogy, which was not that truth is established by consensus, but that where opinion is fairly divided between two views of something, then it is worthwhile to find out why. This may not be worthwhile if dissent is from an extreme minority, but in the case of the Shroud, where there is substantial opinion on both sides, I think it is. |
6th January 2016, 06:18 AM | #2370 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 06:27 AM | #2371 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 06:33 AM | #2372 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
6th January 2016, 06:55 AM | #2373 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th January 2016, 07:05 AM | #2374 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 07:26 AM | #2375 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,895
|
You, sir, at least do read the replies to your posts. A nice change compared to some.
How else could a dead body lie, other than flat?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
6th January 2016, 07:51 AM | #2376 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th January 2016, 07:53 AM | #2377 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
6th January 2016, 07:56 AM | #2378 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 07:57 AM | #2379 |
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
|
What is blue, with orange stripes; hangs on the wall; smells like roses; and whistles?
I don't know. What is blue, with orange stripes; hangs on the wall; smells like roses; and whistles? A trout. ...A trout is not blue, with orange stripes! It would be, if I painted it. ...A trout does not hang on the wall! It would, if I nailed it there. ...A trout does not smell like roses! It would, if I sprayed it with air freshener; at least it attar... ...A trout does not whistle! I believe it might... |
__________________
"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 |
|
6th January 2016, 07:58 AM | #2380 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 08:03 AM | #2381 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
6th January 2016, 08:05 AM | #2382 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You accuse me of being vague, yet supply only vague claims in return. As I said, before the carbon dating provided a conclusive answer to the cloth's age, the image was always considered misshapen, and this was one of the most discussed aspects prior to the 1980s.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can't seem to make up your mind whether science applies. You said science can't touch the cloth. I gave an example of where it can. But you waffle between the notion that Very Important qualified scientists support authenticity on the basis of the pictured image, yet backpedal in trying to say that science might not be reliable. You're equivocating.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th January 2016, 08:16 AM | #2383 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The sindonist line of reasoning to which you allude embodies the converse fallacy. And the converse fallacy appears to be the popular approach: if they can but discredit their critics' objections, this somehow constitutes affirmative proof of their beliefs.
If the stains purported to be blood are not blood, then it casts doubt on authenticity and supports forgery. Simply put, if they are paint then they cannot be blood. And if it's not blood at all, then it can't be some specific person's blood -- specifically it can't be Jesus' blood. But the cargo-cult rejoinder is to simply turn the claim around and try to show it is blood -- i.e., simplistically undermine the objection. As noted, the claimants fail to realize that authentic blood does not prove an authentic shroud. As I explained to Jabba, such findings would be necessary but not sufficient. That is, if the shroud is authentic then the stains must be blood. But if the stains are blood, that doesn't mean the shroud must be authentic. |
6th January 2016, 08:53 AM | #2384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
6th January 2016, 09:07 AM | #2385 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
|
6th January 2016, 10:01 AM | #2386 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
|
MRC Hans, and JayUtah, thank you. First MRC Hans.
1) Various ideas regarding anatomical irregularities. a) If the body was in a rigor mortis position established while hanging from a cross, it could have a distorted shape when laid down (head slightly raised, legs bent). b) If its shroud were laid over such a body, its upper side would follow the contours of the body, while its underside would be flat. c) If the body were laid on some sort of mattress, such as a pile of straw, spices, a stone 'pillow' or whatever, it would adopt a more bent attitude. There are various permutations of these, including combinations, all of which have been suggested, and all of which enable the wrists to be crossed over the genitals. 2) Let us say to ourselves that the head looks too big for the body. I can take a photo of myself lying down, and measure the distance from the top of the head to the chin, and maybe from ear to ear. I could then measure the distance across my shoulders, say, or from chin to navel. By relating these measurements to each other I can establish the relationship between the size of my head and the size of my body. If the Shroud head is too big, then similar measurements will lead to significant differences in these proportions. Unfortunately neither the top of the head, the ears, the chin the sides of the shoulders nor the navel are visible on the Shroud. Bummer. A similar problem occurs with almost every measurement one might want to make. How high is the man? We have no top of the head and very distorted feet. As I say, estimates differ by 20cm or so, making the estimation no better than guesswork. Are his legs too long? Pinpointing the middle of the knee-caps, the ankles and the hips is also fraught with sufficient imprecision as not to make it possible to produce ratios to a sufficient level of precision to determine whether they are or not. 3) Does it matter why our opponents are convinced of their beliefs? Well it might. Blind faith will not produce much interest from scientists, but a different interpretation of the evidence might. After all, both sides of the argument are working with exactly the same observations; it is how they interpret them that makes them differ in their conclusions. 4) I was not using the blood as evidence of anything. What I was doing was showing that some of the observations regarding the red stains, such as the apparent lack of potassium, can be interpreted either as evidence that it isn't blood at all, or that it is evidence of severe traumatic haemolysis and the leaking of plasma-borne rather than corpuscle-borne haemoglobin. Similarly, the iron oxide found might be interpreted as red ochre or as the residue of oxidised haemoglobin. 5) In a forum labelled "Religion and Philosophy", I think investigation into why there are such different interpretations of observations is entirely valid. 6) And finally, no I do not think authenticists form a tiny minority. I do not think there has ever been a representative poll, but certainly there are many more published books and papers defending authenticity than there are against it, all of which rely more on scientific than religious arguments for their views. I could not claim that there is a 50/50 split in either direction, but do not believe that the minority, whichever side it is, is negligible. JayUtah. Thank you too. 1) Carbon dating tells us nothing about anatomical precision. Anatomical precision is determined by measurement of the lengths of various parts of the body, and the ratios of those lengths to each other. Two papers will show how variable assessments of these measurements on the Shroud are. Pro-authenticity: "Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud" by Giulio Fanti et al., and Non-authenticity: "The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud" by Gregory S.Paul. Both are available on the internet. 2) Perhaps this was badly worded by me. In order to show that a reasoned hypothesis is incorrect, you have to produce evidence to the contrary. If you demonstrate that the reasoning is faulty or inadequate, you do not show that the hypothesis is incorrect, merely that it is invalid. As it is, of course, no-one (except possibly myself) has demonstrated insufficiency. 3) "Your failure to refute claims of anatomical anomaly would be probative only if you have some sort of credential in anthropometrics." That's a touch petty, if you'll forgive me. Did you need credentials in anthropometrics to to claim that the head looks big or the arms look too long? If you read the non-authenticist paper referenced above you will find a determined conclusion that the head is in fact too small! 4) "You said science can't touch the cloth." I don't understand this whole comment at all, but I certainly didn't say anything as meaningless as "science can't touch the cloth." 5) "You said your ability to dismiss the flimsier claims of your critics constituted evidence in favor of authenticity. In pretty much those words." No. Follow the advice of MRC Hans and read the comments more carefully. I used the words I did with precision, to mean what they said, not "pretty much" what you think they said. To save anyone having to scroll back, here is the relevant sentence: "However, those "historical grey areas" which do not convince me are compelling to many others, and, coupled to a few other bits of geological and biological evidence, and the easy dismissal of many of the less precise arguments put forward in favour of a medieval provenance, constitute a large body of pro-authenticity support." People in favour of authenticity think their views supported by their ability to dismiss the evidence to the contrary. They may be wrong; I think they usually are wrong, but that's what they feel. I suspect that many non-authenticists find support in their easy dismissal of Jabba's authenticist propositions. 6) "You said you believed the preponderance of evidence favors authenticity." Nope. Again, the sentence is: "Many of them, like myself, have spent years considering all the possible factors involved, and differ only in that, unlike myself, they consider that the preponderance of evidence points to authenticity rather than non-authenticity." 7) "If you believe that we must rely on miracles...." Come on, admit it, you haven't actually read what I said at all, have you? That's quite OK, why should you, but if you want to comment on what I believe, then reading what I post would surely help, don't you think? |
6th January 2016, 11:06 AM | #2387 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
And have you tested any of these hypotheses? What was the finding?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In addition there is a variety of affirmative evidence that the shroud is a medieval forgery. It is not necessary to rely solely on the null hypothesis to reject Shroud enthusiasts' claims. One can presume the null, which is that the cloth is not Jesus' burial shroud, or one can affirm the counterargument, which is that the cloth is a medieval forgery. Either one is a "non-authenticist" position, but the former requires nothing more than the inability of sindonists to supply affirmative evidence.
Quote:
As a matter of fact I do have formal training in anthropometrics (though not extensive) and in photographic analysis of the type that would be applicable here, but I did not intend that to be the basis of my statement. I have not personally attempted any anthropometrical analysis of the image. I cited anthropometrics as a scientific discipline that applies to testing authenticity of the cloth. You seem to have agreed, by your citation of what you propose are scientific treatises in the field.
Quote:
As to the rest: yes, I misread your earlier posts. I apologize for the misunderstanding. |
6th January 2016, 12:20 PM | #2388 |
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
|
If the 'god'-spiel accounts of the crucifiction are to be taken historically, the body would nt have been "hanging from a cross" long enough for the onset of rigor to have affected the muscles of the core, which takes six hours or more to begin developing.
If the historicity of the crucifiction accounts is to be rejected, peripheral rigor demonstrable preceded core rigor; that is, for thee spine to develop rigor such that a curve or foreshortening would be preserved, the arms would have already been fixed in a raised position. Special pleading, based on a superficial understanding of the process and progression of post-mortem rigor. Special pleading based upon conjecture, driven by a misconception. If the arms were flaccid enough to stretch down to cover the genitals, they would have been flaccid enough for the elbows to fall to the sides, and the spine would have been flaccid enough to lose the claimed "drawn up" position (an odd thing, BTW, for gravity to do to a hanging spine...). None of which deals with the "strips" of linen said to be said to be "wrapped" around the body... No evidence of such a "pillow" or "mattress" has been presented, nor is such recorded in the crucifiction accounts. Raw special pleading, hoping for an unevidenced "pillow" or "mattress" The only reason a "pillow" or "mattress" is proposed is to explain away the inconvenience of the anatomical impossibility of the"shroud slouch". All of which have been proposed as ad hoc solutions; driven, not by the discovery of evidence, but by creative conjecture as ways to explain away evidence in the face of an assumed consequent. Business as usual... |
__________________
"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 |
|
6th January 2016, 12:34 PM | #2389 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Among the description we have of the burial is that it was carried out according to Jewish custom. Did those customs include a pillow or mattress? I'd be surprised...
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 12:43 PM | #2390 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 12:47 PM | #2391 |
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 |
|
6th January 2016, 12:49 PM | #2392 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,333
|
It's important to note that Hugh Farey is presenting arguments that pro-authenticists frequently use. These are not his personal beliefs (I think).
This should not change anyone's reaction to the argument, but I'm pretty sure that Hugh understands the weaknesses of the arguments he's presenting. I don't think he's presenting the arguments to persuade skeptics that they are valid. Ward |
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~ - Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347 |
|
6th January 2016, 02:46 PM | #2393 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
6th January 2016, 04:37 PM | #2394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
6th January 2016, 04:52 PM | #2395 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
|
I don't know how often I have to say that I m not convinced by authenticist arguments before it sinks in. Wardenclyffe is entirely correct. My point is not that these arguments are valid, but that they do exist, and that they are convincing to a great many perfectly intelligent, rational people. I am honoured that I count among my friends Barrie Schwortz, a Jew by birth and a scientific photographer by trade, who has become convinced by the evidence that the Shroud is genuine, and flatter myself that he counts among his friends myself, a Catholic by birth and a Science teacher by trade, who has become convinced by exactly the same evidence that the Shroud is medieval. There are, no doubt, non-authenticists who think that Barrie is an idiot, and there are certainly authenticists who think that I am damned, but these are simplistic reductions of what could be a fruitful field of 'religion and philosophy' enquiry.
Slowvehicle raises the issue of "special pleading" which I think is worth addressing. The term suggests some kind of unjustified exemption from the norm, and in order to be adduced, there ought to be a norm from which some exemption can be claimed. The trouble with the Shroud is that it is unique. Whether it is ancient or medieval, it cannot be compared to anything similar. The nature of Second Temple Jewish burial seems almost invariably to have involved moving the remains of the deceased into an ossuary after a year or so, at which time the rotted shrouds, if any, seems to have been discarded. The nature of 1st century Roman crucifixion is attested by one single heelbone with a nail through it. If any crucified person, whether of any religious significance or not, has left us his shroud, then it could only be via an extraordinary, and, self evidently unique, accumulation of circumstances. The term "special pleading" can hardly apply in these circumstances. Similarly, however, barely a single example of such fine linen survives from the middle ages, and no example at all of an image of two bodies lying in head to head, front and back juxtaposition. There is no evidence that Shroud is in anyway typical of any medieval tradition - but then, since no similar medieval cloths remain to compare it with, the concept of "special pleading" can hardly apply in these circumstances either. Regarding rigor mortis, its onset, progress and duration are extremely variable, depending on the circumstances and environment of the death. Cadaveric spasm, which occasionally occurs in circumstances of violent death, and is superficially indistinguishable from rigor mortis, into which it develops, is almost instantaneous, and it can continue almost indefinitely. An interesting old article entitled "The phenomena of death in battle" by George L. Kilmer is highly recommended for its observations, although its medical conclusions, being over 100 years old, may have been superceded by more recent information. To suggest that a crucified body might be in a state of rigor mortis when it is entombed does not seem like special pleading in the light of these observations - quite the reverse, in fact. Some pathologists have suggested that Jesus was actually carried to the tomb with his arms outstretched, either as they were on the cross or still fastened to the crossbeam, which were then forcibly brought downwards, and possibly tied at the wrist, to facilitate burial. Another thing non-authenticists ought to avoid is too much reliance on the King James Bible's account for an accurate description of the events surrounding the suffering, death and burial of Jesus Christ. If John 19:40 (about the burial customs) is an accurate account, then so, presumably is John 20:12 (in which two Angels appear to Mary Magdalene). Why not? Furthermore, we really have little idea what the burial customs really were, or how they might have been amendable in the case of a) a convicted criminal or b) the imminence of the Sabbath. If they were completed on the evening of Jesus's death, then we must ask ourselves why the women went back two days later, for example. Archaeological evidence is extremely meagre, and written instructions either date from hundreds of years before, or tens of years after, the events of the crucifixion. |
6th January 2016, 04:58 PM | #2396 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
How does your friend address the carbon dating?
How does anything in the above paragraphs address the carbon dating? It's all very well to speculate about the provenance of an apparently medieval cloth for which the actual date is not known. It's something else for self-professed men of reason to speculate about the provenance of an apparently medieval cloth that has been conclusively dated to the Middle Ages. |
6th January 2016, 05:28 PM | #2397 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,257
|
Okay, you don't like the term "special pleading" when applied to the unique shroud. I think the method of argument described is still special pleading, but we can call it ad hoc rationalization if you would prefer. The image on the cloth doesn't look the way one would expect a dead body lying on its back to look. Instead of accepting that it may just be an artistic representation, shroud supporters look for reasons to explain the problem away. "Maybe it's cadaveric spasm." Okay, why aren't his arms still outstretched? "Well maybe his arms were forced down and tied over the genitals." Why isn't he leaning forward more (assuming his head fell forward as he died)? "Well maybe he was on a mattress or a pillow."
It all depends on "well maybe..." without any actual evidence. I have on occasion addressed the Shakespeare Authorship "controversy." One problem Shakespeare-deniers have to overcome is the rather large amount of contemporary evidence that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. For instance, "Venus and Adonis," "The Rape of Lucrece," and many of the plays were published during his lifetime in his name. Shakespeare-deniers have to come up with an explanation for this. "Well, yeah, but the name was hyphenated, so maybe it actually refers to someone else!" The rational response to this is, "Wait, what?" The "well maybe the body was placed on a mattress" argument seems precious little better. I realize that you are not an authenticist and that these arguments don't represent your personal views, but, whether you want to call it special pleading or not, it is still a fallacious form of argument. In my experience, it's also a never-ending argument. There will always be another "well maybe" or "well perhaps it was this." |
6th January 2016, 05:42 PM | #2398 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You, like I, tend to write walls of text from which important details don't emerge at first. Not to say you should change your style, but if more than a few people miss important points, consider that not all of them are dense.
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th January 2016, 06:26 PM | #2399 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 506
|
Gosh. I think I agree with all that!
|
6th January 2016, 06:42 PM | #2400 |
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
|
Much risibility in your post.
I don't care if you, personally, believe the sidonist suite of inventions, or not--if you present them, especially without disclaimer or rejoinder of your own, the arguments are fair game. You are also a bit misled about what constitutes, in this case, the "special pleading". Look, for instance, at objections to the 14C dating. As an example, consider the multiple contradictory "...[u]patching.../U]" "theories. No person who has ever handled the CIQ, with the opportunity to look at both sides, and examine the weave that way, has ever seen, or alluded to, any kind of "repair" or "patch" in the sampled area. The claims that there "could be", or "must be", or even might be conjectured to be" a "patch (that was, oddly enough, utterly overlooked when the sampling site was selected, and completely consumed in the sampling) are driven not by evidence of a "patch", but by the pre-assumed conclusion that the 14C date must be "wrong", where "wrong" means, "not 1st Century C.E.". It is the argument for the invisible pink unicorn in the garage all over again. Consider the claims you make about rigor mortis. While the onset of rigor can, in fact, be delayed or advanced by environmental influences, the progress of rigor is well-understood, depending as it does upon antemortem blood circulation, blood chemistry and cellular respiration, and the masses of the muscles themselves. To present a facile conjecture that "rigor may have been different in the crucifiction" is to completely sidestep the idea that if the large muscles of the trunk were in rigor or tetany to the extent that the spine would be immovably flexed, the shoulders and arms would have been in an even more advanced state of rigor, and locked into the supracaudal position of the body depending from them. The same holds for cadaveric spasm, or cataleptic rigidity. If the trunk were in rigor, the limbs would be more so. As far as "to much reliance" on the "King James Bible", oh, dear--have you been reading the argument? The Koiné noun "ὀθόνιον (g3608) is rendered as "clothes" in the KJV, but the word means "strips", as in bandages or mummy-wrappings. Further, the Koiné verb, δέω (g1210) means "wrapped", or "bound", not "laid gently upon" (See John 11:44 for comparison, but do use the Koiné, not the KJV). See also (for instance) the NJB for a translation more faithful to the Koiné. If the 'god'spiel account is not to be taken as authoritative, what price "authenticity"? What doth it profit a sidonist if they gain "sheet" and loose the entire MJ? Conjecture that the "burial customs of the Jews" might have been superceded begs the question as to why "John" would be said to be said to have used the phrase...or why the levitical injunctions about treating dead bodies might have passed from use. The only reason to claim so is, you guessed it, to buttress up (without evidence) the special pleading that this corpse may have been "different", or treated differently. And so it goes. |
__________________
"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 | |
|
|