|
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. |
7th February 2016, 01:18 PM | #3321 |
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 |
|
7th February 2016, 01:46 PM | #3322 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
7th February 2016, 01:48 PM | #3323 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
7th February 2016, 02:02 PM | #3324 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Well, there's your problem. Google simply presents you with the results it thinks you want. What you will get from those searches are simply the most contemporary artists that have done so. This is superficial. It is simply how google works.
Had you done any actual research, you would know that blood has been used as an art material for thousands of years, indeed tens of thousands of years. Yet you didn't do the requisite research. Why? I suggest that deep down you knew beforehand what such research would show and you simply preferred to avoid those facts which torpedo your claims. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
7th February 2016, 03:45 PM | #3325 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
And you're surprised that these obvious straw men netted you nothing? You have the burden of proof to show that blood is probative of authenticity. Showing your bias and your utter ineptitude at research doesn't do it. I was able to find quite a few references, with a properly worded search, for using blood as an art medium as far back as cave paintings. References exist. You just want to pretend they don't.
I was kind enough to give you a detailed rebuttal to your latest reset attempt. Don't be so rude as to simply wander off into the Google weeds. |
7th February 2016, 05:41 PM | #3326 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
8th February 2016, 07:48 AM | #3327 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Dishonest, based not only on search terms carefully chosen to avoid any relevant "hits," but also more on the overall notion of shifting the burden of proof. He's the one claiming blood is probative of authenticity. He suggests that people have to disprove him by establishing that alternatives are somehow commonplace or ubiquitous, not just available. Meanwhile he gets to invoke miracles to explain his side.
But then again, blood was used in art throughout history, both as a pigment and as a binder. Jabba is, in my judgment, feigning incompetence so as to burden his critics to act as teachers, do research, and post lengthy expostulations which he will ignore. That way experienced critics get wise and abandon Jabba to his wallow -- a circumstance he has already defined as victory for him. They're replaced (hopefully) by new critics against which Jabba can deploy anew the few long-debunked arguments he has, and thereby prolong his contrived sense of relevance. |
8th February 2016, 09:00 AM | #3328 |
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 |
|
8th February 2016, 09:19 AM | #3329 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Logically incorrect, as you're simply affirming the consequent again. There is another explanation: you, among all the people who can find that evidence, simply don't want to acknowledge it. So you pretend you can't find it, and that this deficiency is somehow binding on the rest of the world. Stop hiding in the bailey and venture out onto the motte where evidence is plentiful.
Quote:
There's a huge difference between the expectation of finding "some" blood on a burial shroud and the expectation of blood as depicted on the cloth. You base your expectation on what you presume to be the circumstances of Jesus' burial. But like many others you pick and choose from what we know of the burial customs, omitting those that would preclude such a volume of blood exuding from a prepared corpse. You talk a big game about "circumstantial evidence," but just as with all the other claims you make, you simply cherry-pick even from circumstances. Elementary physics also gives us reason to consider the stains a depiction rather than as the credible flow of blood. Hence you have equivocated "blood in general" to "'blood' as depicted on the cloth." Shame on you! |
8th February 2016, 09:30 AM | #3330 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Indeed, I mentioned above that Jabba has yet to prove it's blood. You're right in saying the rest of the discussion is just coffeehouse bull until he does that. But he knows he can't so he wants to jump over the hard part of the discussion (where the facts are less contested) and wallow in the whence-the-blood? speculation.
How much do you want to bet Mr. Bayes makes another appearance? How much do you want to bet Jabba attempts the same circular-reasoning trick using Bayes as he did with the limestone? |
8th February 2016, 09:37 AM | #3331 |
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 |
|
8th February 2016, 09:45 AM | #3332 |
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 |
|
8th February 2016, 10:06 AM | #3333 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Really? Why would you say that? According to the bible, he was buried according to Jewish custom, which means the body was washed beforehand. Why should there be any blood on it.
And if it is authentic, why does the image look like that? And please answer that without invoking a miracle. If it is authentic, there should be two cloths, and it should look like it was wrapped around. That doesn't look like it was wrapped around a body at all. So what I'd say is that, if it were an authentic burial cloth of Jesus, it shouldn't have all that much blood on it, and any blood would certainly not be in a pattern that looks like a 2D projection. See? It's real easy to make blatant assertions... |
__________________
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 |
|
8th February 2016, 10:19 AM | #3334 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
A.k.a., the "converse error" or "converse accident." He wrongly thinks Bayes allows him to say that. Bayes requires you to quantify your belief "A (blood) is likely given B (authenticity)." As with the limestone he's really trying hard to get us to let him beg that question. Bayes lets you quantify an a priori belief in B (authenticity). Then, either hypothetically or in fact, it lets you assert A and see its result in a change in B.
Naturally with Jabba's inputs you see a rise in B. The algebra inevitably produces that effect, but not as a consequence of real-world behavior. This is why fringe claimants are so enamored with the method. Misused as they do, it produces what seems to be a computed result but which is in fact just an algebraic parlour trick. This happens because the algebra bears heavily on that previous quantitative requirement: "How likely do you think it is that an authentic shroud will have blood on it?" If your previous answer was "a lot," then the increase in B is simply a mindless numerical reflection of your preconception, "a lot." The interplay between likelihoods of blood-if-authentic and blood-if-artifice is what wrestles the amplitude and sign that pertain to the gain of B. (I'm using signal-processing jargon in hopes that it makes more practical sense to readers, over the abstract language of statistics. Fringe claimants hope readers will get bogged down in esoteric vocabulary and not realize what the math is actually doing.) The gain on B depends entirely on how you decide those initial likelihoods, which is why actual courses on Bayes focus in great detail on the objective formulation of those terms. Fringe claimants like Jabba simply plugin their preconceived beliefs. |
8th February 2016, 10:25 AM | #3335 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
If it is an authentic shroud, there is a high likelihood that there will be some sort of image of the body on it. If it's not a burial cloth, it is more likely that there would be no image at all on it, and it would just be a tarp.
Therefore, using a Bayesian approach, the presence of an image strongly weights in favor of authenticity. Or something like that. |
__________________
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 |
|
8th February 2016, 01:05 PM | #3336 |
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|