Miracle of the Shroud III - Revenge of the Cloth

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aepervius

Non credunt, semper verificare
A
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
14,571
Location
Sigil, the city of doors
The previous thread was getting long, so a new continuation has been opened. The split point was arbitrary and you may quote from or link to the previous threads into this one. For reference, the first thread is HERE and the second HERE.
Posted By: Agatha


Vixen said:
Not analogous at all. The correct analogy is that 200 labs up to ISO standard be randomly allocated samples from various different areas, with a further number of labs having a dummy sample, with none of the labs knowing which type they received, together with a control sample which looks identical to the original.

Nowhere did I say one lab should test all of it x 200 times.

(200 is a suggested figure to make statistical analysis robust.)

But then you knew what I meant.
Click to expand...

If you want a better analogy I gave one above.

What you are asking is equivalent of taking 200 blood probe to test for diabetes.
But nobody does that because the sample is uniform. You take one sample, at most 2.
The same was done here : the cloth construction is as uniform as it can be so the sample area is enough and 3 labs is overkill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
"Everyone" = appealing to the crowd: logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is a fallacy when others do it, but you are happy to tell us about 1.5 million people visiting the shroud.

Be consistent. Reject both or accept both.

ETA: especially when one is about a consensus reached by conclusion (what you false called appeal to the crowd) and the other is jsut wishful crowd thinking
 
Slowvehicle said:
it would be interesting to see how many students would be able to figure out that the representation is not an anatomically possible human being, based only on the forensic anatomy...
Click to expand...

Why? Wasn't Jesus a character from Matteus Groeningus?

[Sorry ... I can't believe this thread ever exist]

By the way, anecdote: We have in Argentina one of the true negatives of the Sudarium. It happens that the piece of cloth was wrapped between two sheets to protect it after the famous fire. Some time later they unwrapped it and discovered that both sheet contained a copy like a "modern" negative image of the Sudarium. In the 1570s the Pope decided to give them as a present, one copy to the King of Spain and the other to the King of France. The copy for the Spanish kings was sent to America and ended up in 1585 in the cathedral of recently settled Santiago del Estero City (already then the King didn't give a damn about this crook and sent the fetish away to a dirty God forgiven outpost of the Spanish Empire).
 
Vixen said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10754705#post10754705
Click to expand...

Let's see: you made the following accusation:
Vixen said:
IIRC the OP said he was a computer programmer and I was some kind of a retard.
Click to expand...

the post to which you link says:

Belz... said:
NO !
Are you ever right about anything ?
Scientific consensus isn't a popularity contest.
You are in no position to call fallacies. Clean up that beam in your eye first, and get an education in science, and then come back here. Your contributions are worse than useless, they are misleading and insulting.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you would be so kind as to point out where that post says anything about you being "some kind or r*****"? You appear to be projecting, dishonestly reporting another poster's words.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Why? Wasn't Jesus a character from Matteus Groeningus?

[Sorry ... I can't believe this thread ever exist]

By the way, anecdote: We have in Argentina one of the true negatives of the Sudarium. It happens that the piece of cloth was wrapped between two sheets to protect it after the famous fire. Some time later they unwrapped it and discovered that both sheet contained a copy like a "modern" negative image of the Sudarium. In the 1570s the Pope decided to give them as a present, one copy to the King of Spain and the other to the King of France. The copy for the Spanish kings was sent to America and ended up in 1585 in the cathedral of recently settled Santiago del Estero City (already then the King didn't give a damn about this crook and sent the fetish away to a dirty God forgiven outpost of the Spanish Empire).
Click to expand...

Keeping the "E" in ISF... :bigclap
 
Vixen said:
Two hundred is accepted as the statistically random number of samples, or subjects, to aim for. This irons out results that are outwith ± 2.15 standard deviations. Unless you have enough samples, you will have difficulty calculating the 98% siginificance level.
Click to expand...

I keep reading this claim and it is pure nonsense. If you are sampling from a population of 201, there is no need for 200 samples to gain statistical significance. If you have a population of, say, 315 million (USA) then 200 is way too low.

Please at least try to stay grounded.

ETA: I see others have covered this better than I. Sorry for the piling on.
 
Giordano said:
Why would they [visitors to the Shroud] become convinced on further testing?
Click to expand...
Actually, I wonder how many even know of previous testing at all. I'll speculate damn few.

Also, if I was able to see the Shroud, I surely would take advantage of the opportunity even knowing it is a fake. It is a famous fake thus worth seeing on its own right.
 
Dinwar said:
Most C14 samples are taken by one person, alone, out in the middle of nowhere. ONE part of this sample process wasn't witnessed. You want to throw it out because of that. The mind boggles.
Click to expand...
Moreover, it goes back to your earlier point about accusations of dishonesty. For this one single step in the overall process to invalidate the result the person doing the packaging would have to have been dishonest or thoroughly incompetent. That is not a small accusation and, in this case, is baseless (as far as I know). Shame on Vixen.
 
Kid Eager said:
This ^^^^ , as has already been stated mutiple times.

The only people with anything to lose in a redo of the CIQ, and the only people who could allow said redo, is the Vatican.
Click to expand...

Again, I thought the Church accepted it was probably a fake, so what they'd be losing was an irreplaceable medieval antique.

Vixen said:
Slowvehicle said:
Vixen said:
IIRC the OP said he was a computer programmer and I was some kind of a retard.
Click to expand...
suggest you support this calumny, or retract it and apologize.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10754705#post10754705
Click to expand...


This?

Belz... said:
NO !

Are you ever right about anything ?

Scientific consensus isn't a popularity contest.



You are in no position to call fallacies. Clean up that beam in your eye first, and get an education in science, and then come back here. Your contributions are worse than useless, they are misleading and insulting.
Click to expand...


Belz was just pointing out that you seem deficient in understanding science, I suggest this is willful.
 
Vixen:

If your proposed protocol for using 200 labs to date samples from the Shroud were to be done, what would you expect the shape of the results distribution curve to be? (ie - would you expect the distribution to be a bell curve, a straight line, a diagonal line etc.)

I believe that your answer to this will show people here how much you really know about statistics.
 
Vixen said:
We can see adaptation and natural selection. We have species and sub species. We have genii, genomes, DNA.

..........

However, did we once swing from trees to slowly change into humans? I believe humans have always been humans. I think Genesis is pretty accurate as the creation story.
Click to expand...
Since follow up on this comment is off topic, I started this thread.

In case she misses this post, I'll inform her via PM.
 
If your proposed protocol for using 200 labs to date samples from the Shroud were to be done, what would you expect the shape of the results distribution curve to be? (ie - would you expect the distribution to be a bell curve, a straight line, a diagonal line etc.)

I believe that your answer to this will show people here how much you really know about statistics
Click to expand...

PizzaHutt You would not get a normal distribution on a string of results on carbon testing. A normal distribution relies on a mean where 50% of a population falls within ±1 sd of the mean within the Gaussaian equation.

My point was about the value of good sampling. Even the original 1988 protocol recommended seven labs to sample three specimens of the same patch.

For a string of data from different machines you would find the standard deviation and you could apply chi squared or ANOVA

Depending on the type of results you get you might well find one or two bizarre results thrown out ceteris parabus which nonetheless are not due to error, but could be a tiny area with rapid CO2 decay. This could show a stochastic (_sp)range.

Without seeing the results you cannot tell what sort of deviations from the mean will get.
 
SezMe said:
I keep reading this claim and it is pure nonsense. If you are sampling from a population of 201, there is no need for 200 samples to gain statistical significance. If you have a population of, say, 315 million (USA) then 200 is way too low.

Please at least try to stay grounded.

ETA: I see others have covered this better than I. Sorry for the piling on.
Click to expand...

It depends on what type of experiment you are doing. You as an individual might find it difficult to sample a US population of 380m. OTOH you need to be careful your sample size is not too small. To be on the safe side mentors will broadly advise students to aim for 200 if sampling a normal distribution to ensure the minimum amount of sampling error. This will depend on factors such as time, cost and feasibility.

As this is only a forum, I shan't be writing a textbook, as all of this is easily searchable on the internet.
 
Vixen said:
PizzaHutt You would not get a normal distribution on a string of results on carbon testing. A normal distribution relies on a mean where 50% of a population falls within ±1 sd of the mean within the Gaussaian equation.

My point was about the value of good sampling. Even the original 1988 protocol recommended seven labs to sample three specimens of the same patch.

For a string of data from different machines you would find the standard deviation and you could apply chi squared or ANOVA

Depending on the type of results you get you might well find one or two bizarre results thrown out ceteris parabus which nonetheless are not due to error, but could be a tiny area with rapid CO2 decay. This could show a stochastic (_sp)range.

Without seeing the results you cannot tell what sort of deviations from the mean will get.
Click to expand...

The question was, "What kind of distribution would you expect?"
 
jimbob said:
Again, I thought the Church accepted it was probably a fake, so what they'd be losing was an irreplaceable medieval antique.




This?




Belz was just pointing out that you seem deficient in understanding science, I suggest this is willful.
Click to expand...


Belz comment is pure ad hominem and there is nothing to answer. I am educated in science being a BSc(Hons).
 
Vixen said:
It depends on what type of experiment you are doing. You as an individual might find it difficult to sample a US population of 380m. OTOH you need to be careful your sample size is not too small. To be on the safe side mentors will broadly advise students to aim for 200 if sampling a normal distribution to ensure the minimum amount of sampling error. This will depend on factors such as time, cost and feasibility.
Click to expand...


How big does your sample need to be for a population of 1?
 
SezMe said:
Moreover, it goes back to your earlier point about accusations of dishonesty. For this one single step in the overall process to invalidate the result the person doing the packaging would have to have been dishonest or thoroughly incompetent. That is not a small accusation and, in this case, is baseless (as far as I know). Shame on Vixen.
Click to expand...

My source about the testing dissent came from De Wesselow. One of the objections he listed was the fact of no independent witness for the packaging.

Nowhere did he nor I say the "test should therefore be scrapped".

Yours and Dinwar's claim I am "dishonest" on this basis is pure ad hominem. Logical fallacy : attack the person not the argument, which in this case is a valid one.
 
Vixen said:
It depends on what type of experiment you are doing. You as an individual might find it difficult to sample a US population of 380m. OTOH you need to be careful your sample size is not too small. To be on the safe side mentors will broadly advise students to aim for 200 if sampling a normal distribution to ensure the minimum amount of sampling error. This will depend on factors such as time, cost and feasibility.

As this is only a forum, I shan't be writing a textbook, as all of this is easily searchable on the internet.
Click to expand...

The 'population' of Turin Shrouds is exactly 1. You won't have a normal distribution of any significance, unless the dating mechanism is faulty, in which case the test is useless anyway.

ETA: what Mojo said...
 
Vixen said:
PizzaHutt You would not get a normal distribution on a string of results on carbon testing. A normal distribution relies on a mean where 50% of a population falls within ±1 sd of the mean within the Gaussaian equation.

My point was about the value of good sampling. Even the original 1988 protocol recommended seven labs to sample three specimens of the same patch.

For a string of data from different machines you would find the standard deviation and you could apply chi squared or ANOVA

Depending on the type of results you get you might well find one or two bizarre results thrown out ceteris parabus which nonetheless are not due to error, but could be a tiny area with rapid CO2 decay. This could show a stochastic (_sp)range.
Click to expand...

The highlighted is a perfect demonstration that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom