ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 24th November 2015, 06:21 PM   #1601
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,

- Since I seem incapable of understanding what Jay is saying, I'll try addressing what you 're saying...

- I think that the key here lies is in the appropriate definition of "conjecture."
- There are slight variations between the different attempts to define "conjecture." One of those given is simply "guesswork."
- Then, from
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...e%20definition, however, we get
- an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
- To me, what we find in the M/P papers are examples of the latter -- and, what's the difference between that kind of a conjecture and "judgment"?

- So, it seems to me that what we have in the M/P papers are a bunch of expert judgments. And, expert judgments are considered "evidence."
Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

This is (one of) the equivocal part(s) of your "effective debate".

JayUtah has done a very competent job calling you on your tendency to cherry-pick among dubiously equivalent meanings of a word, so I shall not re-plow his furrows.

I will, however, repeat this point, which I made earlier, and you ignored:

What is lacking is a basis for the conjectures you wish you could transmogrify into evidence by sheer weight of numbers.

As I have pointed out before, the only basis for the invention of the idea of the "invisible" reweave, or the "near-invisible" reweave, or the "undetectable" repair, or even "...some patching" is the annoying (to you) fact that the most-scrutinized bit of 14C dating ever undertaken triply-redundantly returned the "wrong" date--"wrong" because it disagreed with the sidonists' assumed consequent (an assumed consequent to which you, yourself, adhere) that the CIQ must be ~2000 years old.

What is lacking is evidence: "Look--here are anomalous fibers, where a repair was wrought; see--this is where the CIQ was rent, that a repair was needed; feel--these are the splices of the heretofore unsuspected compromise of the original integrity of the CIQ."

The conjectures you hope to amass into evidence are not based upon observation, but upon supposition: an attempt to explain away the "wrong" date without any other support than forlorn hope.

The result of adding empty assertions is not consilience.

The plural of "fervent, pious hope" is not "evidence"

No matter how often you repeat your unsupported assertions.

Have you repaired the gross deficiencies in your "map", yet?
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 06:53 PM   #1602
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,

- Since I seem incapable of understanding what Jay is saying, I'll try addressing what you 're saying...

[...]
And you missed that too.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 07:01 PM   #1603
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[snippety]

expert judgments are considered "evidence."
-No, no, and seventy times no. Expert judgement is worthless unless it is itself based on solid evidence.

-Opinions, even those of experts, do not constitute evidence.
-Where in the world would you get such a fanciful idea?

-Get real. Evidence is all that should be discussed. You have none.

-You must admit your position is based on faith. You already admitted you need to appeal to paranormal events, might as well be honest with yourself and accept the truth.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Maurice Ledifficile; 24th November 2015 at 07:02 PM.
Maurice Ledifficile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 10:39 PM   #1604
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
 
PizzaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
Jabba's responses have now degenerated into posting dictionary definitions. And when there are multiple definitions for a word (which all essentially mean the same thing), he agonizes and nitpicks over which definition he should use. Jabba has now done more research into the definitions of a few words than he's done on the shroud itself. Amazing.

Last edited by PizzaTheHutt; 24th November 2015 at 10:41 PM.
PizzaTheHutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 03:37 AM   #1605
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,185
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
*snip*

- So, it seems to me that what we have in the M/P papers are a bunch of expert judgments. And, expert judgments are considered "evidence."
Let's have a look at this while we wait (and wait, and wait ...):

(Sorry to address you in 3rd person here, Jabba, but since you don't seem to read my posts ....)

Here, we have another example of equivocation. There is an expert who seems to express an opinion, so Jabba claims we have an "expert opinion", which is evidence.

However, as many other terms, 'expert opinion' has more than one meaning.

The cases Jabba quotes seem (pending evidence to the contrary) to be opinions from people who may or may not be relevant experts. This is really at best just the opinions of experts, and is conjecture, not evidence.

There is another kind of expert opinon, which IS evidence: Here you request (and nearly always pay for, sometimes dearly) an expert to investigate a case and deliver, normally in writing, an expert judgement on what evidence exists and the weight and credibility of that evidence. This kind of 'expert opinion' is much akin to a formal witness statement, and can indeed be presented on court as such. I have made some of those myself (in my own area of expertice).

Obviously, none of the statements referred by Jabba are of the latter kind.

In fact most of them aren't even of the first type, since the persons are not experts in a relevant field.

However, I'm sure we are ready to address each of them in some detail, should Jabba wish to do so.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 04:29 AM   #1606
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
To summarise so far. Jabba has completely failed to dent the mountain of evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake. In fact he's refused to even address most of it.

Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with some forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, e.g. fading of colour, since its first exposure.

Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).

Textile: the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.

Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a held to be a known fake not many year later.

Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.

Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval techniques.

Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin. Further the cloth was subjected to an extraordinarily comprehensive radiocarbon dating that produced an age value in accordance with the other evidence.

Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices (including the only actual sample of such cloths) or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.

Or, for those who prefer pictures;

__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 05:31 AM   #1607
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Let's see here. I am an expert liquid chromatographer, and have been published in a peer-reviewed journal for pesticide residue analysis. I work for the largest private laboratory system in the world.

I say that the CIQ is an artifact from the middle ages. So according to Jabba, I'm giving my expert opinion. The case is closed.


ETA: Unlike most sindonologists, I followed the evidence listed here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1606 before I came to any conclusions.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 25th November 2015 at 05:34 AM.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 06:37 AM   #1608
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
<respectful snip for focus>
Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

I'm about to go make multiple pies for a Thanksgiving Day celebration to which I have been invited, tomorrow, but before the storm, I wonder if you might indulge me a question. To what faith, or faith tradition, do you belong?

I have just finished reading Phyllis Pickle's useful little book, The Great Emergence. I highly recommend it to you. One concept, in particular, cast light for me; she calls it "orthonomy": "...to Emergents [emergent christians] the Virgin Birth [for example] is so beautiful it has to be true, whether it happened or not."

It seems that is the stance you take toward the CIQ: that it is so beautiful to you that it has to be true, whether it happened or not.

That is the only reason I am curious about the flavor of organized belief to which you confess. PM me if you would rather not say in public...I will not share it.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 25th November 2015 at 06:49 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 06:53 AM   #1609
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
<respectful snip for focus>
There is another kind of expert opinon, which IS evidence: Here you request (and nearly always pay for, sometimes dearly) an expert to investigate a case and deliver, normally in writing, an expert judgement on what evidence exists and the weight and credibility of that evidence. This kind of 'expert opinion' is much akin to a formal witness statement, and can indeed be presented on court as such. I have made some of those myself (in my own area of expertice).
<respectful snip>
Hans
highlighting added by JFSVH

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Please be so good as to read, and reflect upon, and absorb, this excellent bit.
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 07:43 AM   #1610
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

This is (one of) the equivocal part(s) of your "effective debate".

JayUtah has done a very competent job calling you on your tendency to cherry-pick among dubiously equivalent meanings of a word, so I shall not re-plow his furrows.

I will, however, repeat this point, which I made earlier, and you ignored:

What is lacking is a basis for the conjectures you wish you could transmogrify into evidence by sheer weight of numbers...
Slowvehicle,
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

Entry: #1
Date: 1976
Data Category: General possibility of repairs
Evidence: Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my
examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in
the historical records
(the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess
Clotilde).‖
Source: Delorenzi, Enzo: 1976. ―Observations on the Patches and Darns in the Holy Shroud.‖
In Doyle, E., M.Green, Fr., & V. Ossola (Trans.) Report of Turin Commission on the Holy
Shroud (pp. 108-123). Unpublished. Translation of La S. Sindone: Ricerche e studi della
Commissione di Esperti nominata dall‘Arcivescovo di Torino, Card. Michele Pellegrino, nel.
Comments: This indicates that the Shroud could have received undocumented repairs in its
history. The report describes various documented repairs in the C-14 sample area, including a
repair by the Poor Clare Nuns in 1973 after the Raes sample extraction (piece extracted by
Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes). These repairs may or may not have appeared in part or in
whole in the adjacent sample used for the C-14 test in 1988. The person responsible for
extracting this sample, Italian scientist Giovanni Riggi, never mentions these threads as
specifically being eliminated from the sample. However, a drawing by Riggi (found in BonnetEymard,
Bruno, ―The Carbon 14 Dating,‖ Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century,
April 1991, No.238, pg. 2), and a statement by Riggi demonstrate some recognition that darning
may have overlapped part of the sample and that he attempted to cut a portion of the threads out.
(See entry number 8 in this section.)


- You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent). One of his conclusions was, "I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records."
- I see this as "expert opinion." I just wouldn't accord it a whole lot of weight, without more info -- i.e., the subject of Delorenzi's expertise, to what extent he studied the shroud and to what extent (if any) he explained his impression.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 07:47 AM   #1611
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,958
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I see this as "expert opinion."
It is not. You were told what constituted expert opinion, and it is not linguistical legerdemain.

Quote:
I just wouldn't accord it a whole lot of weight, without more info
It has no probative value whatsoever without evidence, such as what specific and objective observation led to his "impression." Delorenzi is a radiologist, not an expert in textiles or weaving. He is not a relevant expert. He cannot be assumed to be so familiar with ancient clothmaking techniques that his mere "impression" proves the conclusion he draws. His opinion therefore lacks the elements of foundation and is worthless as proof.

Last edited by JayUtah; 25th November 2015 at 07:58 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 08:16 AM   #1612
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

Entry: #1<snip for space>

- You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent).
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Be so kind as not to put words in my mouth, as in the highlighted

In what area, specifically, do you consider Pro. Delorenzi to be an "expert"?

Further, as far as is recorded, Prof. Delorenzi did not, in fact, handle the CIQ, but observed it in its frame.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
One of his conclusions was, "I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records."
That is not a "conclusion", no matter how much you want to play word games (about which, BTW, you may be pulling too long a bow...). That is, at best, a "surmise", or a "conjecture". Nowhere does Prof. Delorenzi justify his "impression" with concrete evidence (of the kind I described for you, above). Nor does his "impression" bear upon his area of expertise...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I see this as "expert opinion." I just wouldn't accord it a whole lot of weight, without more info -- i.e., the subject of Delorenzi's expertise, to what extent he studied the shroud and to what extent (if any) he explained his impression.
No, this is, at best, a "surmise" by someone who may be considered an "expert" in a field other than textile technique.

Go discover for yourself the area in which Prof. Delorenzi may be considered an "expert".

As far as is recorded, Prof. Delorenzi observed the CIQ in situ, without handling it; and suggested tests consonant with his area of expertise.

Prof. Delorenzi provided no support for his "impression"; nor did (for instance) Mme F-L when she handled the CIQ and examined it from both sides.

In short, Prof. Delorenzi's "impression" is not the opinion of an expert, in his field of expertise, supported by evidence.

Prof. Delorenzi's "impression" has no probative value, and cannot be considered to contribute even a sucre toward consilience.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 25th November 2015 at 08:17 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 08:29 AM   #1613
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
nm
__________________
"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
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 08:32 AM   #1614
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
I want to do two things:

1. I commend both JayUtah and Slowvehicle for their continued on-point dissection of what little argument Jabba presents. Moreover, they do this dispassionately and without bias, relying solely on evidence.

2. I emphasize that when pressed for his evidence, the list of allegedly expert opinion that is currently being discussed is what Jabba repeatedly falls back upon. Therefore, when it is shown to be sorely lacking, it will be a dismantlement of Jabba's best evidence. It is imperative that this not be let go; he will likely hold onto his insistence on weight of evidence in his favor and will somehow dismiss the fact that his best evidence is bunk. Don't let him.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 25th November 2015 at 09:05 AM. Reason: Fix a reference error - thanks to godless dave
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 08:50 AM   #1615
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

[i][b]Entry: #1
Date: 1976
Data Category: General possibility of repairs<snip>
Recycled rubbish that's been done to death in this thread previously. The site selected for the radiocarbon sampling was examined prior to the sample being removed, there was no magic patch there. Further the subsequent examination of the shroud, including the removal of the backing cloth, also showed no patch was present.

Time to accept the reality of the fourteenth century origin of the shroud.
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 08:55 AM   #1616
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,958
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I commend both JayUtah and Slowvehicle for their continued on-point dissection of what little argument Slowvehicle [Jabba] presents. Moreover, they do this dispassionately and without bias, relying solely on evidence.
FTFY, and thanks!

Quote:
I emphasize that when pressed for his evidence, the list of allegedly expert opinion that is currently being discussed is what Jabba repeatedly falls back upon. Therefore, when it is shown to be sorely lacking, it will be a dismantlement of Jabba's best evidence. It is imperative that this not be let go; he will likely hold onto his insistence on weight of evidence in his favor and will somehow dismiss the fact that his best evidence is bunk. Don't let him.
I agree this is likely; thank you for keeping the idea fresh. The Motte and Bailey approach regarding scope and quality of data is a well established pattern in fringe argumentation. For another example, go back a few years ago to Robert Prey in the JFK debate. He claimed some large number of witnesses testified to the location of the fatal head wound. The strength of his case was, as you guess, in the alleged quantity of evidence. When examined indivdiually, of course, each individual's testimony fell apart. But Prey brushed all that aside and insisted we focus on the ponderance of that evidence.

If a putative expert is disqualified, as Delorenzi has been, then he should be struck from the list, never to be heard about again in the debate.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:08 AM   #1617
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
FTFY, and thanks!
Thanks. I fixed it in the original, too, and credited godless dave who pm'd me.


Originally Posted by JayUtah
I agree this is likely; thank you for keeping the idea fresh. The Motte and Bailey approach regarding scope and quality of data is a well established pattern in fringe argumentation. For another example, go back a few years ago to Robert Prey in the JFK debate. He claimed some large number of witnesses testified to the location of the fatal head wound. The strength of his case was, as you guess, in the alleged quantity of evidence. When examined indivdiually, of course, each individual's testimony fell apart. But Prey brushed all that aside and insisted we focus on the ponderance of that evidence.

If a putative expert is disqualified, as Delorenzi has been, then he should be struck from the list, never to be heard about again in the debate.
Yes. I face the tactic a lot. In one instance it was even admitted and insisted upon by the woo slinger who said something to the effect of:

"You're focusing on the individual pieces. Stop doing that! You need to look at it as a whole!"

There's not a lot to say to that. I came back with some analogy about making sure there are spark plugs and a full tank of gas before I believe your claim that the car will run.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:08 AM   #1618
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
I want to do two things:

1. I commend both JayUtah and Slowvehicle for their continued on-point dissection of what little argument Jabba presents. Moreover, they do this dispassionately and without bias, relying solely on evidence.

2. I emphasize that when pressed for his evidence, the list of allegedly expert opinion that is currently being discussed is what Jabba repeatedly falls back upon. Therefore, when it is shown to be sorely lacking, it will be a dismantlement of Jabba's best evidence. It is imperative that this not be let go; he will likely hold onto his insistence on weight of evidence in his favor and will somehow dismiss the fact that his best evidence is bunk. Don't let him.
TY, sir! Just keeping the "E" in... um... ISF...
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:10 AM   #1619
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
We previously had near invisible patches that were invisible, and now we have documentation of undocumented repairs. The only thing they have in common is that there is no (zero, none, neoni, naught, nil) evidence of either- just statements that such things "might have happened." Well, I might have been my brother, but I was not. I understand that there is a new movie from a Philip Dick novel in which Nazi Germany won WW II. That was possible at one time, but it did not happen. To state on that basis that it is possible that the flag of the USA has a swastika in the middle doesn't make it true, a fact, evidence, or tilt the scales in any way (are we no longer doing sports metaphors?). It does not. The SOT is not the burial clothe of Christ, even more convincingly than the USA flag doesn't have a swastika in it.

Finally I feel compelled to state that I am probably viewed as an expert in biochemistry. But if I were to say Peter Rubens was a noted artist born in France I would be wrong. In fact if I were to say that glucose is joined to chloride during normal oxidative phosphorylation, an area within my own field of expertise, I also would be wrong. It wouldn't tilt the scales in favor of glucose-chloride a bit, a nanometer, or a fraction of a degree; it would still be absolutely, completely wrong. Such a statement would damage my reputation as an expert in biochemistry; it would not provide evidence of glucose-chloride as a product of Ox-Phos.

Last edited by Giordano; 25th November 2015 at 09:17 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:13 AM   #1620
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,813
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

[i][b]Entry: #1
Date: 1976
Data Category: General possibility of repairs
Evidence: Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records (the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the PrincessClotilde)
The partial quote supplied suggests that Delorenzi believed he could identify the darning skills of more than six separate people. That is the only thing that the quote is saying.1


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Comments: This indicates that the Shroud could have received undocumented repairs in its history. The report describes various documented repairs in the C-14 sample area, including a repair by the Poor Clare Nuns in 1973 2 after the Raes sample extraction (piece extracted by Belgian textile expert Gilbert Raes). [snip stuff about the Raes sample]
No. Delorenzi does not claim that there are other repairs on the cloth other than those documented - at least not in the quote supplied. He claims only that there were more people involved in making the documented repairs.

The comments, which are Marino and Prior's interpretation of a (possibly out of context) quote, go much further than Delorenzi's words and add in a conjecture which is completely unsupported by the actual quote.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent). One of his conclusions was, "I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records."
- I see this as "expert opinion." I just wouldn't accord it a whole lot of weight, without more info -- i.e., the subject of Delorenzi's expertise, to what extent he studied the shroud and to what extent (if any) he explained his impression.
Delorenzi's quote is not a conclusion, it's a claim. It's a claim, without evidence, that he has an "impression" about how many people have worked on the cloth in the past. It is not (at least as published in that pdf) a claim about there being more repairs than those very obvious and well documented ones.

Marino and Prior have gone much further in interpreting the quote to support their preferred conclusion than the quote from Delorenzi warrants. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would call their interpretation dishonest.

1. It is, in my educated-in-needlework-opinion, unlikely that he could actually pick out more than six different darning styles and say with confidence that none of those darns was done by the same person using a different technique, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking his comment at face value.

2. I suspect a translation error, as I am sure nobody is really contending that the repairs done by the Poor Clare nuns was done in 1973. However, later Marino and Prior contend that the C14 dating method was invented by Gove, rather the actual inventor and Nobel winner Willard Libby. Maybe M and P are just really bad at fact checking?
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan

Last edited by Agatha; 25th November 2015 at 09:24 AM. Reason: Add footnote 2
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:14 AM   #1621
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
We previously had near invisible patches that were invisible, and now we have documentation of undocumented repairs. The only thing they have in common is that there is no (zero, none, neoni, naught, nil) evidence of either- just statements that such things "might have happened." Well, I might have been my brother, but I was not.

Finally I feel impelled to state that I am probably viewed as an expert in biochemistry. But if I were to say Peter Rubens was a noted artist born in France I would be wrong. In fact if I were to say that glucose is joined to chloride during normal oxidative phosphorylation, an area within my own field of expertise, I also would be wrong. It wouldn't tilt the scales in favor of glucose-chloride a bit, a nanometer, or a fraction of a degree; it would still be absolutely, completely wrong.
I like this. I can be considered at least a minor expert in a couple of fields. I know they are not remotely related to textiles or art or theology or religious history or medieval history, but that apparently doesn't matter.

My examination of the shroud leads me to conclude that it might be of medieval origin. My examination of the evidence confirms my conclusion.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:44 AM   #1622
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Let's take one entry at a time.

[i][b]Entry: #1
Date: 1976
Data Category: General possibility of repairs
Evidence: Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969
and 1973, wrote: ―…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my
examination, namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in
the historical records
(the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess
Clotilde).‖
Source: Delorenzi, Enzo: 1976. ―Observations on the Patches and Darns in the Holy Shroud.‖
In Doyle, E., M.Green, Fr., & V. Ossola (Trans.) Report of Turin Commission on the Holy
Shroud (pp. 108-123). Unpublished. Translation of La S. Sindone: Ricerche e studi della
Commissione di Esperti nominata dall‘Arcivescovo di Torino, Card. Michele Pellegrino, nel.[i][b]

If his impression was correct, there is still no evidence here that the sampled part of the cloth had been repaired. He doesn't opine that there were more repairs than are visible or documented, just that he got the impression that more people had been involved in the repairs than had been documented.

Next.
__________________
"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
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:59 AM   #1623
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Be so kind as not to put words in my mouth, as in the highlighted

In what area, specifically, do you consider Pro. Delorenzi to be an "expert"?

Further, as far as is recorded, Prof. Delorenzi did not, in fact, handle the CIQ, but observed it in its frame...
Slowvehicle,
- I didn't mean to misrepresent you when I said, "You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent)."
- Back in 1562, you said, "At any rate, if you read this, be aware that the problem with the M&P paper is not, in my opinion, so much the level of expertise as the utter lack of evidence."
- You're right, I assumed too much...
- Can you tell me where you got your info on Delorenzi?
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:10 AM   #1624
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,958
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Can you tell me where you got your info on Delorenzi?
I can but I won't. This is homework you should already have done before introducing these witnesses, and although I have done your homework for you, I will not let you benefit from the fruits of my labor. He is your witness and it is your responsibility to establish that he really is the expert you need him to be. If you don't know whether Delorenzi is a relevantly qualified expert, then you don't get to present him as one.

As a matter of fact, Delorenzi's educational and professional qualifications are quite easy to find. If you haven't done even that level of research on your sources, then I'd say you have quite a lot of work to do before revisiting the list of people you claim are experts.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:10 AM   #1625
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Back in 1562, you said, "At any rate, if you read this, be aware that the problem with the M&P paper is not, in my opinion, so much the level of expertise as the utter lack of evidence."

Have these threads really been going on that long, or does it just feel like it?
__________________
"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
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:16 AM   #1626
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I didn't mean to misrepresent you when I said, "You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent)."
- Back in 1562, you said, "At any rate, if you read this, be aware that the problem with the M&P paper is not, in my opinion, so much the level of expertise as the utter lack of evidence."
- You're right, I assumed too much...
- Can you tell me where you got your info on Delorenzi?
Slowvehicle,
- But note that the only part I got wrong was about the relevance of Delorenzi's expertise, and even there, you seemed to be accepting its relevance. Otherwise, you did seem to be accepting his expertise, and that he had indeed studied the shroud to some extent -- though, if only in its frame, that extent must be minimal.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:18 AM   #1627
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,958
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,But note that the only part I got wrong was about the relevance of Delorenzi's expertise...
He is not a relevant expert. Move on.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:19 AM   #1628
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Have these threads really been going on that long, or does it just feel like it?
Jabba just likes to be off by several centuries. Perhaps an invisible patch in the calendar has skewed the results. Then again, since the thread has never been reproduced, it's 2000 years old.
__________________
"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
Maurice Ledifficile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:21 AM   #1629
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- But note that the only part I got wrong was about the relevance of Delorenzi's expertise, and even there, you seemed to be accepting its relevance. Otherwise, you did seem to be accepting his expertise, and that he had indeed studied the shroud to some extent -- though, if only in its frame, that extent must be minimal.
All this is utterly irrelevant. Expert opinion is nothing. Evidence is everything.

You have no evidence. You lost.
__________________
"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
Maurice Ledifficile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:23 AM   #1630
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I didn't mean to misrepresent you when I said, "You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent)."
- Back in 1562, you said, "At any rate, if you read this, be aware that the problem with the M&P paper is not, in my opinion, so much the level of expertise as the utter lack of evidence."
- You're right, I assumed too much...
- Can you tell me where you got your info on Delorenzi?
My Dear Mr. Savage:

At its heart, this is another דַּיֵּנוּ ("It would have been enough") argument.

Follow: The [primary] problem with the M&P paper is not the quality of the "experts", not is it the level of their expertise. Even if we allow the assumption for the sake of the argument (and ONLY for the sake of the argument) that the "experts" were the world's superlatives, a gathering of intellectual prowess unequaled since "Thomas Jefferson ate lunch alone", the fact that the "experts" provide no evidentiary basis for their opinions, suppositions, surmises, and conjectures is enough, in itself (דַּיֵּנוּ) to obviate any potential value as evidence of the existence of an "invisible" reweave, a "near-invisible" reweave, an "undetectable" repair, or even "...some patching" wrought upon the sampled area of the CIQ.

Actual textile experts, who have actually handled the CIQ, and examined it from both sides (under multiple light sources, including backlighting) saw no evidence, none, of any such thing. Supposition, surmise, opinion, and conjecture to the contrary, without evidence, is simply calumny.

I am no longer surprised that you would present a person as an "expert", third-hand, without having any idea of their expertise.

For the record, I do not accept Prof. Delorenzi as a "relevant" expert. To avoid poisoning the well, I will simply suggest you do a web search about his qualifications.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 25th November 2015 at 10:32 AM. Reason: minor typos
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:25 AM   #1631
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,462
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I didn't mean to misrepresent you when I said, "You accept that Delorenzi is an expert, probably a relevant expert and that he studied the actual shroud (to at least some extent)."
- Back in 1562, you said, "At any rate, if you read this, be aware that the problem with the M&P paper is not, in my opinion, so much the level of expertise as the utter lack of evidence."
- You're right, I assumed too much...
- Can you tell me where you got your info on Delorenzi?
He is a Medical Radiologist.

Please explain what exact insight or expertise this gives him in textiles?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:28 AM   #1632
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If his impression was correct, there is still no evidence here that the sampled part of the cloth had been repaired. He doesn't opine that there were more repairs than are visible or documented, just that he got the impression that more people had been involved in the repairs than had been documented.

Next.
Thank you for catching this. I had to reread Jabba's post carefully to realize exactly where the Delorenzi quote ended and Jabba's totally unrelated conclusions began!

I really have trouble not seeing this as a sly deceptive trick rather than just poor typography. Interestingly, it wouldn't matter even if Delorenzi's quote did include Jabba's words too, although that would have further demeaned Delorenzi as an "expert" in my eyes. In fact, Jabba's posts appear to now not only insult the experts who have convincingly determined the SOT as not authentic, but also the experts who for personal religious reasons still favor authenticity.

Once again the odd thing is that Jabba has indicated a need to have the SOT authentic to buttress his faith, but then goes through so many exercises in twisted logic to deny the obvious and argue that the SOT "might" be authentic. What on Earth is the point? When he is done twisting and turning and denying in regard to the SOT, how can what little is left (zero IMHO) support his faith? An imaginary bucket, let alone one with enormous holes in it, will not bail out your boat.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:31 AM   #1633
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- But note that the only part I got wrong was about the relevance of Delorenzi's expertise, and even there, you seemed to be accepting its relevance. Otherwise, you did seem to be accepting his expertise, and that he had indeed studied the shroud to some extent -- though, if only in its frame, that extent must be minimal.
My Dear (if somewhat obdurate) Mr. Savage:

No, no, no, no, no; I say thee nay.

You did not "get wrong" Prof. Delorenzi's "area of expertise"; you "got wrong" the fact that he provided not a sniff, not a skerrick, not a scruple, not a sucre of EVIDENCE for his "impression" that the CIQ was "darned by more hands than recorded", דַּיֵּנוּ, he did nothing to demonstrate the existence of an "invisible" reweave, a "near-invisible" reweave, an "undetectable" repair, nor even "...some patching" anywhere on the CIQ, to say nothing of in or around the sampled corner.

No probative value.

No possibility of consilience.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 25th November 2015 at 10:31 AM. Reason: minor typos
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:35 AM   #1634
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:

At its heart, this is another דַּיֵּנוּ ("It would have been enough") argument.

Follow: The [primary] problem with the M&P paper is not the quality of the "experts", not is it the level of their expertise. Even if we allow the assumption for the sake of the argument (and ONLY for the sake of the argument) that the "experts" were the world's superlatives, a gathering of intellectual prowess unequaled since "Thomas Jefferson ate lunch alone", the fact that the "experts" provide no evidentiary basis for their opinions, suppositions, surmises, and conjectures is enough, in itself (דַּיֵּנוּ) to obviate any potential value as evidence of the existence of an "invisible" reweave, a "near-invisible" reweave, an "undetectable" repair, or even "...some patching" wrought upon the sampled area of the CIQ.

Actual textile experts, who have actually handled the CIQ, and examined it from both sides (under multiple light sources, including backlighting) saw no evidence, non, of any such thing. Supposition, surmise, opinion, and conjecture to the contrary, without evidence, is simply calumny.

I am no longer surprised that you would present a person as an "expert", third-hand, without having any idea of their expertise.

For the record, I do not accept Prof. Delorenzi as a "relevant" expert. To avoid poisoning the well, I will simply suggest you do a web search about his qualifications.
I own the very robe worn by Pharaoh from Exodus! It shows some frogs impacts, water damage, and a few matzoh crumbs on it, but I can sell it to you for a small sum (the documentation, as you might expect, is a bit poor given the rush of events at the time).
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:35 AM   #1635
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Thank you for catching this. I had to reread Jabba's post carefully to realize exactly where the Delorenzi quote ended and Jabba's totally unrelated conclusions began!

I really have trouble not seeing this as a sly deceptive trick rather than just poor typography. Interestingly, it wouldn't matter even if Delorenzi's quote did include Jabba's words too, although that would have further demeaned Delorenzi as an "expert" in my eyes. In fact, Jabba's posts appear to now not only insult the experts who have convincingly determined the SOT as not authentic, but also the experts who for personal religious reasons still favor authenticity.

Once again the odd thing is that Jabba has indicated a need to have the SOT authentic to buttress his faith, but then goes through so many exercises in twisted logic to deny the obvious and argue that the SOT "might" be authentic. What on Earth is the point? When he is done twisting and turning and denying in regard to the SOT, how can what little is left (zero IMHO) support his faith? An imaginary bucket, let alone one with enormous holes in it, will not bail out your boat.
...but such is the "beauty" of the bucket that it must be "true" even if it could not have happened...(pace Phyllis Pickle).
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:41 AM   #1636
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,958
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
No possibility of consilience.
Indeed, clear evidence of anti-consilience. The authors Jabba relies upon are the ones who interpret Delorenzi's guess that more workers worked on the shroud than were documented as evidence of a patch. As Agatha has eloquently noted, there is no rational reason to connect Delorenzi's belief to that conclusion. Clearly the line of evidence has been interpreted using the desired conclusion as a driver.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:42 AM   #1637
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I own the very robe worn by Pharaoh from Exodus! It shows some frogs impacts, water damage, and a few matzoh crumbs on it, but I can sell it to you for a small sum (the documentation, as you might expect, is a bit poor given the rush of events at the time).
"We alreddy hev one of our own! Now goe ewwey, silly English pig-dog kunniggit!"
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:43 AM   #1638
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,530
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Have these threads really been going on that long, or does it just feel like it?


I thought the same - then realised we must be looking to at least 2000 years old...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:43 AM   #1639
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
The partial quote supplied suggests that Delorenzi believed he could identify the darning skills of more than six separate people. That is the only thing that the quote is saying.1



No. Delorenzi does not claim that there are other repairs on the cloth other than those documented - at least not in the quote supplied. He claims only that there were more people involved in making the documented repairs.

The comments, which are Marino and Prior's interpretation of a (possibly out of context) quote, go much further than Delorenzi's words and add in a conjecture which is completely unsupported by the actual quote.

Delorenzi's quote is not a conclusion, it's a claim. It's a claim, without evidence, that he has an "impression" about how many people have worked on the cloth in the past. It is not (at least as published in that pdf) a claim about there being more repairs than those very obvious and well documented ones.

Marino and Prior have gone much further in interpreting the quote to support their preferred conclusion than the quote from Delorenzi warrants. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would call their interpretation dishonest.

1. It is, in my educated-in-needlework-opinion, unlikely that he could actually pick out more than six different darning styles and say with confidence that none of those darns was done by the same person using a different technique, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking his comment at face value.

2. I suspect a translation error, as I am sure nobody is really contending that the repairs done by the Poor Clare nuns was done in 1973. However, later Marino and Prior contend that the C14 dating method was invented by Gove, rather the actual inventor and Nobel winner Willard Libby. Maybe M and P are just really bad at fact checking?
I know Jabba won't read this, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued thoughtful efforts throughout this train wreck.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:44 AM   #1640
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, clear evidence of anti-consilience. The authors Jabba relies upon are the ones who interpret Delorenzi's guess that more workers worked on the shroud than were documented as evidence of a patch. As Agatha has eloquently noted, there is no rational reason to connect Delorenzi's belief to that conclusion. Clearly the line of evidence has been interpreted using the desired conclusion as a driver.
*gasp*
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.