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 25th November 2015, 10:45 AM   #1641
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 jond View Post
I know Jabba won't read this, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued thoughtful efforts throughout this train wreck.
Second.
__________________
"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, 10:47 AM   #1642
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
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.


I'd like to support Garrette's position.

It's the work that Jay & SF are doing that keep me returning to this train wreck.

Shame that Jabba can't get away from irrelevance, but I guess that would destroy his hugely unstable construct.
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, 10:49 AM   #1643
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
Oh, and my apologies to Jond for mentioning "train wreck"!

I was typing as you were posting - that's my excuse...
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, 10:51 AM   #1644
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Oh, and my apologies to Jond for mentioning "train wreck"!

I was typing as you were posting - that's my excuse...
Is there any other word for it?
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, 10:59 AM   #1645
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Follow: The [primary] problem with the M&P paper is not the quality of the "experts", not is it the level of their expertise. [T]he 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...
It is, in my opinion, both. The foundation of expert opinion stands upon many legs. All the legs must be present for the foundation to stand. I don't disagree with a characterization that puts primacy on one leg, so long as the proponent understands he can't rehabilitate the primary leg and carry on if other legs are missing too.

We have defined many times the legs that create the foundation for expertise. You are correct in that Jabba, through his authors and ending at Delorenzi, cannot show that Delorenzi presents any evidence to support his "impression." The authors do not provide any evidence to support either Delorenzi's impression or their connection of it to the hypothesis of an invisible patch. And there is no attempt to reconcile it with counterevidence in the form of a detailed, properly conducted examination of the cloth with the specific goal of discovering a patch and nevertheless failed to disclose one. An evidentiary basis is a necessary leg. If in this thread we give it primacy, I will not object.

Another leg, however, is the predication of the opinion upon suitable and articulable expertise. In this case Delorenzi is not an expert in any of the fields that pertain to ancient clothmaking. His judgment cannot be considered to derive from an appropriate study of the field. Further, even were he to be an expert, he does not articulate what knowledge from that field, such as would be known among experts, support the judgment he has drawn. Even were Delorenzi to muster a set of facts, such as photographs of suspect areas of the cloth, he is not in a position to interpret those facts to support the conclusion that different clothmakers were employed, or (in the fanciful reinterpretation of the authors) that any of that labor was necessarily anachronistic.

Jabba must build all the legs of the foundation to support expert testimony if that foundation is to be accepted. The failure of any one of them dooms that testimony and renders it nonprobative.
JayUtah 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, 11:03 AM   #1646
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,532
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Is there any other word for it?
Well, no actually.

Apart from the result of the explosion of one of those super volcanos.
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, 11:23 AM   #1647
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
It is, in my opinion, both. The foundation of expert opinion stands upon many legs. All the legs must be present for the foundation to stand. I don't disagree with a characterization that puts primacy on one leg, so long as the proponent understands he can't rehabilitate the primary leg and carry on if other legs are missing too.

We have defined many times the legs that create the foundation for expertise. You are correct in that Jabba, through his authors and ending at Delorenzi, cannot show that Delorenzi presents any evidence to support his "impression." The authors do not provide any evidence to support either Delorenzi's impression or their connection of it to the hypothesis of an invisible patch. And there is no attempt to reconcile it with counterevidence in the form of a detailed, properly conducted examination of the cloth with the specific goal of discovering a patch and nevertheless failed to disclose one. An evidentiary basis is a necessary leg. If in this thread we give it primacy, I will not object.

Another leg, however, is the predication of the opinion upon suitable and articulable expertise. In this case Delorenzi is not an expert in any of the fields that pertain to ancient clothmaking. His judgment cannot be considered to derive from an appropriate study of the field. Further, even were he to be an expert, he does not articulate what knowledge from that field, such as would be known among experts, support the judgment he has drawn. Even were Delorenzi to muster a set of facts, such as photographs of suspect areas of the cloth, he is not in a position to interpret those facts to support the conclusion that different clothmakers were employed, or (in the fanciful reinterpretation of the authors) that any of that labor was necessarily anachronistic.

Jabba must build all the legs of the foundation to support expert testimony if that foundation is to be accepted. The failure of any one of them dooms that testimony and renders it nonprobative.
Beautifully said, especially in the light of Mr. Savage's blithe attempt to prop up the tilting stool:

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.
SSDD...
__________________
"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, 11:30 AM   #1648
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,541
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Beautifully said, especially in the light of Mr. Savage's blithe attempt to prop up the tilting stool:



SSDD...
I believe -- and I say this without meaning it as a joke -- that it is part of two rules of Jabba's Truly Effective Debate.

1. If you speak in a manner that Jabba can in any way whatsoever claim to be "not polite enough" then your critique can be ignored

2. If -- by dint of following rule #1 -- you do not immediately provide the devastatingly vicious critique of Jabba's links that they deserve, then Jabba can reinterpret your professionally articulated comments as some form of agreement
__________________
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, 12:34 PM   #1649
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
The odd thing is that Jabba has indicated a need to have the SOT authentic to buttress his faith, but then goes through so much twisted logic and make-believe to argue that the SOT "might" be authentic in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it is not. How can this process ever yield a strong enough conclusion in Jabba's own mind to support his faith? He has, in fact, admitted that even he finds his own conclusions very weak and indirect.

-I thought I would reword and repeat, given that Jabba claims to seldom read past the first sentence or two of other people's posts, what to me is the biggest mystery in this entire thread.

Just believe, Jabba, if that is your goal. The more you seek the support of science, and require other people to buy in to your "scientific" arguments, the more you will undermine your own faith.

Last edited by Giordano; 25th November 2015 at 02:29 PM.
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 26th November 2015, 02:52 AM   #1650
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,814
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
<...>
- Back in 1562, you said, <...>
Can we get some C14 evidence on that number?
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig 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 26th November 2015, 08:52 AM   #1651
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Evidence - Expert Judgment

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...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.
Slowvehicle,
- I see your point (or at least, a point -- I shouldn't put words in your mouth) -- but, one Entry at a time...

- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.

- M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
- In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
__________________
"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 θ 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 26th November 2015, 08:58 AM   #1652
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,346
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan.

Why? What, exactly, did Delorenzi say about repairs in the sample?
__________________
"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 26th November 2015, 09:02 AM   #1653
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,470
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
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,
Jabba needs to watch A Few Good Men. Where the doctor comes on the stand and testifies that Willy Santiago died from poisoning on the rag. There is no evidence of poison on the rag ("there are countless undetectable poisons") and there are other factors that can also explain why he died, but the doctor stands by his baseless assertion that it was poison. Kevin Bacon pulls out the "expert" card, and says, "In your expert opinion, was William Santiago poisoned?" He hesitates, and then says yes.

Now, if you watch the movie, the point is pretty clear that the guy is full of it. He may be an "expert" but his opinion is baseless. In fact, the movie presents him to be an arrogant imbecile. But this is they guy Jabba is hitching his cart to.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold 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 26th November 2015, 09:07 AM   #1654
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,632
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.
Even if there was a repair (there is no evidence for one in the tested area) all it would do is cast doubt on the 14th Century date - it would provide no evidence for a first century date. How does this help the "Pro" argument at all ?
The Don 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 26th November 2015, 09:26 AM   #1655
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Even if there was a repair (there is no evidence for one in the tested area) all it would do is cast doubt on the 14th Century date - it would provide no evidence for a first century date. How does this help the "Pro" argument at all ?
Well, The Don, you need to understand that in the Jabbaverse the burden of proof has been reversed. Apparently the default position is authentic unless proven otherwise. This is why he doesn't require evidence in favor of authenticity, he simply believes that any doubt about the C14 date means the CIQ is real. Cool, huh?
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 26th November 2015, 09:29 AM   #1656
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I see your point (or at least, a point -- I shouldn't put words in your mouth) -- but, one Entry at a time...

- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.

- M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
- In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
You could at least pretend to read other people's posts.

Opinions are useless. Credibility is useless. Evidence is everything. You have none. You lost.

Everyone knows your position is based on faith alone. You know it too. Be an honest christian and admit it. Wouldn't your alleged deity want you to be honest?
__________________
"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 26th November 2015, 09:34 AM   #1657
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,525
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I see your point (or at least, a point -- I shouldn't put words in your mouth) -- but, one Entry at a time...
Really? Is that why you dumped a pdf with over twenty points into the discussion, without apparently reading it yourself, and then proceeded to ignore the detailed dismissal of all the points?
__________________
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
zooterkin 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 26th November 2015, 09:35 AM   #1658
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 see your point (or at least, a point -- I shouldn't put words in your mouth) -- but, one Entry at a time...

- Entry #1 offers the opinion of Prof Enzo Delorenzi who was involved in the scientific studies of 69 and 73. To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility. Not a whole lot, but some... And, were I on a jury judging the possibility of a repair in the sample (or, near enough to affect the dating?), I would add Delorenzi's impression to the pro pan. As things stand, I just wouldn't give it much weight.

- M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
- In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

I will be off to a Thanksgiving Day celebration here, shortly. I may be somewhat inactive today.

What evidence (you know the mantra that goes here) does Prof. Delorenzi offer for his "impression"? That is they key point. What does Prof. Delorenzi, himself, offer as the reason for his supposition? Upon what does the Good Professor base his conjecture?

Please do not point to M&P's special pleading and circular reasoning. Tell me what, in your opinion, Prof. Delorenzi says...and why he says it.

Did you ever investigate Prof. Delorenzi's area of expertise?

Did you ever repair the gross deficiencies in your "map"?
__________________
"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; 26th November 2015 at 09:37 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 26th November 2015, 09:46 AM   #1659
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
To me, that by itself suggests a little bit of credibility.
No. You have been told the criteria for credibility for expert testimony. Do not try to invent softer ones on the fly.

Quote:
M&P do provide some extra info, from those involved in 69 and 73, supportive of Delorenzi's opinion.
Asked and answered. They speculatively try to close the gap between Delorenzi's "impression" and their desired conclusion. Not probative.

Quote:
In a paper trying to cover such a spectrum of info as does this one by M&P, can we really expect any more elaboration than they give?
This is the material you insist should be taken as evidence. If it is deficient you have the burden to do the homework to fill in the gaps. You do not get to beg your critics to lower the standard just because it's the only material you have in hand or feel like looking up. If it is deficient as evidence, you lose. That's how this works.

Quote:
Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
Exactly. This is why it is anti-consilient. Delorenzi's opinion is disqualified for the reasons already given. You have not addressed those reasons. You have simply stated that you want Delorenzi "somehow" to be a credible witness anyway. He is not. Move on.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 09:50 AM   #1660
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Now, if you watch the movie, the point is pretty clear that the guy is full of it. He may be an "expert" but his opinion is baseless. In fact, the movie presents him to be an arrogant imbecile. But this is they guy Jabba is hitching his cart to.
The play extends the doctor's testimony a bit longer. But the movie version is not a good example of allowable expert testimony. Which of course is your point. In the real world (not Aaron Sorkin's), for court purposes, all the work an expert does in preparing for his testimony is discoverable. The lack of any such work would be grounds for opposing counsel to argue lack of foundation.

Last edited by JayUtah; 26th November 2015 at 11:20 AM.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 09:56 AM   #1661
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Evidence - Expert Judgment

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

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

I will be off to a Thanksgiving Day celebration here, shortly. I may be somewhat inactive today.

What evidence (you know the mantra that goes here) does Prof. Delorenzi offer for his "impression"? That is they key point. What does Prof. Delorenzi, himself, offer as the reason for his supposition? Upon what does the Good Professor base his conjecture?...
- Thanks. You too.

- I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation. Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
__________________
"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 θ 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 26th November 2015, 09:59 AM   #1662
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Well, The Don, you need to understand that in the Jabbaverse the burden of proof has been reversed. Apparently the default position is authentic unless proven otherwise.
In this case that is appropriate. When considering artifacts from antiquity that are at least plausible to some degree of observable detail, claims of fraudulence bear the burden of proof. That burden has been met. There is clear, consilient, and convincing proof the cloth was manufactured in the 14th century.

Quote:
This is why he doesn't require evidence in favor of authenticity, he simply believes that any doubt about the C14 date means the CIQ is real. Cool, huh?
He would not need direct proof of authenticity to stand against evidence of fraud. But what he is doing is to propose a different reason why the evidence for fraud came out the way it did. That is an affirmative rebuttal and it bears a burden of proof. Not the burden to prove the cloth is authentic, but the burden to prove the tests were compromised by and for the reasons he suggests. Merely speculating on ways it might have been compromised doesn't even come close to it. Affirmative rebuttals and defenses carry the burden of proof even in a court.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 10:02 AM   #1663
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation.
Then you may not present it as expert opinion.

Quote:
Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
Your speculation is not expert opinion or probative in any way. Further, even if you are correct, you have not established Delorenzi as an expert in cotton or any other kind of textile.

Delorenzi is disqualified. Move on. If you are able later to rehabilitate him via further research on your part then it would be appropriate to refer again to him. But for now it's clear you don't know enough about Delorenzi or his testimony to posture his opinion as probative expert testimony. Move on.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 10:05 AM   #1664
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
- Thanks. You too.

- I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation. Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

It is not, in any way, my job to bolster, buttress, or support your "expert". You offered up the Good Professor; it is up to you to provide his bona fides (which ought to be more than, you simply finding his conjecture simpatico. "Maybe" offers nothing; no more than any other unsupported supposition.

If you, yourself, do not know upon what Prof. Delorenzi based his "impression", it has no probative value in your argument. None. It is worth no more than the conjecture of any other committed sidonist.

Have you discovered Prof. Delorenzi's area of expertise?

Have you repaired the egregious deficiencies in your "map"?

(FWIW, this will be my last post until evening.)
__________________
"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; 26th November 2015 at 10:07 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 26th November 2015, 10:06 AM   #1665
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In this case that is appropriate. When considering artifacts from antiquity that are at least plausible to some degree of observable detail, claims of fraudulence bear the burden of proof. That burden has been met. There is clear, consilient, and convincing proof the cloth was manufactured in the 14th century.



He would not need direct proof of authenticity to stand against evidence of fraud. But what he is doing is to propose a different reason why the evidence for fraud came out the way it did. That is an affirmative rebuttal and it bears a burden of proof. Not the burden to prove the cloth is authentic, but the burden to prove the tests were compromised by and for the reasons he suggests. Merely speculating on ways it might have been compromised doesn't even come close to it. Affirmative rebuttals and defenses carry the burden of proof even in a court.
Really? All of the shrouds out there are presumed authentic until proven otherwise? What about all the nails? Or foreskins? Without any reason to think it's authentic (especially as it doesn't even match up with the customs of the times or the biblical story) why should we possibly consider it to be authentic?
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 26th November 2015, 10:10 AM   #1666
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,319
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I don't know. Do you?
You. Are. Amazing.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 26th November 2015, 10:41 AM   #1667
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Really? All of the shrouds out there are presumed authentic until proven otherwise?
No, let me elaborate and clarify.

By "authentic" we don't necessarily mean every bit of claptrap someone can claim for a bit of antique garbage. A nail may be an authentic 1st Century nail. But to claim further that it's one of those used to nail Jesus to a cross is patently implausible. That falls under "plausible to some degree of observation" qualification. No, you don't have to assume the Coth In Question is authentic up to and including what the faithful Catholics have to say about it.

Let me restate more carefully what I said earlier in haste. (Trying to brine my turkey here.) If a claim of fraudulence is on the table (and one is), then the presumption in that investigation is that the cloth is authentic -- at least in terms of being a 1st Century burial shroud. Claims of fraudulence are affirmative claims. Such claims bear the burden of proof, hence the presumption -- for that purpose only. Fraudulence generally involves specific lines of evidence such as proof of age, or alternatively may uncover the presence of specific markers indicating a fraudulent means of production (e.g., evidence of chemical processes used to artificially age an artifact).

The burden of proof for fraudulence has been carried. The evidence is consistent with the cloth being a 14th Century manufacture. Therefore, obviously, it cannot be authentic.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 10:52 AM   #1668
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, let me elaborate and clarify.

By "authentic" we don't necessarily mean every bit of claptrap someone can claim for a bit of antique garbage. A nail may be an authentic 1st Century nail. But to claim further that it's one of those used to nail Jesus to a cross is patently implausible. That falls under "plausible to some degree of observation" qualification. No, you don't have to assume the Coth In Question is authentic up to and including what the faithful Catholics have to say about it.

Let me restate more carefully what I said earlier in haste. (Trying to brine my turkey here.) If a claim of fraudulence is on the table (and one is), then the presumption in that investigation is that the cloth is authentic -- at least in terms of being a 1st Century burial shroud. Claims of fraudulence are affirmative claims. Such claims bear the burden of proof, hence the presumption -- for that purpose only. Fraudulence generally involves specific lines of evidence such as proof of age, or alternatively may uncover the presence of specific markers indicating a fraudulent means of production (e.g., evidence of chemical processes used to artificially age an artifact).

The burden of proof for fraudulence has been carried. The evidence is consistent with the cloth being a 14th Century manufacture. Therefore, obviously, it cannot be authentic.
Thanks, and understand that I meant no offense. Your contributions are highly valued from this poster's perspective. I agree with all of the above, but would only point out that even without fraud, there is no reason to consider a first century date, let alone Jabba's claim of authenticity. Which is why I insist that the claimant needs to provide some evidence that would point in the direction of authenticity, and of course none has been offered. In the absence of such evidence, refuting the C14 date does nothing to advance his claim. Enjoy your T-day!
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 26th November 2015, 11:01 AM   #1669
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You. Are. Amazing.
It wouldn't be the first time a fringe claimant has tried to charm his way out of a burden of proof by insinuating that his debate is just a cordial fireside chat among friends. If some piece of knowledge is missing, then we'll just all put our heads together and figure it out. Because that's what friends do. We're all just trying to find the truth, right?

Sorry, Jabba, it doesn't work like that. No one but you has any obligation to discover and present information in favor of your claim.

Your latests posts effectively admit that you have recklessly posted Delorenzi's statement as "expert testimony," when you yourself had no knowledge of the witness's actual expertise. And no knowledge or understanding of any study or argument Delorenzi may have made to give his "impression" any expert credibility.

Delorenzi is disqualified until such time, if any, as you can rehabilitate him according to the established criteria for expert judgment.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 11:11 AM   #1670
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Thanks, and understand that I meant no offense. Your contributions are highly valued from this poster's perspective.
Thank you, and no offense was taken. Sometimes it takes a few posts for me or anyone else to make a point clearly.

Quote:
[E]ven without fraud, there is no reason to consider a first century date, let alone Jabba's claim of authenticity.
Correct. There are many reasons why the cloth is not especially consistent with its purported origin. And many reasons not to believe the claims of the faithful. One doesn't blindly accept things as authentic when there are red flags like those that apply to this cloth.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 11:16 AM   #1671
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
[...]
- Though, superficially at least, M&P should have told us what Delorenzi's expertise was in, what he was looking for and what specifically led him to the opinion he offered. Maybe they didn't because it would have undercut his credibility...
BINGO! Are you finally beginning to get the picture!!!???!!!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 26th November 2015, 11:33 AM   #1672
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,850
Evidence - Expert Judgment

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

It is not, in any way, my job to bolster, buttress, or support your "expert". You offered up the Good Professor; it is up to you to provide his bona fides (which ought to be more than, you simply finding his conjecture simpatico. "Maybe" offers nothing; no more than any other unsupported supposition.

If you, yourself, do not know upon what Prof. Delorenzi based his "impression", it has no probative value in your argument. None. It is worth no more than the conjecture of any other committed sidonist.
- What do you mean by "committed sidonist"? I probably disagree.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Have you discovered Prof. Delorenzi's area of expertise?
- Yes.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Have you repaired the egregious deficiencies in your "map"?
- Which ones?
__________________
"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 θ 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 26th November 2015, 11:38 AM   #1673
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Yes.
Explain its relevance, if any, to the subject matter of his opinion.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 11:43 AM   #1674
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Thanks. You too.

- I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation. Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
Why in blue blazes are you offering his [Prof. Delorenzi] unexamined jibber-jabber as evidence? Maybe it has to do with your utter inability to hold up your side of this conversation.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 26th November 2015 at 11:44 AM.
John Jones 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 26th November 2015, 11:52 AM   #1675
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What do you mean by "committed sidonist"? I probably disagree.

- Yes.

- Which ones?
Typical woomeister MO. Address the least relevant points and ignore embarrassing questions.

You have no evidence. You lost.


Admit your position is based on faith, and not on evidence. We all know it; It's just better for your soul of you're honest.

As to your blog, you should simply close it for good. It contains nothing relevant.
__________________
"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 26th November 2015, 12:38 PM   #1676
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,346
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In this case that is appropriate. When considering artifacts from antiquity that are at least plausible to some degree of observable detail, claims of fraudulence bear the burden of proof. That burden has been met. There is clear, consilient, and convincing proof the cloth was manufactured in the 14th century.



He would not need direct proof of authenticity to stand against evidence of fraud. But what he is doing is to propose a different reason why the evidence for fraud came out the way it did. That is an affirmative rebuttal and it bears a burden of proof. Not the burden to prove the cloth is authentic, but the burden to prove the tests were compromised by and for the reasons he suggests. Merely speculating on ways it might have been compromised doesn't even come close to it. Affirmative rebuttals and defenses carry the burden of proof even in a court.

Yes, but the quotation Jabba posted is not even relevant to the question of whether the dating is compromised. Here's the quotation he posted: "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". It isn't saying that he got the impression that there are undetected or undocumented repairs, it is saying that he got the impression that the darning was done by more people than had been documented. And surely he could not have received such an impression unless the darnings in question was sufficiently visible for him to see differences between them. It says nothing about undetected patching or repairs anywhere on the cloth.
__________________
"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 26th November 2015, 12:59 PM   #1677
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Yes, but the quotation Jabba posted is not even relevant to the question of whether the dating is compromised.
Agreed. The burden of proof for fraudulence is a one scope of inquiry. Within that, the applicability of some particular statement is another scope. People who claim the cloth is a fraud have the burden to prove it. They have. The proponents for authenticity maintain the science was compromised. That is a subsequent affirmative claim that incurs the next burden of proof. In fine, the quote's irrelevance is just one of several reasons why that burden is not carried in this case.
JayUtah 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 26th November 2015, 01:58 PM   #1678
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,470
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The play extends the doctor's testimony a bit longer. But the movie version is not a good example of allowable expert testimony. Which of course is your point. In the real world (not Aaron Sorkin's), for court purposes, all the work an expert does in preparing for his testimony is discoverable. The lack of any such work would be grounds for opposing counsel to argue lack of foundation.
But he's an expert, and so the court will hear his opinion! Regardless of how baseless it is!
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold 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 26th November 2015, 04:20 PM   #1679
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,346
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In fine, the quote's irrelevance is just one of several reasons why that burden is not carried in this case.

The quote's irrelevance means that we don't need to worry about the qualifications of its source, or the evidence on which it might be based. It can be dismissed simply because it is irrelevant.

Jabba, next point please.
__________________
"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 26th November 2015, 07:24 PM   #1680
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Thanks. You too.

- I don't know. Do you? So far, I haven't been able to find his explanation. Maybe, it had to do with cotton.
Wait. You threw him out as an expert and offered what he said as evidence and you don't even know what he said exactly? You didn't think maybe you should figure out why he said what he did?
Craig4 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 09:23 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.