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 1st December 2015, 03:33 AM   #1761
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
...I hope this is not odd topic, but I will be offline for most of the day, at part II of my TESOL workshop.

I'll check in this evening to catch up on any progress made.
__________________
"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 1st December 2015, 04:36 AM   #1762
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence/Repair/Consilience

- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
__________________
"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 Ť 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 1st December 2015, 04:39 AM   #1763
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,521
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence
Why?
__________________
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 1st December 2015, 05:54 AM   #1764
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
Unless I missed it, there's not a word in that addendum that supports the authenticity of the CIQ.

When are you ever going to learn that attacking the 14C dating is not enough to establish authenticity?
__________________
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 1st December 2015, 06:06 AM   #1765
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
There's no point, Jabba. You have already lost. If you had any evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud or any argument that put into doubt the C14 dating, you would've presented it already. The only you have is insinuation, slander and "possibilities".
__________________
<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 1st December 2015, 07:44 AM   #1766
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries...
You based your argument for consilience on those "entries." If you are abandoning that now then you abandon your argument for consilience. You were told in no uncertain terms that such an argument could not hold without individualized examination of the lines of evidence. Therefore by your unwillingness to continue, you have conceded that argument.

Quote:
...to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before.
The addendum is not original work by Marino and Prior. As with the document you've abandoned, it is a list of references to other published works. Since it has been observed by others and admitted by you that Marino and Prior did not represent their sources honestly and fairly in their other document, the question arises whether they have done so here.

Hence the question to you is how many of those original sources have you read? Later I will list them by name and I will ask you, for each book or publication on the list, to indicate whether you have actually read it. When we are suitably assured that you are not simply once again credulously reporting third hand, then we can consider your request to change horses.

Naturally if you intend to represent that this new document provides a consilient view of the available evidence, as before, then just as naturally you will be required to address each item in turn, in isolation. If you intend to represent the reported work as expert testimony, then we will judge it according to the established criteria and decide whether it qualifies and how credible it is. You will be expected to be familiar with those criteria and to be willing and able to satisfy them.
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 1st December 2015, 09:06 AM   #1767
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Unless I missed it, there's not a word in that addendum that supports the authenticity of the CIQ.

When are you ever going to learn that attacking the 14C dating is not enough to establish authenticity?
No matter how many times this is pointed out to him, Jabba still seems to think that the C14 dating is the only reason why we don't accept his authenticity claim. Unless and until he presents positive evidence in favor of authenticity there's no reason to consider it. So far he's tried "blood" and "scientists can't recreate it" as evidence but both have been demolished for a variety of reasons.
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 1st December 2015, 09:20 AM   #1768
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
If he wants to make an affirmative claim that the cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus, then he still has to account for contrary evidence. That means he can't avoid the 14C evidence. So his present activity is not inappropriate. But it is absolutely correct that refuting that evidence does not establish authenticity. At best it would show that the cloth is slightly less likely to be a medieval forgery.

Jabba has said he is not aiming to prove the cloth is authentic. He says he's just "weighing evidence." In order to do that, he would have to provide evidence to weigh. Right now the only actual evidence comes down unanimously on the side of the cloth being a forgery.
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 1st December 2015, 09:44 AM   #1769
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Jabba has said he is not aiming to prove the cloth is authentic. He says he's just "weighing evidence."
Yeah, we know that's BS. He definitely IS aiming to show that it's authentic. The rest is just obfuscation because he knows he's in over his head.
__________________
<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 1st December 2015, 09:49 AM   #1770
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If he wants to make an affirmative claim that the cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus, then he still has to account for contrary evidence. That means he can't avoid the 14C evidence. So his present activity is not inappropriate. But it is absolutely correct that refuting that evidence does not establish authenticity. At best it would show that the cloth is slightly less likely to be a medieval forgery.

Jabba has said he is not aiming to prove the cloth is authentic. He says he's just "weighing evidence."
Like any woo-slinger is Just Asking Questions when they know they don't have enough evidence to support an affirmative claim of their favorite woo.
__________________
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 1st December 2015, 10:02 AM   #1771
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, we know that's BS. He definitely IS aiming to show that it's authentic. The rest is just obfuscation because he knows he's in over his head.
Oh sure, I never believed his claim. I want to make clear that none of this posturing relieves him. Undermining a refutation doesn't prove the affirmative claim that was refuted. Weighing evidence is pointless if you have no evidence. Factor in the cherry-picking of this debate for rosy presentation at his own site, and you have the classic pattern of the fringe claimant: do everything one can to create the illusion of having survived rigorous examination without actually undergoing it.
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 1st December 2015, 10:06 AM   #1772
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If he wants to make an affirmative claim that the cloth is the burial shroud of Jesus, then he still has to account for contrary evidence. That means he can't avoid the 14C evidence. So his present activity is not inappropriate. But it is absolutely correct that refuting that evidence does not establish authenticity. At best it would show that the cloth is slightly less likely to be a medieval forgery.

Jabba has said he is not aiming to prove the cloth is authentic. He says he's just "weighing evidence." In order to do that, he would have to provide evidence to weigh. Right now the only actual evidence comes down unanimously on the side of the cloth being a forgery.
Well, he needs to provides some evidence in favor of authenticity if he wants to weigh the evidence. He's certainly been given ample opportunity to do so.
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 1st December 2015, 10:24 AM   #1773
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Oh sure, I never believed his claim. I want to make clear that none of this posturing relieves him. Undermining a refutation doesn't prove the affirmative claim that was refuted. Weighing evidence is pointless if you have no evidence. Factor in the cherry-picking of this debate for rosy presentation at his own site, and you have the classic pattern of the fringe claimant: do everything one can to create the illusion of having survived rigorous examination without actually undergoing it.
Just so you know, Jabba has tried to demonstrate the authenticity of the CIQ by claiming that Walter McCrone was difficult to work with. I only wish I were making this up.
__________________
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 1st December 2015, 10:34 AM   #1774
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Just so you know, Jabba has tried to demonstrate the authenticity of the CIQ by claiming that Walter McCrone was difficult to work with. I only wish I were making this up.
I know you aren't. I've been over the previous threads, and I'm not in a hurry to revisit prior claims. For now, Jabba seems to think casting aspersions on 14C findings is what he wants to do. It's necessary, as I outline above, but by no means probative -- especially of authenticity. A claim of authenticity fails by contradiction according to the carbon dating. A claim of authenticity fails by starvation if it lacks any affirmative proof.
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 1st December 2015, 10:39 AM   #1775
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Oh sure, I never believed his claim. I want to make clear that none of this posturing relieves him. Undermining a refutation doesn't prove the affirmative claim that was refuted. Weighing evidence is pointless if you have no evidence. Factor in the cherry-picking of this debate for rosy presentation at his own site, and you have the classic pattern of the fringe claimant: do everything one can to create the illusion of having survived rigorous examination without actually undergoing it.
If you want to see why everyone's patience is at an end:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post10772681

Agatha created a chart which was, unsurprisingly, ignored. He could have easily added some points into the chart, and subsequent lists to give some evidence in favor of authenticity, but he has ignored every request. Every attempt at discussion with him proved futile.
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 1st December 2015, 11:02 AM   #1776
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Jabba, here are the sources cited by Marino and Prior in the document ("Addendum") you say you wish to consider in lieu of their previous work which you have now abandoned. The Addendum consists of excerpts from these works, accompanied by the authors' comments, interpretations, and other arguments. We do not accept Marino and Prior as faithful reporters, for reasons we have already given and with which you explicitly agreed. Therefore if you are going to use their summaries and excerpts, we require you to be familiar yourself with their source material in order to rule out such unfair usage as has been seen in your authors' other pertinent work. Therefore for each source in this list, please indicate to what extent you have read it. Please do this before using the Addendum in any further argument.

Gove, H. Relic, Icon or Hoax: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud.
Kersten, H., Gruber, E. The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth about the Resurrection.
Meacham, W. The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianityís Most Precious Relic Was Wrongly Condemned and Violated.
Rogers, R. A Chemistís Perspective on the Shroud of Turin.

If you plan to cite items in the Addendum as expert testimony, then the source material becomes subject to the criteria needed to establish testimony as expert. This will require, for each citation, an affirmative underlayment of suitable foundation, including but not limited to: field of expertise of the cited authority, access of the cited authority to appropriate data, basis of the authority's statement in enumerable and particularized evidence, nature of the statement, and concordance among similarly qualified authorities. Do you agree those are reasonable expectations?
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 1st December 2015, 11:05 AM   #1777
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by jond View Post
If you want to see why everyone's patience is at an end...
Indeed I would lose patience too. As Zooterkin noted, I'm a new poster in this topic, although not new to the larger debate. As such I have no need or desire to rehash previous tired claims. I'm looking at Jabba's claims in the here and now. As you can see, I'm perfectly willing to apply the larger perspective to see where the here-and-now fits. But replaying prior debate is neither necessary nor useful. Jabba's reputation is well established.
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 1st December 2015, 11:18 AM   #1778
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,923
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed I would lose patience too. As Zooterkin noted, I'm a new poster in this topic, although not new to the larger debate. As such I have no need or desire to rehash previous tired claims. I'm looking at Jabba's claims in the here and now. As you can see, I'm perfectly willing to apply the larger perspective to see where the here-and-now fits. But replaying prior debate is neither necessary nor useful. Jabba's reputation is well established.
Missing all the fun, you will be.
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 1st December 2015, 11:26 AM   #1779
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Missing all the fun, you will be.
I know, I know. But as a long-time poster in many other threads, I'm very sensitive to endless resets and recycles. In fact, a few other contributors at ISF have as their signature quotes something I said to the effect that the aim of fringe claimants is not to achieve any sort of resolution to their claims, but to spin the debate endlessly. I'm sure no one is more acutely aware of that than those who have engaged Jabba over the past few years.
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 1st December 2015, 01:19 PM   #1780
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I know, I know. But as a long-time poster in many other threads, I'm very sensitive to endless resets and recycles. In fact, a few other contributors at ISF have as their signature quotes something I said to the effect that the aim of fringe claimants is not to achieve any sort of resolution to their claims, but to spin the debate endlessly. I'm sure no one is more acutely aware of that than those who have engaged Jabba over the past few years.
IIRC, I paraphrased that back up thread, a turn of phrase for which I will be ever grateful to you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 1st December 2015, 02:19 PM   #1781
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,330
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I know you aren't. I've been over the previous threads, and I'm not in a hurry to revisit prior claims. For now, Jabba seems to think casting aspersions on 14C findings is what he wants to do. It's necessary, as I outline above, but by no means probative -- especially of authenticity. A claim of authenticity fails by contradiction according to the carbon dating. A claim of authenticity fails by starvation if it lacks any affirmative proof.

And yet Jabba continues to insist that anything that, in his opinion, casts doubt on the carbon dating should be added to his mythical "pro-authenticity pan", when if he could somehow completely discredit the carbon dating all it would do would be to remove the carbon dating from the "anti-authenticity pan".
__________________
"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 1st December 2015, 02:24 PM   #1782
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
And yet Jabba continues to insist that anything that, in his opinion, casts doubt on the carbon dating should be added to his mythical "pro-authenticity pan", when if he could somehow completely discredit the carbon dating all it would do would be to remove the carbon dating from the "anti-authenticity pan".
Hey Jabba, you could latch onto this and ignore the current failed topic. Got to be worth another 15 pages of this subject.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 1st December 2015 at 02:26 PM.
Sideroxylon 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 1st December 2015, 03:53 PM   #1783
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,594
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
Why aren't you doing this before you present it as evidence?
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
Old 1st December 2015, 07:30 PM   #1784
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
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
Good Evening, Mr. Savage:

Here is an opportunity for you to learn:

Item #1 makes an unsubstantiable claim about something Dr. McCrone is alleged to have said; then proceeds with the not-unexpected smears against the Good Doctor. (Notice: "...supposedly proved his theory...", and, even more typically, "...[McCrone] believed that the area from which the sample was actually taken, might have contained repairs...") (Italics added)
What is lacking? Evidence. Evidence along the lines of, "here is the rent; there the repair; these the egregious threads."

Not to mention the fact, as has been poinited out to you, that smearing the 14C dating does not advance your idea that the linen of the CIQ must be ~2000 years old. It is still true that the reason you think it must be ~2000 years old is that you decided, before you began your investigations, that the CIQ was the "True Shroud" (despite all of the problems unrelated to the 14C dating that have been pointed out to you.

You might find this interesting...

Do consider dropping this rearguard action,and addressing whatever positive evidecen you have that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old.
__________________
"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 1st December 2015, 09:27 PM   #1785
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Item #1 makes an unsubstantiable claim...
As long as you're jumping the gun, let me jump with you.

The sources to which Marino and Prior refer are, broadly speaking, mostly self-published books written by people who were not directly involved in the scientific testing of the cloth, but who have various theories and speculations about the problems it engendered. The face-palming moment comes when you realize that these authors have incompatible theories for what happened with the carbon dating. The Marino-and-Prior indirection allows Jabba to pretend there are a couple dozen reasons to distrust the dating. But in fact they are not a coherent or harmonious whole. They cannot in any way, shape, or form be considered a body of consilience because they argue different scenarios for what happened. They in fact contradict each other on such fundamental reasons such as why the date arrived at the 14th Century.

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st December 2015 at 09:28 PM.
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 2nd December 2015, 02:32 AM   #1786
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
As long as you're jumping the gun, let me jump with you.

The sources to which Marino and Prior refer are, broadly speaking, mostly self-published books written by people who were not directly involved in the scientific testing of the cloth, but who have various theories and speculations about the problems it engendered. The face-palming moment comes when you realize that these authors have incompatible theories for what happened with the carbon dating. The Marino-and-Prior indirection allows Jabba to pretend there are a couple dozen reasons to distrust the dating. But in fact they are not a coherent or harmonious whole. They cannot in any way, shape, or form be considered a body of consilience because they argue different scenarios for what happened. They in fact contradict each other on such fundamental reasons such as why the date arrived at the 14th Century.
Beautifully said.

I would only add, as emphasis, that the reason the "theories" are all over the map, disagreeing with each other willy-nilly, is not that threre is evidence that must be explained, but that the 14C dating came back with the "wrong" date.

It's special pleading all the way down...
__________________
"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 2nd December 2015, 04:42 AM   #1787
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment/M&P/Addendum

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum for significant evidence-- something I should have done before. In their addendum, they don't even include the Delorenzi impression.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Why?
Zoo,
- I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys -- that there was no 'meat' in some of their previous entries -- and dropped those entries in their addendum. The Delorenzi entry was one of the entries dropped.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 2nd December 2015, 05:03 AM   #1788
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,594
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys -- that there was no 'meat' in some of their previous entries -- and dropped those entries in their addendum. The Delorenzi entry was one of the entries dropped.
So you're saying you're clutching at straws.
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
Old 2nd December 2015, 05:13 AM   #1789
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
Zoo,
- I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys -- that there was no 'meat' in some of their previous entries -- and dropped those entries in their addendum. The Delorenzi entry was one of the entries dropped.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Please indicate which of the entries in the "addemdum" comprises, in your opinion, the best evidence that the sized and gessoed linen of the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old.

Sincerely yours,

&ct.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2015, 05:22 AM   #1790
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys -- that there was no 'meat' in some of their previous entries -- and dropped those entries in their addendum. The Delorenzi entry was one of the entries dropped.
And this helps the case for authenticity how?
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 05:49 AM   #1791
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,521
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys -- that there was no 'meat' in some of their previous entries -- and dropped those entries in their addendum. The Delorenzi entry was one of the entries dropped.
You didn't answer the question I asked, which was in response to the section of your post which I quoted, not the whole post. Why did you decide to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum? Why did you not continue with the items in the main paper?
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 06:27 AM   #1792
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,507
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
You didn't answer the question I asked, which was in response to the section of your post which I quoted, not the whole post. Why did you decide to switch over to considering the entries to M&P's Addendum? Why did you not continue with the items in the main paper?
I suspect Jabba thinks that the Addendum is a more defensible list which has had problematic entries dropped from it. He doesn't realise that both lists consist entirely of utterly worthless entries which can be as easily demolished as the Delorenzi one was.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 2nd December 2015, 06:27 AM   #1793
PizzaTheHutt
Scholar
 
PizzaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
So you're saying you're clutching at straws.
More like hanging by a thread...
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 2nd December 2015, 06:33 AM   #1794
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by PizzaTheHutt View Post
More like hanging by a thread...
...of an invisible patch.
__________________
<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 2nd December 2015, 07:02 AM   #1795
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence/Repair/Consilience/M&P

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

Please indicate which of the entries in the "addemdum" comprises, in your opinion, the best evidence that the sized and gessoed linen of the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old.

Sincerely yours,

&ct.
- Accepting that no single entry is especially 'meaty,' I want to work my way through each entry to see if I can develop some meaningful consilience. I'll have to go back over your different objections and see if I can answer them. I'll start with #1 in the addendum.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 2nd December 2015, 07:05 AM   #1796
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Accepting that no single entry is especially 'meaty,' I want to work my way through each entry to see if I can develop some meaningful consilience. I'll have to go back over your different objections and see if I can answer them. I'll start with #1 in the addendum.
You forgot to tell us how little time you have and how you'll be back.
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 07:29 AM   #1797
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
- Accepting that no single entry is especially 'meaty,' I want to work my way through each entry to see if I can develop some meaningful consilience. I'll have to go back over your different objections and see if I can answer them. I'll start with #1 in the addendum.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You could start here:

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

Here is an opportunity for you to learn:

Item #1 makes an unsubstantiable claim about something Dr. McCrone is alleged to have said; then proceeds with the not-unexpected smears against the Good Doctor. (Notice: "...supposedly proved his theory...", and, even more typically, "...[McCrone] believed that the area from which the sample was actually taken, might have contained repairs...") (Italics added)
What is lacking? Evidence. Evidence along the lines of, "here is the rent; there the repair; these the egregious threads."

Not to mention the fact, as has been pointed out to you, that smearing the 14C dating does not advance your idea that the linen of the CIQ must be ~2000 years old. It is still true that the reason you think it must be ~2000 years old is that you decided, before you began your investigations, that the CIQ was the "True Shroud" (despite all of the problems unrelated to the 14C dating that have been pointed out to you.

You might find this interesting...

Do consider dropping this rearguard action,and addressing whatever positive evidecence you have that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old.
Sincerely yours,

&ct.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2015, 07:30 AM   #1798
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,521
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
You forgot to tell us how little time you have and how you'll be back.
Not for at least three days.
__________________
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 2nd December 2015, 07:42 AM   #1799
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I suspect that they came to agree (in part) with you guys...
The question asked why are you changing horses. You don't know anything about Marino and Prior's motives, and we're not interested in your speculation about it. You do know your reasons for suddenly abandoning their paper, and we'd like to hear them.

If it was because, as you suggest, their evidence was too weak to matter, then I think we agree. Which raises the next question: why would you consider other works by those same authors?

And after your suspension is up, please answer this post, which you seem to have overlooked.

Last edited by JayUtah; 2nd December 2015 at 09:32 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 2nd December 2015, 07:44 AM   #1800
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...to see if I can develop some meaningful consilience.
You cannot. By definition (and for obvious reasons) the sources to be tested for consilience much reach the same conclusion. The sources cited by Marino and Prior do not.
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
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 06:53 AM.
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.