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 8th December 2015, 05:00 PM   #1881
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,435
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Exactly what the animation depicts. When you say "he abandons" I only see him changing planes -not the ones with wings-. He has managed to derail this thread repeatedly by turning 90 Escherian degrees to the right and addressing other poster in order to set the fake debate into its new direction to in turn do the same again. He derails the thread not by being not responsive or ambiguous, which is not a violation of the MA per se, but by making false promises deliberately: he feigns to yield and offers a promise of an argumentation just to repeat what he has spammed before -also a MA violation- to turn course again when he is being entrapped by his own empty argumentation.
These conceptual twists and turns reassure me that Jabba's claims of a poor memory and poor posting skills are overly self-critical and much overstated. His posts suggest a much more discerning approach and a more strategic vision than he is willing to give himself credit for. After some uncertainty I now believe that Jabba is able to advance his goals here even though convincing no one of the authenticity of the Shroud (or even "achieving" the opposite). Don't ever sell yourself short, Jabba!
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 8th December 2015, 07:52 PM   #1882
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
These conceptual twists and turns reassure me that Jabba's claims of a poor memory and poor posting skills are overly self-critical and much overstated. [...]
It's nothing more than a random walk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

Mr Savage keeps bouncing around between the boundaries of his paradigm, defying laws of physics and logic. He never makes a point. He never makes progress.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2015, 09:35 AM   #1883
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment/M&P/Repair/#2

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

I strongly recommend that you ever read this source, as a starting point.

Sincerely,

Yours, &ct.
Slowvehicle,
- As far as I can tell, the Flury-Lemberg paper does not specifically address the claims made in Entry #2 of the first M&P paper. While, M. Flury-Lemberg does present evidence against repair in her paper, she does not explain the evidence, apparently for repair, presented by M&P in Entry #2.
__________________
"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 è 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 9th December 2015, 09:55 AM   #1884
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,
- As far as I can tell, the Flury-Lemberg paper does not specifically address the claims made in Entry #2 of the first M&P paper. While, M. Flury-Lemberg does present evidence against repair in her paper, she does not explain the evidence, apparently for repair, presented by M&P in Entry #2.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Mme. F-L, whose opinions it pleases you to revile, examined the CIQ in great detail, by hand, in multiple light sources; according to her (and to others who have actually handled the CIQ) there is no evidence of any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching", as she (for instance) states, unambiguously (did you read the .pdf?).

Your "Entry #2" does not contain, or reference, or refer to, any evidence for any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching"; instead, it contains the speculation that there might be a supportable supposition that there may have been something of the sort.

What drives the supposition is not evidence, but the conviction that had there been some egregious inclusion in the 14C sample, that would explain why the 14C dating came back with the "wrong" date ("wrong" in the sense that the resulting date does not support ]he sidonist conviction that the CIQ must be the "true Shroud; ignoring all the other problems with the image on the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval linen).

Have you, in fact, any actual evidence?

I remain, faithfully,

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 9th December 2015, 10:04 AM   #1885
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
As far as I can tell, the Flury-Lemberg paper does not specifically address the claims made in Entry #2 of the first M&P paper.
Why is the first Marino and Prior paper now suddenly relevant again? You have not explained why you rejected it on the grounds it likely lacked rigor, but now seem to think it's okay again.

Quote:
While, M. Flury-Lemberg does present evidence against repair in her paper, she does not explain the evidence, apparently for repair, presented by M&P in Entry #2.
Marino and Prior are not the relevant experts. Raes is the relevant expert. The argument for late-date "invisible" repair comes from Marino and Prior's commentary that (as with the previous entry) tries to bridge the huge gulf between what the expert Raes actually found and what they have claimed. As with the previous entry, you are simply passing off inexpert speculation as evidence. The Flury-Lemberg paper reinforces that Marino and Prior's inexpert imagination is both inapplicable and not likely to be correct.

Further, you previously expressed distrust in Marino and Prior as accurate reporters. Pursuant to that, you were asked to describe your familiarity with their sources so that your readers here could gauge your ability to defend the claims made in the paper according to the original sources. Can you please explain why you have not done that yet?
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 9th December 2015, 10:25 AM   #1886
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
This thread is like a soap opera of the absurd. What preposterousness will Jabba pull next?
Well...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- As far as I can tell, the Flury-Lemberg paper does not specifically address the claims made in Entry #2 of the first M&P paper. While, M. Flury-Lemberg does present evidence against repair in her paper, she does not explain the evidence, apparently for repair, presented by M&P in Entry #2.
Consider your question answered.

Jabba,

Raes was debunked by Gabriel Vial who found that the cotton, such as it was, was entirely superficial, by the fact that mixed fibers were verbotten in Israel 2kya and so forth.

We have done this to death already. Not to mention that you agreed that the M&P paper was unreliable just a few posts back.
__________________
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 9th December 2015, 03:27 PM   #1887
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,002
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Follow the little ball in #1871 and you'll get the answer.
That is the most irritating animated graphic I've ever seen. The guy who invented that is absolutely a genius at being tiresome.

And Jabba could give him aces and picture-cards and still come out way, way ahead.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 9th December 2015, 03:40 PM   #1888
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment/M&P/Repair/#2

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

Mme. F-L, whose opinions it pleases you to revile, examined the CIQ in great detail, by hand, in multiple light sources; according to her (and to others who have actually handled the CIQ) there is no evidence of any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching", as she (for instance) states, unambiguously (did you read the .pdf?).

Your "Entry #2" does not contain, or reference, or refer to, any evidence for any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching"; instead, it contains the speculation that there might be a supportable supposition that there may have been something of the sort...
Slowvehicle,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
- To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area. You (and Agatha) seem to know a lot more about this stuff than do I -- so, I'll ask you a question similar to the one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
__________________
"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 è 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 9th December 2015, 03:45 PM   #1889
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
__________________
"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 9th December 2015, 03:45 PM   #1890
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair...
Then your burden of proof remains unsatisfied.

Quote:
To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area.
No. You are not an expert, and this lay question-begging is entirely unprobative. And the disingenuous softening of position from "repair" to "different" or "unusual" did not go unnoticed. Do not attempt motte-and-bailey tactics or otherwise backpedal.

Quote:
Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
I do not.

Last edited by JayUtah; 9th December 2015 at 03:50 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 9th December 2015, 04:14 PM   #1891
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,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
- To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area. You (and Agatha) seem to know a lot more about this stuff than do I -- so, I'll ask you a question similar to the one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
My Dear Mr. Savage:

It is distressingly clear that you did not, in fact, read the .pdf to which I provided you a link. I am, I admit, disappointed.

Let's try again.

Mme. F-L, whose opinions it pleases you to revile, examined the CIQ in great detail, by hand, in multiple light sources; according to her (and to others who have actually handled the CIQ) there is no evidence of any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching", as she (for instance) states, unambiguously.

In the .pdf to which I directed you, Mme. F-L says, "...Where exactly had the patch been attached? How big was it? Was it so small that it covered only the sample area? Answers to these questions are lacking in the hypothesis of Benford/Marino and Rogers. They can only be given in a competent way by textile experts. One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!"

Notice that the testimony of two fabric experts, experts who actually handled the CIQ (and examined it, front and back, in various light sources, including backlighting), is that there is no evidence of the "...patching..." sidonists so desperately try to assume into existence.

I encourage you, yet again, to consider why the possibility of "...some patching"; the conjecture of an "invisible" repair; the assumption that there "must be" something of the sort is raised.

Is it evidence, along the lines of, "...behold! there the linen was rent; see! here the "repair" was wrought; look here! these the modern threads admixed with the original linen"?

No.

The only reason the various repair stories have been concocted is that the most observed bit of 14C dating ever produced the "wrong" date; a date that did not align with the sidonists' presupposition that the CIQ must be "the True Shroud". Special pleading, circular argument, begging the question, assumed consequent; call it what you will, it is still faulty logic (and provides no evidence for any "...patching").

I will thank you not to try to put words in my mouth; not to try to frame a question so that you can pretend to an agreement I have repudiated.

In that light, have you repaired the egregious 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; 9th December 2015 at 04:17 PM.
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 9th December 2015, 04:36 PM   #1892
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Let's try again.
The problem is not understanding the difference between an inference and an observation. Raes notes what he believes is cotton. From that, Marino and Prior infer that a patch may have been applied. It's one of several things that could have happened to explain traces of cotton on the sample. However, Flury-Lemberg observes that there is no patch. Observation trumps inference.

A simpler example: Let's say you're at home and you hear thunder. You infer that it must be raining, and further that if it's raining then your sidewalk may be wet. These are not unreasonable inferences. But if you open your front door and observe that, despite the rumblings, it is not raining and your sidewalk is not wet, then your inferential argument for sidewalk-wetness is conclusively refuted. It doesn't matter how clever the inference was.

Marino and Prior are not even clever. Once again they take what has been observed by others, and conjure up a conjectural connection to the desired conclusion out of thin air. (I was going to say "out of whole cloth," but I think that pun's been done to death.)
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 9th December 2015, 04:41 PM   #1893
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
Then stop offering poorly-informed opinions about topics you don't understand. You're going to catch a lot of flak when you continue to do that. You're going to catch even more when you call acknowledged experts in the fields incompetent liars. You must have figured that out by now.

I would recommend asking non-loaded questions rather than making unevidenced claims, but I know you'll be back in a few days making more asinine, discredited assertions with no supporting evidence as if the last 4 years of Educating Jabba had never taken place.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[...] one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
NO!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 9th December 2015 at 04:49 PM.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2015, 06:00 PM   #1894
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
- To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area. You (and Agatha) seem to know a lot more about this stuff than do I -- so, I'll ask you a question similar to the one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
Hold on one cotton pickin' moment.

Back up the truck just a bit.

You are flat out asserting that you have not the faintest expertise yet everyone should accept your blesséd opinion as though it were remotely deliveréd from <insert deity of choice>.

You are flat out stating that in this regard you admit that you are innocent of any knowledge whatsoever and might as well be staring into a bush.

Is that now your claim?

Your answer is a resounding "No". Address Gabby Vial's findings.
__________________
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 9th December 2015, 07:21 PM   #1895
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
- To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area. You (and Agatha) seem to know a lot more about this stuff than do I -- so, I'll ask you a question similar to the one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?

Jabba, if you have an ounce of integrity, you will include this post on that embarrassing piece of work you call your 'map' on your website.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th December 2015, 07:33 PM   #1896
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- All I know about weaving has been learned during the last few years --discussing the shroud. I've forgotten a lot of that, and another batch of it I never understood anyway... Consequently, at this point, I can't really judge the extent to which the info in this entry supports the notion of repair, or even just that something unusual has happened to the weave in this area.
- To a novice, such as myself, the info here does significantly suggest that there is something different about this area. You (and Agatha) seem to know a lot more about this stuff than do I -- so, I'll ask you a question similar to the one I asked Agatha. Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
Nope.
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 10th December 2015, 12:13 AM   #1897
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,814
Has anyone ever duplicated this (near-)invisible reweave using medieval techniques?
Because if they haven't...
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 12:52 AM   #1898
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,529
Originally Posted by MetalPig View Post
Has anyone ever duplicated this (near-)invisible reweave using medieval techniques?
Because if they haven't...
The Medieval Era didn't happen?

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 10th December 2015, 01:23 AM   #1899
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,814
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
The Medieval Era didn't happen?

Yeah, and then the scales start tipping.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 02:01 AM   #1900
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ankh Morpork/Plymouth, UK
Posts: 7,529
Originally Posted by MetalPig View Post
Yeah, and then the scales start tipping.
Well, if you take around 10 Centuries out, that reduces the burden on Jabba...
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 10th December 2015, 06:03 AM   #1901
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence - Expert Judgment/M&P/Repair/#2

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

It is distressingly clear that you did not, in fact, read the .pdf to which I provided you a link. I am, I admit, disappointed.

Let's try again.

Mme. F-L, whose opinions it pleases you to revile, examined the CIQ in great detail, by hand, in multiple light sources; according to her (and to others who have actually handled the CIQ) there is no evidence of any kind of "invisible" repair; nor yet a "near-invisible" repair, nor even "...some patching", as she (for instance) states, unambiguously.

In the .pdf to which I directed you, Mme. F-L says, "...Where exactly had the patch been attached? How big was it? Was it so small that it covered only the sample area? Answers to these questions are lacking in the hypothesis of Benford/Marino and Rogers. They can only be given in a competent way by textile experts. One of them, who was present when the sample was taken, the late Gabriel Vial, confirmed repeatedly that the sample was taken from the original cloth!"

Notice that the testimony of two fabric experts, experts who actually handled the CIQ (and examined it, front and back, in various light sources, including backlighting), is that there is no evidence of the "...patching..." sidonists so desperately try to assume into existence.

I encourage you, yet again, to consider why the possibility of "...some patching"; the conjecture of an "invisible" repair; the assumption that there "must be" something of the sort is raised.

Is it evidence, along the lines of, "...behold! there the linen was rent; see! here the "repair" was wrought; look here! these the modern threads admixed with the original linen"?

No.

The only reason the various repair stories have been concocted is that the most observed bit of 14C dating ever produced the "wrong" date; a date that did not align with the sidonists' presupposition that the CIQ must be "the True Shroud". Special pleading, circular argument, begging the question, assumed consequent; call it what you will, it is still faulty logic (and provides no evidence for any "...patching").

I will thank you not to try to put words in my mouth; not to try to frame a question so that you can pretend to an agreement I have repudiated.

In that light, have you repaired the egregious deficiencies in your "map"?
Slowvehicle,
- I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.
__________________
"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 è 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 10th December 2015, 06:16 AM   #1902
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.

YES. IT. DOES! Entry#2 has been eviscerated. The pro-repair pan is empty.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2015, 06:18 AM   #1903
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 have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

It seems to me that you are saying that the unsupported conjecture about superficial bits of cotton should be taken at greater value than the expert physical examination of the CIQ itself, in situ, which revealed no evidence of any kind of "...patching...".

You are grasping at straws.

#2 provides no support for your hopes.

I remain,

Faithfully 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 10th December 2015, 06:27 AM   #1904
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Do you accept that the results of the study on the Raes sample suggests that something unusual has happened to the weave in that area?
No. This is complete rubbish.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2015, 06:28 AM   #1905
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.
Untrue. Your desperate need to believe doesn't alter reality. There is no magic patch.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th December 2015, 06:38 AM   #1906
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,

- I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.

Whilst M. Flury-Lemberg's paper does not contain a direct response to "entry #2", it does address the issue. She stated quite clearly and unequivocally that there is no patching or repair of any kind in the area that was tested.

This is the conclusion of a world renowned expert in ancient and mediaeval textiles who got to examine the cloth in painstaking detail. This conclusion was backed up by by Vial, another textiles expert, who was present when the sample was cut.

The Raes sample was from a different area of the cloth, close by, but not the piece that was used for Carbon dating. Also, Raes' observations relate to a side strip which was clearly sewn on to the main cloth, which is not the case for the Carbon tested sample.

So, no, Entry #2 cannot go in the pro- repair pan, it goes in the waste pan.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 10th December 2015, 07:11 AM   #1907
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,317
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2. That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.

Even without the Flury-Lemberg paper, it doesn't go in the "pro-repair pan"* because you're jumping from "there might have been a patch near the sample" to "the sample was patched".



*On the positive side, at least you seem to have stopped pretending that evidence in favour of repairs is evidence in favour of authenticity.
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 07:55 AM   #1908
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I have read M. Flury-Lemberg's paper, but as far as I can tell, she doesn't address the issues raised by Entry #2.
Straw man. The citation to Flury-Lemberg was not intended as a direct response to Marino and Prior, as you seem to believe. It is intended to convey observations made by subject-matter experts that are incompatible and inconsistent with the tenuous inferences drawn by your authors.

You were told the difference between an inference and observation. The Flury-Lemberg paper is a direct affirmative rebuttal -- observational evidence that the conjectured conclusion cannot be true.

Quote:
That being the case, Entry #2 should remain in the pro-repair pan.
No. Your unwillingness to listen to the rebuttal does not make it go away.

Observations that directly contradict inferences drawn by your authors do not let those inferences stand. Those observations have been shown to you, and you have no answer for them except denial.

Further, your point fails for reasons other than those mentioned in Flury-Lemberg, not the least of which is your admission that you aren't competent yourself to determine whether it's viable evidence. You may not demand that your critics have a lower standard of proof that you do yourself for your own claims.

Other reasons include the obvious conjecture propounded by Marino and Prior -- authors you estimate to be poor (nay, even deceptive) reporters of fact. It is that conjecture once again, not any finding by the cited experts, that forms the only connection between the data reported and the alleged claim of a repair.

In addition, your authors make no tenable argument for their claim the allegedly variant area was included in the carbon-dated sample. They simply conclude, on no stronger basis than their fervent wish, that it's reasonable to believe the two areas are related. Toward that end you've tried to soften the conclusion in no. 2 to make it easier for you to prove. Now you ask only that your critics agree the area is "unusual" or "different," as if that proposition had any rational relation to your assertive claims of repair. Changing horses in that fashion is intellectually dishonest.

You are simply trying the same lame rehabilitation you attempted with Delorenzi. When the facts clearly show your authors' claims to be unfounded, you assert that their speculation should "somehow" still be considered evidence. If your blatant begging of the question is to be your sole defense of this paper, then save us all the trouble and abandon it again.

I grow tired of asking why, in light of the doubt you express in the honesty and trustworthiness of Marino and Prior, you have not allayed the suspicion by indicating your familiarity with their source material before continuing to present their claims as fact. It is highly insulting for you to persistently evade intellectual responsibility in this fashion.
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 10th December 2015, 09:39 AM   #1909
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The problem is not understanding the difference between an inference and an observation. Raes notes what he believes is cotton. From that, Marino and Prior infer that a patch may have been applied. It's one of several things that could have happened to explain traces of cotton on the sample. However, Flury-Lemberg observes that there is no patch. Observation trumps inference.

A simpler example: Let's say you're at home and you hear thunder. You infer that it must be raining, and further that if it's raining then your sidewalk may be wet. These are not unreasonable inferences. But if you open your front door and observe that, despite the rumblings, it is not raining and your sidewalk is not wet, then your inferential argument for sidewalk-wetness is conclusively refuted. It doesn't matter how clever the inference was.

Marino and Prior are not even clever. Once again they take what has been observed by others, and conjure up a conjectural connection to the desired conclusion out of thin air. (I was going to say "out of whole cloth," but I think that pun's been done to death.)
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.

- In the thunder example you have one person hearing thunder and inferring that it might be raining. When he actually goes outside, he perceives no rain and no wetness. Unless there is something wrong with his perception, which seems very unlikely, he can dismiss his previous speculation.
- In the entry #2 example, we've already had two experts looking closely at the shroud, and from their perception infer that the shroud has not been repaired in the sample. Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample, perceiving something the previous experts did not perceive, and inferring from their new perceptions, that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.

- I think that giving titles to the sections and subsections of our complicated debate could be very useful, but at this point, I don't know how to do it effectively. I think I should have been more careful laying out the groundwork.
__________________
"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 è 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 10th December 2015, 09:45 AM   #1910
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.

- In the thunder example you have one person hearing thunder and inferring that it might be raining. When he actually goes outside, he perceives no rain and no wetness. Unless there is something wrong with his perception, which seems very unlikely, he can dismiss his previous speculation.
- In the entry #2 example, we've already had two experts looking closely at the shroud, and from their perception infer that the shroud has not been repaired in the sample. Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample, perceiving something the previous experts did not perceive, and inferring from their new perceptions, that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.

- I think that giving titles to the sections and subsections of our complicated debate could be very useful, but at this point, I don't know how to do it effectively. I think I should have been more careful laying out the groundwork.
Do you even phrase your sentences in a way that implies any sort of certainty?
__________________
<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 10th December 2015, 09:54 AM   #1911
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
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.

- In the thunder example you have one person hearing thunder and inferring that it might be raining. When he actually goes outside, he perceives no rain and no wetness. Unless there is something wrong with his perception, which seems very unlikely, he can dismiss his previous speculation.
- In the entry #2 example, we've already had two experts looking closely at the shroud, and from their perception infer that the shroud has not been repaired in the sample.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

This is notbthe case, at all.

Two experts (one of whom you have reviled for years) examined the CIQ in situ, and determined that there was,no evidence, none, of an "invisible" reweave"; a "near-invisible" repair; nor even "...some patching; in fact, determined that the weave was undisturbed and contiguous (you, personally, admit that you lack this expertise).

Mme F-L even raised some of the very points I have raised, and others have raised, about the non-existence of any of the adulterations for which you so desperately wish.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample,
I invite you to present evidence of this.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
perceiving something the previous experts did not perceive, and inferring from their new perceptions, that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.
1. "Might have been" does not outweigh "there is no evidence for"; no matter how fervently you wish.

2. Mme. F-L "did not perceive" that there "might have been" the "repair" you need to support your unhappiness with the most observed bit of 14C dating ever, because she saw that there was no evidence of such at all. She observed that the sample was an authentic, representative, and integral part of the CIQ.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that giving titles to the sections and subsections of our complicated debate could be very useful, but at this point, I don't know how to do it effectively. I think I should have been more careful laying out the groundwork.
I think you should actually produce evidence, and stop trying to imply support for your assumed consequent.

I remain,

Faithfully 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 10th December 2015, 09:55 AM   #1912
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,922
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Whilst M. Flury-Lemberg's paper does not contain a direct response to "entry #2", it does address the issue. She stated quite clearly and unequivocally that there is no patching or repair of any kind in the area that was tested.

This is the conclusion of a world renowned expert in ancient and mediaeval textiles who got to examine the cloth in painstaking detail. This conclusion was backed up by by Vial, another textiles expert, who was present when the sample was cut.

The Raes sample was from a different area of the cloth, close by, but not the piece that was used for Carbon dating. Also, Raes' observations relate to a side strip which was clearly sewn on to the main cloth, which is not the case for the Carbon tested sample.

So, no, Entry #2 cannot go in the pro- repair pan, it goes in the waste pan.
Quoted because Jabba ignored this.
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 10th December 2015, 09:57 AM   #1913
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.

- In the thunder example you have one person hearing thunder and inferring that it might be raining. When he actually goes outside, he perceives no rain and no wetness. Unless there is something wrong with his perception, which seems very unlikely, he can dismiss his previous speculation.
- In the entry #2 example, we've already had two experts looking closely at the shroud, and from their perception infer that the shroud has not been repaired in the sample. Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample, perceiving something the previous experts did not perceive, and inferring from their new perceptions, that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.

- I think that giving titles to the sections and subsections of our complicated debate could be very useful, but at this point, I don't know how to do it effectively. I think I should have been more careful laying out the groundwork.

Jabba,

I'm having a more and more difficult time deciding if you really do have difficulty understanding or are deliberately being combative. Your statement above is grossly unrepresentative of the situation. Jay's analogy was spot on. F-L is equivalent to the person going outside to look at the sidewalk. She handled and observed the cloth and specifically looked for the presence of repairs. M&P did not observe any repairs. They only inferred this based on the presence of cotton. Observation trumps inference.
Monza 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 10th December 2015, 10:17 AM   #1914
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.
Jabba, that just simply increases your burden of proof. You now have to not only claim but demonstrate that not a single one of the centuries of caretakers at any time deposited cotton fibres on the cloth.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 10:20 AM   #1915
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.
That's because you still don't recognize the difference between an inference and an observation. You're positioning Marino and Prior's speculation as if it were qualitatively on par with Flury-Lemberg's observation.

The order in which inference and observation occur is irrelevant; inferences made in defiance of established observation fail forthwith. To put this in the terms of the analogy, if you go out and stand on your dry sidewalk, hear thunder and infer it must be raining, then you're an idiot.

Quote:
...that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.
Marino and Prior's hypothesis that Raes et al.'s findings are best explained by a repair is an inference. Flury-Lemberg's findings that no repair is visible is an observation.

Raes did not say the cloth was patched in the way Marino and Prior insinuate. He was looking at a part of the cloth where sewing was expected as part of its original manufacture. Marino and Prior, who are not experts and who did not examine the material themselves, characterize Raes' findings as anomalies and concoct a purely wishful hypothesis to explain those anomalies as evidence of a repair. As you have been told many times, such speculation is no kind of evidence. Your argument fails both as a matter of fact and a matter of logic.

The other aspect of Mme. Flury-Lemberg's findings you haven't considered is its effect on your desire to posture Marino and Prior's chronology as a consilient set of evidence. Remember that consilience is a qualitative measure, not a scoreboard. And the qualitative aspect of a line of evidence that is to be taken as consilient is the development of it in isolation such that the overall proposition arises from it as the most independently viable interpretation.

Here the overall proposition doesn't arise from it at all. It is ham-fistedly pasted onto it by Marino and Prior, and you have already conceded you are not able to argue its fitness. Hence you have already conceded that this point is anti-consilient. And after estimating Marino and Prior to be less-than-honest reporters, and advancing the notion that they considered their chronology debunked enough for you to abandon it, you have yet to explain why your critics should esteem it at all.

Finally, how do you advise me to interpret your ongoing insolence in failing to disclose your proficiency with Marino and Prior's source materials?

Last edited by JayUtah; 10th December 2015 at 10:22 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 10th December 2015, 11:23 AM   #1916
Lucian
Illuminator
 
Lucian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,146
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample,
I invite you to present evidence of this.
And this ("experts"--I couldn't figure out how to highlight in a different color), assuming we're talking about Marino and Prior versus Flury-Lemberg. What expertise does Marino have? I see he used to monk professionally at St. Louis Priory. I have friends who went to school there. I asked them what he taught. He didn't teach; he worked in the library. When he gave up monking, he became a library associate at Ohio State University. A library associate is not a librarian or a research librarian. Generally, they are required to have a bachelor's degree in...some field or other. So, if I understand this correctly, Marino hasn't inspected the shroud and isn't a specialist in any field. If Jabba has more information on Marino's area of expertise, I'd be thrilled to hear it.
Lucian 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 10th December 2015, 11:30 AM   #1917
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Lucian View Post
And this ("experts"--I couldn't figure out how to highlight in a different color), assuming we're talking about Marino and Prior versus Flury-Lemberg.
I assumed he was talking about Rogers and Raes. In any case it's the same hair-split as before. Some authority says something, and it is Marino and Prior who warp it into something that seems to support their contention of an invisible repair. The operant claim comes from the inexpert Marino, while the irrelevant information (and assumed authority) come from someone else.

This is actually a fairly common pattern in fringe argumentation.
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 10th December 2015, 12:12 PM   #1918
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
I assumed he was talking about Rogers and Raes. In any case it's the same hair-split as before. Some authority says something, and it is Marino and Prior who warp it into something that seems to support their contention of an invisible repair. The operant claim comes from the inexpert Marino, while the irrelevant information (and assumed authority) come from someone else.

This is actually a fairly common pattern in fringe argumentation.
Further deserving of continued emphasis is the fact that none of the conjectures and wishes about any kind of adulteration are dirven by the presence of any "...patching..." but by the desperate need to invent some way to discredit the 14C dating, since it returned the "wrong" date.
__________________
"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 10th December 2015, 01:21 PM   #1919
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,451
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I assumed he was talking about Rogers and Raes. In any case it's the same hair-split as before.
You assumed in error. Jabba appears not to care. And this is despite you, me and all the other heathens telling him out front that none this has any effect on whichever flavour of deity he elects to believe in.

If Jabba were to declare that he believed in Thor, or unicorns, or dragons or flower fairies, would the discussion change in any way? Nope.

The distinction is that the goal is not to prove that any particular belief is true, but to claim that any belief may be true without any evidence.

Taking Jabba's arguments at face value, all of them are true.
__________________
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 10th December 2015, 01:25 PM   #1920
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,233
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,

- It seems to me that the example you give about hearing thunder is not analogous to finding cotton in the sample.

- In the thunder example you have one person hearing thunder and inferring that it might be raining. When he actually goes outside, he perceives no rain and no wetness. Unless there is something wrong with his perception, which seems very unlikely, he can dismiss his previous speculation.
- In the entry #2 example, we've already had two experts looking closely at the shroud, and from their perception infer that the shroud has not been repaired in the sample. Then, we have experts apparently looking more closely at the sample, perceiving something the previous experts did not perceive, and inferring from their new perceptions, that the sample was -- or at least, might have been -- repaired.

- I think that giving titles to the sections and subsections of our complicated debate could be very useful, but at this point, I don't know how to do it effectively. I think I should have been more careful laying out the groundwork.
Apparently. Might have been. I think.

This is not the stuff of evidence; it is the stuff of speculation by a layman.

This topic is dead. It has ceased to be. It's not a Norwegian Blue, it's never going to come back, no matter how many volts you put through it.

What's more galling is we wouldn't have had to waste the past week getting to this point if you'd actually read the cited documents, before submitting them as evidence! I mean who does that? It's just intellectually, logically, and ethically bankrupt.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 08:13 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.