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 15th December 2015, 10:49 AM   #2041
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
Don't waste your time. You don't have any preponderence of evidence. You have a preponderance of wishful thinking and faulty logic. No one here is confused except perhaps yourself.
__________________
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 15th December 2015, 10:59 AM   #2042
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
- Take a look at this!
http://shroudstory.com/2015/12/15/thank-you-everyone/
__________________
"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 15th December 2015, 11:03 AM   #2043
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
As others have stated, you're the one trying to confuse the issue by insisting that we consider speculation on par with actual evidence. They are qualitatively dissimilar and, in terms of probative value, as dissimilar as night and day. This is one of two reasons why your scale pan metaphor is dishonest. You visualize it as placing one thing in the "pro" pan and another thing in the "con" pan and seeing where the scale balances. It's dishonest because only one of those things is a thing. You have nothing to put in the other pan. Conjecture only describes what could be put in the pan. It doesn't actually put anything there. In terms of evidence that is, versus evidence that could be if you would only produce it, the scale thunks quite solidly and loudly down on the side that has actual evidence.

The other reason your metaphor is dishonest is that in you hands it's not an objective tool. You simply say you won't believe what's in the other pan. That's tantamount to holding your hand under it to keep its ponderance from having its true effect. You dismiss what's in one pan based on nothing more substantial than your dislike of its weight. You are not dispassionately and objectively weighing evidence. Your bias glares quite brightly.
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 15th December 2015, 11:05 AM   #2044
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Surprise, surprise. You draw the conclusion you have believed all along, as if the past 4 years didn't exist. Why are we not surprised?
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 15th December 2015, 11:08 AM   #2045
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
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Suppose you explain, in your own words, what is there, and what you think it means.

I remain,

Appreciatively 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 15th December 2015, 11:19 AM   #2046
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Suppose you explain, in your own words, what is there, and what you think it means.
He's resigning from blogging to pursue other interests, but gives as his parting shot the belief that the preponderance of evidence still favors authenticity.

In other words, safe and sound in the illusion that he has submitted his beliefs to the judgment of a skeptical audience and emerged victorious.
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 15th December 2015, 11:52 AM   #2047
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
He's resigning from blogging to pursue other interests, but gives as his parting shot the belief that the preponderance of evidence still favors authenticity.

In other words, safe and sound in the illusion that he has submitted his beliefs to the judgment of a skeptical audience and emerged victorious.
How very...odd. Does he give any indication whether he intends to continue here?
__________________
"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 15th December 2015, 11:58 AM   #2048
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
How very...odd. Does he give any indication whether he intends to continue here?
It's Dan Porter who is stepping down, not Jabba.
__________________
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 15th December 2015, 12:15 PM   #2049
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,184
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
It does. But you may say that observation out-preponders inference, if that works better for you.

Also, it is not inference, it is conjecture, which does not preponder at all.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 15th December 2015 at 12:17 PM.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2015, 12:55 PM   #2050
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,521
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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 15th December 2015, 01:41 PM   #2051
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's Dan Porter who is stepping down, not Jabba.
Ah, my mistake. Sorry.
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 15th December 2015, 01:45 PM   #2052
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 John Jones View Post
It's Dan Porter who is stepping down, not Jabba.
Then why, in the name of the Dancing Kewpie Dolls of Lulongomeela, has it been presented here?
__________________
"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 15th December 2015, 01:51 PM   #2053
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Then why, in the name of the Dancing Kewpie Dolls of Lulongomeela, has it been presented here?
Distraction.
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 15th December 2015, 02:15 PM   #2054
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Then why, in the name of the Dancing Kewpie Dolls of Lulongomeela, has it been presented here?
Somebody wants another vacation?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 15th December 2015 at 02:58 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 15th December 2015, 03:15 PM   #2055
Tomboy
Thinker
 
Tomboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Congratulations, Tomboy, on your selection as Jabba's current Least Skeptical Poster. It is not a permanent position, but it is an important one. I wish you luck over the next few days and hope you can help move this thread forward. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Godspeed.
Hoo boy. If the regular participants in this discussion haven’t been able to move the thread forward over the years, then the likelihood of me being able to do so is about equal to the likelihood that the Shroud of Turin is actually 2000 years old. (Note to Jabba: That’s not an admission that I believe the SoT is 2000 years old. All evidence indicates that it’s a medieval artifact.)

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- So far, I don't agree with why others don't count Entry#2 as evidence. Is your explanation the same as theirs?
- Whatever, I'll go back and rethink their explanations.
Please do. In the meantime, can you explain to me, in your own words, what part of Entry 2 you find compelling and why? Because I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around Benford and Marino’s reasoning. Help convince me.

Here’s my take. Entry #2 starts with, “Textile expert Gilbert Raes of Belgium, who extracted a sample in 1973 for analysis, wrote in his report that he found cotton.” McCrone found occasional cotton fibers in his samples, and he had samples from multiple areas of the shroud (source: “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin”, Walter McCrone, Prometheus Books, 1999.), so it doesn’t surprise me that a bit of cotton was found in the Raes sample, too. The source of that cotton could be almost anything, from cotton fibers that got mixed in with the flax during the original manufacture, to contamination from cloth gloves worn by the people who handle the shroud.

Then Benford and Marino somehow take that one statement about cotton and turn it into a cotton-containing patch. Note that this source sites Raes as actually saying, “in some of the preparations from the warp as well as from the weft of Piece 1, traces of cotton fibers were observed.” (Footnote lists source as Gilbert Raes: “The textile study of 1973-1974”. Shroud Spectrum International. 1991. N°38/39.) That’s a pretty big leap to go from “traces of cotton fibers” to “cotton-containing patch”. Without knowing anything else about them, Benford and Marino lose credibility with me right there.

Let’s play What If. What if there really was a cotton-containing patch in the Raes sample? First, the Raes sample wasn’t carbon dated. It was next to the area that was carbon dated, so any patch on the Raes sample couldn’t have affected the carbon dated sample. That’s where we’re going with this, right? Because the only way a patch can in any way help your argument towards a non-medieval origin is if it somehow skewed the carbon 14 dating, and did so drastically.

Second, just like the dirt/contamination issue, a patch containing enough cotton to skew the carbon dating results would have to be more cotton than original shroud material. In other words, it would be highly visible. Not invisible, or nearly invisible. It would be an entirely different type of fiber from an entirely different time period made by entirely different methods of manufacturing. It would be blatantly obvious to even a lay person much less a textile expert, and yet none of the textile experts who very meticulously examined the area to be carbon dated noted any type of patch or aberration.

There is no evidence of any patch of any kind on the area selected for carbon dating.

All of which is a very long and wordy way of saying that, yes, I agree with those who don’t count entry #2 as evidence.
Tomboy 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 15th December 2015, 03:24 PM   #2056
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Suppose you explain, in your own words, what is there, and what you think it means.

I remain,

Appreciatively yours, &ct.
Slowvehicle,
- As I've always claimed: though I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence, and Dan Porter's opinion has been a significant weight on the pro side of my scales. I hadn't realized how strong his doubts were before this news...
- I'm not sure when he revised the opening comment on his blog to just say that the shroud may be authentic instead of the old, it's probably authentic. Whatever, I must admit that I'm discouraged -- and to be honest, might need to revise my own opinion somewhat...

- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
__________________
"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 15th December 2015, 03:36 PM   #2057
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 I've always claimed: though I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence, and Dan Porter's opinion has been a significant weight on the pro side of my scales. I hadn't realized how strong his doubts were before this news...
- I'm not sure when he revised the opening comment on his blog to just say that the shroud may be authentic instead of the old, it's probably authentic. Whatever, I must admit that I'm discouraged -- and to be honest, might need to revise my own opinion somewhat...

- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

It is clear why you think that the contradictory conjectures in the M&P papers are evidence--you want the CIQ to be the "True Shroud", so you have adopted the confirmed sidonist position that anything that can be claimed to support the conjecture that the CIQ might, possibly, be "authentic" must be uncritically accepted as "evidence"; wheras anything that demonstrates that the anatomically absurd, historically ridiculous, scripturally heretical, posturally impossible, byzantine-styled representational figure (complete with anti-gravity "hair" and "blood") rendered on the sized and gessoed surface of the manifestly medieval linen dates from the mid-thirteenth Century, B.C.E. must be rejected in the name of bolstering your faith.

Still not a sniff of actual evidence.

Through it all, I remain,

Patiently 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 15th December 2015, 03:49 PM   #2058
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[T]hough I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence...
These are incompatible objectives. You can't be trusted to weigh the evidence if you want that outcome to be a certain thing. And you have presented no evidence to weigh. Via handwaving, conjecture, and pharisaical word games you're trying to say the weight of evidence against your desired belief really isn't weight. That's not a weighing of evidence. That's an excusory tactic for hiding your lack of evidence to weigh.

Quote:
At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence...
No. Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. You admitted these authors misrepresented Delorenzi. You've realized, but not yet admitted, that they misrepresented Ehrlich. It's been shown that they misrepresented Raes et al. You yourself planned to abandoned the chronology. You speculated the authors believed it may have been too debunked to stand as evidence, therefore the need for the addendum. Then one step into the addendum, you abandoned it in favor of a stealth rehabilitation of the chronology.

Your critics have noted this shell game and asked you to explain yourself. Will you finally do that? Or will you continue the ham-fisted motte-and-bailey tactic?

Quote:
I'll keep trying to show why.
But you don't know why. You aren't an expert in any of the relevant sciences, and you clearly haven't vetted your authors' treatment of their primary sources. You haven't done enough homework to know whether it is the evidence you say it is, and your critics keep demonstrating this to you.

The addendum clearly fails, for the reasons stated. It cannot be considered consilient when its small number of sources nevertheless manage to reach vastly different and incompatible conclusions.

The chronology ought to fail, since you abandoned it. Even if we charitably let you retract that abandonment, you're still stuck with all its blatant misrepresentations. You cling to it by simply ignoring the evidence it can't explain and pretending that act of ignorance is some careful, dispassionate deliberation on your part. This is you letting your desired outcome drive the interpretation of the results. That is anti-consilience.
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 15th December 2015, 04:13 PM   #2059
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
[...]
- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
It's a dead issue. Move along.
__________________
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 15th December 2015, 04:54 PM   #2060
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,212
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...pharisaical...

That is a most excellent word.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 15th December 2015, 06:15 PM   #2061
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post

...

Your critics have noted this shell game and asked you to explain yourself. Will you finally do that? Or will you continue the ham-fisted motte-and-bailey tactic?

...
That's a new one. I've looked it up, but I keep running into (1) medieval fortifications or (2) hard to follow philosophical definitions.

However, I think I get the gist.
Humots 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 16th December 2015, 03:02 AM   #2062
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,184
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Slowvehicle,
- As I've always claimed: though I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence, and Dan Porter's opinion has been a significant weight on the pro side of my scales. I hadn't realized how strong his doubts were before this news...
Fair enough, Jabba, but if you want to weigh evidence, you must do it accordingly to commonly accepted scales. You can't invent your own weighing method.

Of course, there is always to possibility to, like Dan Porter seems to have done, simply admit that you were mistaken.

Just because we don't have his shroud, you can still believe in Jesus. After all, we also don't have his shoes, or his walking stick.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th December 2015, 03:33 AM   #2063
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He's resigning from blogging to pursue other interests, but gives as his parting shot the belief that the preponderance of evidence still favors authenticity.

In other words, safe and sound in the illusion that he has submitted his beliefs to the judgment of a skeptical audience and emerged victorious.
Exactly. There is just too much evidence that the shroud is a medieval fake so he's abandoning any pretense of actual investigation in favour of declaring victory.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Distraction.
Yep.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I've always claimed: though I want the shroud to be authentic, I'm here trying to weigh the evidence, and Dan Porter's opinion has been a significant weight on the pro side of my scales.
Why? He had provided no evidence to support his opinion.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
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 16th December 2015, 06:18 AM   #2064
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,184
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

- At any rate, I still think that the M&P papers constitute evidence, and for now, I'll keep trying to show why.
Then I expect it will be time to employ this:



Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th December 2015, 06:34 AM   #2065
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,521
Originally Posted by Humots View Post
That's a new one. I've looked it up, but I keep running into (1) medieval fortifications or (2) hard to follow philosophical definitions.

However, I think I get the gist.
It's a form of equivocation; depending on which suits at the time, you take either a strict or loose definition of a word or phrase.
__________________
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 16th December 2015, 07:46 AM   #2066
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It's a form of equivocation; depending on which suits at the time, you take either a strict or loose definition of a word or phrase.
Yes, or of an entire argument. You use the weak form as an illusion of conciliation to draw an opponent out into a tentative position, then redeploy the argument in its stronger form. Jabba's arguments include tactical withdrawals that are meant to elicit a commensurate softening in his critics followed by an alignment of purpose -- "we're all just students and truth-seekers here," etc. Sadly it's being employed too ineptly to work.
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 16th December 2015, 07:53 AM   #2067
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
As usual. You are immune to evidence and cannot and will not change your mind.
__________________
<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 16th December 2015, 07:56 AM   #2068
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,184
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, or of an entire argument. You use the weak form as an illusion of conciliation to draw an opponent out into a tentative position, then redeploy the argument in its stronger form. Jabba's arguments include tactical withdrawals that are meant to elicit a commensurate softening in his critics followed by an alignment of purpose -- "we're all just students and truth-seekers here," etc. Sadly it's being employed too ineptly to work.
Yes or in the form:

Asking after some discourse where the weak for has been used: Do you agree that [weak form]?

Then, if the answer is positive, Jabba assumes the strong form.

He has done/attempted that several times. Last time recently.


Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th December 2015, 09:29 AM   #2069
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,435
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Yes or in the form:

Asking after some discourse where the weak for has been used: Do you agree that [weak form]?

Then, if the answer is positive, Jabba assumes the strong form.

He has done/attempted that several times. Last time recently.


Hans
It is almost as if he is more aware of strategy and use of deliberate debating tricks than for which he has been willing to give himself credit. I had been concerned for Jabba in the past when he has cited memory problems, that he couldn't keep up with more than one debater or question, that he misplaced his notes, or when he asked for the assistance of his "opponents" in finding support for his own positions, but I've come to believe that he is much more capable and on-top than he had feared.
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 16th December 2015, 09:39 AM   #2070
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've come to believe that he is much more capable and on-top than he had feared.
Feigning befuddlement is a motte-and-bailey tactic for meta-debate. It curries sympathy and moves critics to take it easy on him.
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 16th December 2015, 09:39 AM   #2071
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Carbon Dating/Doubts/Repair?/M&P/Entry #2

Originally Posted by Tomboy View Post
...
All of which is a very long and wordy way of saying that, yes, I agree with those who don’t count entry #2 as evidence.
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
__________________
"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 16th December 2015, 09:44 AM   #2072
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Tomboy,
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
Don't fall for it Tomboy, If you answer in the slightest bit affirmative, he'll misquoted you as supporting him. He's been caught doing that again and again. He's been caught misquoting peeps on his web site too.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 16th December 2015 at 09:46 AM.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th December 2015, 09:59 AM   #2073
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,330
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?

Was the Raes sample the sample used for the carbon dating?
__________________
"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 16th December 2015, 09:59 AM   #2074
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Would you consider what was found in the Raes samples as a little bit of evidence of repair in the Raes sample?
Are you seriously attempting this argument blatantly in the face of the discussion of exactly this sort of equivocation? This is a new low.
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 16th December 2015, 10:03 AM   #2075
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
He's been caught misquoting peeps on his web site too.
Which motivates me to ask him how much progress he's made at fixing those errors, after having been repeatedly asked to do so.
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 16th December 2015, 10:35 AM   #2076
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Evidence

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
My Dear Mr. Savage:

You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct...
Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.
__________________
"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 16th December 2015, 10:38 AM   #2077
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,330
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
"How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"

Given that all the evidence points to a medieval origin, not at all likely.
__________________
"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 16th December 2015, 10:42 AM   #2078
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
Since you present no evidence that it is, the answer is "not at all." Since others present considerable countermanding evidence for a different origin, the answer is "not at all." Since you can't even answer the countermanding evidence, much less present any of your own to weigh, the analogy to a probabilistic comparison is simply irrelevant.

Quote:
The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.
No, we are not. Do not rewrite or reinterpret my statements. Observation trumps inference because it is qualitatively conclusive whereas inference is not. We are not weighing probabilities. Observation removes probability from the consideration.
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 16th December 2015, 10:42 AM   #2079
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
Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.
It's not authentic. It's a fake. You lost.
__________________
<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 16th December 2015, 10:51 AM   #2080
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,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

You have demonstrated your infelicity with probabilities in your "immortality" thread.

Reality is not decided by "preponderance of evidence"; but instead, by the presence or absence of actual evidence.

Your continues wish that there were some sort of adulteration in the samples bit of the manifestly medieval linen of the CIQ has led you to try to equate conjecture with evidence. The sidonists' inveterate (and self-contradictory) claims that there must be "...some patching" is not evidence that there is "...patching"

It is, in fact evidence of their desperate adherence to groundless assertion, in service of their assumed consequent, but it is not in any way evidence about the CIQ itself.

I suggest you present any evidence of which you are aware that indicates 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 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.